Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS _______________________________________ ) H. LEIGH SHOCRYLAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 06-40278-FDS WORCESTER STATE COLLEGE, ) DAVID CARUSO, ) WILLIAM WHITE, ) LINDA LARRIVEE, and ) LEE CORDARO, ) ) ) Defendants. _______________________________________) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SAYLOR, J. This is a civil action arising from the dismissal of plaintiff Leigh Shocrylas from the graduate speech language pathology program at Worcester State College in January 2006. Defendants David Caruso, William White, Linda Larrivee, and Lee Cordaro are faculty members and officials at WSC. In substance, Shocrylas contends that she received poor grades in a clinical program because her instructors and their supervisors were motivated by personal animus, not professional judgment, and that she was dismissed from the program in violation of the program manual. She contends, among other things, that defendants violated her right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The counts against WSC were dismissed in October 2007 on the basis of sovereign immunity. The remaining defendants have now moved for summary judgment on the remaining counts. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted.

I.

Factual Background The facts are stated in the light most favorable to the plaintiff unless otherwise noted. Worcester State College is a college in Worcester, Massachusetts, established by state

law. It offers a graduate-level program in speech language pathology ("SLP"). David Caruso is the Vice-President of Academic Affairs at WSC. William White is the Dean of Graduate and Continuing Education. Linda Larrivee is the Chair of the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders. Lee Cordaro is a Clinic Supervisor in the SLP program. H. Leigh Shocrylas is a resident of Southborough, Massachusetts. In 2003, she applied to the graduate program in SLP at WSC. At the time of her application, she was 44 years old. Larrivee served on the admissions committee for the program. According to Shocrylas, Larrivee told her that a geography course that she had taken to fulfill the physical science prerequisite was insufficient. However, according to Shocrylas, this contradicted what another school official had told her, and the college had admitted other students in similar circumstances. Shocrylas contends that Larrivee recommended against admitting her to the program, and accordingly her application was rejected. Another faculty member, however, intervened and asked the admissions committee to reconsider the decision. As part of the reconsideration process, Shocrylas was given a second interview. According to Shocrylas, Larrivee was "unable to mask her hostility" to her during the interview. She introduced her as "Helen Shocrylas, who for some reason wants to be called Leigh," and at one point asked her, "Exactly how old are you?" Larrivee also "slammed her hand down on the desk" in front of her and told her "no one is going to be holding your goddam hand." Shocrylas was nonetheless admitted to the program. 2

Shocrylas did well in her classroom work over the next two years, earning mostly As. She did not receive a grade lower than B+ in any classroom course, except for the three courses taught by Larrivee, in which she earned two Bs and one B-.1 In order to graduate with a degree in SLP, a student must complete 375 clinical practice hours. Clinical students are supervised by Clinic Supervisors, who meet with students to develop a treatment plan for each patient, observe patient sessions, provide verbal and written feedback, and evaluate student performance. In the fall 2005 semester, Shocrylas enrolled in the clinical practicum course, which includes both classroom instruction and work with one or two patients. Shocrylas elected to take two patients simultaneously. She was assigned an adult with a head injury ("KOS") and a child with autism ("MAS").2 Lee Cordaro was assigned to be her Clinic Supervisor. Shocrylas met with patients on Mondays and with Cordaro for an hour on Thursdays. She contends that the feedback she received from Cordaro was generally positive until, during one meeting, she questioned why Cordaro had recommended a prognosis change for KOS from "fair" to "good." After this incident, the feedback from Cordaro became much more negative. Shocrylas contends that Cordaro graded her unfairly because she resented her questioning of the change.3

Shocrylas contends that Larrivee continued to be hostile to her after her admission, "even hanging up the phone on [her] when she called after her car broke down on the highway during a snowstorm." (Pl. Opp. Mem. at 12).
2

1

For confidentiality reasons, the patients are identified by their initials only.

Cordaro contends that she generally gave Shocrylas positive feedback for her empathy and ability to recognize the personal issues of the patients, but was critical of her listening and questioning skills and her ability to convey goals to the patients.

3

3

On November 11, 2005, Cordaro and Shocrylas met for her midterm review. Cordaro told Shocrylas that she was earning a failing grade as to KOS. According to Shocrylas, that came as a great surprise to her. The SLP program at WSC uses an assessment framework called the Wisconsin Procedure for Appraisal of Clinical Competence ("WPACC") to grade clinical performance. Appendix M to the SLP Clinical Manual provides as follows: B. If a student earns a grade of C+ or lower on the midterm WPACC, after meeting with the case manager, the student will attend a departmental conference to discuss marginal clinical performance. The case manager, practicum instructor, clinic director, graduate advisor, and department chairperson will be present. Clinical performance, concerns, goals and plan for improvement will be discussed. C. Following the departmental conference, the student and case manager will incorporate adjustments and/or additions to the procedures outlined [in the previous section]. Modifications to this plan may also be made based on the student's clinical performance as the semester progresses. D. If the student achieves all of the goals outlined in the action plan, and receives a composite grade of B- or better on the final WPACC, the next practicum experience will be assigned. If the student does not achieve all of the goals outlined in the action plan, and receives a composite grade of C+ or lower, the clinical experience must be repeated with another client in the clinic in a subsequent semester. If the student fails a second clinical practicum experience, no additional practicum will be assigned. Pursuant to the provisions of the Clinical Manual, a departmental conference was held on November 14 with Shocrylas, Cordaro, Ann Veneziano (another faculty member), Larrivee, and MaryAnn Power (Shocrylas's advisor). At the meeting, her performance was discussed; Shocrylas explained her surprise at her low grade and argued that her actual performance was much better than that reflected by the grade. It was decided that Veneziano and Cordaro would

4

jointly serve as Shocrylas's Clinic Supervisor for KOS, and that Cordaro and Kenneth Melnick (another faculty member) would jointly supervise her for MAS. For the rest of the semester, Shocrylas had two meetings on Thursdays--one with the Clinic Supervisors for each patient.4 At the end of the semester, Shocrylas received composite grades of C for MAS and C- for KOS. Both grades are "failing" grades within the meaning of the Clinical Manual. She earned an A for her classroom work, and received an overall composite grade of C+ for the semester. Shocrylas contends that she had only three sessions with each patient after the intervention meeting. Nonetheless, her WPACC grade for KOS dropped drastically from a 9/10 on her midterm to a final grade of 4/10 on "utilizing planned teaching procedures." She contends that she never canceled a session with a patient, but was graded "unsatisfactory" for canceling a patient appointment. She also contends that Cordaro reduced her "listening and asking questions" score from 8/10 at the midterm to 1/10 in the final assessment, and reduced her "professional technical skills" score from 8/10 to 5/10. The college notified Shocrylas that she had received failing grades and that she would be dismissed from the program. Shocrylas contends that her dismissal violated the terms of the Clinical Manual. Under the manual, she contends that when a student is assigned two patients in a semester, the student receives only one composite clinical grade; accordingly, if that composite grade is C+ or lower, the student should have the opportunity to have another clinical experience

Melnick, Veneziano, and Cordaro contend that they repeatedly gave Shocrylas feedback and that she failed to implement it in her sessions with the patients.

4

5

in a subsequent semester. The college contends that she failed two clinical practicum experiences, and therefore was subject to dismissal. Shocrylas went to see David Caruso, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and complained that she had been treated unfairly. According to her, he ignored her complaints.5 Later the same day, Shocrylas met with William White, the dean for graduate education. One of White's responsibilities was to hear student appeals of individual course grades. He also served on the Graduate Council, which hears student appeals of dismissal from graduate programs. The Council consists of five faculty members and three administrators; it meets monthly during the academic year, but does not meet during the summer. Shocrylas contends that White's first response, when she told him that her instructors had graded her poorly due to personal bias, was to ask "who knows about this?"6 On January 17, 2006, Shocrylas sent letters to both Cordaro and White appealing both her individual grade and her dismissal from the program. On January 30, in response to her letter to Cordaro, Shocrylas had two meetings--one with Cordaro and Veneziano regarding her grade for KOS, and one with Cordaro and Melnick regarding her grade for MAS. The Assistant VicePresident for Academic Affairs, Annmarie Samar, attended both meetings as an observer. Shocrylas also brought her husband and a friend along to observe both meetings. At each

Caruso contends that he told her that in order to appeal her grade, she needed to start with her instructor (Cordaro), then meet with her department chair (Larrivee), then with the Dean of Graduate and Continuing Education (White). If she was not satisfied with their responses, he explained, she could then appeal to him. White contends that he explained the appeal process to Shocrylas and advised her to appeal simultaneously both her individual grade and her dismissal from the SLP program.
6

5

6

meeting, Shocrylas presented arguments as to why her grades were unfair.7 On February 9, Shocrylas was notified by letter that her appeals were denied. She contends that the decisions were not made jointly, but rather that Cordaro unfairly dominated both decisions. On February 14, Shocrylas sent a letter to Larrivee, the department chair, further appealing her grades. On February 27, she met with Larrivee and presented her view of the situation, as well as a written appeal. She also presented her with a file folder of clinical materials, including patient logs and therapy notes. Her husband and Samar were again present as observers. On March 13, Larrivee informed Shocrylas by letter that her appeal was denied.8 Shocrylas contends that Larrivee did not investigate or consider that her patients showed improvement as a result of the therapy sessions; did not review the materials that she provided; was hostile to her; and had already made up her mind prior to the meeting that she would be dismissed from the program. On March 16, Shocrylas sent a letter to White, the dean of graduate education, further appealing her grades. On April 4, she met with White for several hours. Her husband and Samar

According to defendants, she did not present evidence that her performance had been better than that reflected by the grade; instead, she blamed Cordaro for her bad grades. Melnick and Cordaro contend that after the meetings they discussed the matter and jointly decided to deny her appeal of her grade for MAS. Similarly, Cordaro and Veneziano contend that they discussed the matter and jointly decided to deny her appeal of her grade for KOS. Larrivee contends that after the meeting she reviewed the materials and talked to Cordaro, and concluded that the grades accurately reflected Shocrylas's performance.
8

7

7

were again present as observers.9 Shocrylas contends that White was hostile to her throughout the meeting, and indeed "fabricated a number of trumped-up allegations" against her. (Pl. Opp. Mem. at 13). She also contends that she did not have access to her WPACC assessments10 or the videotapes of the therapy sessions, and that if she had been given copies before her appeals, it would have changed the outcome of the process. She contends that the tapes show that she actually performed well and that the WPACC assessments demonstrate the unfairness of her grades. On April 24, White notified Shocrylas by letter that he was denying her appeal.11 Shocrylas contends that he did not conduct a thorough review of her file.12 She also contends that he denied her appeal based solely on personal animus.13

According to White, she spent much of the time blaming her clinical supervisors and did not take any responsibility for her poor performance or present evidence that her performance was better than as reflected in her grade. Defendants contend that it is WSC policy to discuss the WPACC factors and grades with students at mid-term and semester-end meetings, but not to provide students with copies of the WPACC written assessments. The Graduate Grade Appeal procedure set forth in the Graduate Student Handbook provides that if "within ten working days of the receipt" of an appeal request, "the Dean of Graduate and Continuing Education is unable to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of all parties, then either party may, within ten working days, file a written request to review the matter with the Academic Vice President." (Ex. 3). Shocrylas interprets that provision as requiring that White provide a decision within 10 days of receipt of her letter. She also contends that he deliberately manipulated the schedule so that the full Graduate Council could not hear the final appeal. (Pl. Opp. Mem. at 14). White contends that after the meeting he reviewed Shocrylas's entire academic record at WSC, and consulted Larrivee, Veneziano, and Cordaro to gain a better understanding of the clinical program's functioning. He concluded that Shocrylas had not complied with the requirements in her post-midterm intervention plan, and that, on several occasions, she had failed to follow clinic program rules. Shocrylas contends that in his letter explaining the reasons for denying her appeal, he accused her of withholding certain information from him, but has since conceded that she did not do so. She also contends that White's pre-existing malice towards her is reflected in a conversation she had with him in which he complained that her six-year-old son had been rude to him when he called her home, and that because of that he refused to return any of her phone calls.
13 12 11 10

9

8

Shocrylas appealed White's decision to Caruso, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs. On May 3, she met with Caruso for approximately an hour. Her husband and Samar were again present as observers. Again, she alleged that her grades were unfair.14 On May 23, Caruso informed Shocrylas by letter that he was denying her appeal. She contends that Caruso simply met with Larrivee, Veneziano, and Cordaro, took them at their word that the grades were fair, did not do any independent investigation, and "rubber-stamped" their decisions. (Pl. Opp. Mem. at 14).15 In May, White called a meeting of the Graduate Council to consider Shocrylas's appeal of her dismissal from the program. Because the academic year had already ended, a special meeting of the Council had to be called, and several of the members of the council were unable to attend. White and Larrivee, however, attended. The Council voted to reject the appeal.16 Shocrylas contends that because of their irrational dislike of Shocrylas, White and Larrivee lobbied the other members to vote against her appeal. She further contends that three other students who had been dismissed from the program appealed their dismissal and were reinstated by the Graduate Council.

According to Caruso, Shocrylas claimed that various members of the department faculty were "out to get her" because she was an older student, and that her instructors did not properly credit her life experience. She also gave Caruso written materials that she says supported her appeal. However, Caruso contends that when asked, she was unable to articulate the manner in which her grades did not accurately reflect her work. According to Caruso, he met with Larrivee, Veneziano, and Cordaro after the meeting. He says he also reviewed the clinical policy, the intervention plan, and Shocrylas's transcript and WPACC assessments. He concluded that Shocrylas had misconstrued her role as the student, misunderstood Cordaro's role as the licensed clinician, refused to follow Cordaro's instructions, and had not respected clinical boundaries. The Council consists of eight members. Plaintiff contends that four of the eight were in attendance, and voted 3-1 to reject her appeal. Defendants contend that five council members were in attendance, and that the vote was 4-1.
16 15

14

9

II.

Procedural Background On December 18, 2006, Shocrylas filed a complaint against Worcester State College. On

May 1, 2007, she amended her complaint, adding claims against four individual defendants, David Caruso, William White, Linda Larrivee, and Lee Cordaro. The amended complaint contains eight counts. Counts 1 through 5 are brought against WSC (Count 1), Caruso (Count 2), White (Count 3), Larrivee (Count 4), and Cordaro (Count 5) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Download 32009.pdf

Massachusetts Law