Freeman v. Howard Univ. Coll. of Med.

1

EUGENE FREEMAN (FORMERLY EUGENE HENDERSON), Plaintiff, v. HOWARD UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-02191 (CRC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 16, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Eugene Freeman, a former student at the Howard University College of Medicine, brings this lawsuit challenging his August 2019 dismissal from the school's medical program after he failed to complete the first two years of his studies within the time period allotted by Howard. Specifically, Freeman alleges that Howard breached an implied contract with him by failing to adhere to the academic advising guidelines set forth in accreditation standards issued by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education. He also alleges that his dismissal violated his procedural and substantive due process rights. Howard moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court will grant the motion.

I. Background

Freeman enrolled as a student at the Howard University College of Medicine (“Howard” or the “College of Medicine”) in 2015. Compl. ¶ 6-7. During his first year at Howard, Freeman's mother suffered a debilitating stroke, which he claims disrupted his studies and eventually led to his dismissal from Howard at the end of the fall 2016 semester. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. In 2017, Freeman was readmitted to Howard and began a second attempt at obtaining his medical degree, id. at ¶ 10, but he continued to struggle to complete his course of study.

In particular, Freeman had difficulty passing the first installment of the United States Medical Licensing Examinations (“USMLE”). Id. ¶¶ 11, 14. The USMLE is a national, three-step examination for medical licensure that “assesses a physician's ability to apply knowledge, concepts, and principles, and to demonstrate fundamental patient-centered skills, that are important in health and disease and that constitute the basis of safe and effective patient care.”^[1]Although the USMLE is administered by the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, not by Howard,^[2] Section XVII of Howard's Policies and Procedures Manual requires that all students must pass Step 1 of the USMLE prior to the start of their junior year. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 1, ECF No. 5-2, at 54.^[3] Additionally, Howard's policies require that students complete the first two years of the medical school curriculum within four academic years including approved leaves of absence. Id. at 70. So, because all students must pass Step 1 of the USMLE before they can start junior year, students effectively have a four-year timeframe in which to pass USMLE Step 1.

After his return to Howard in 2017, Freeman contacted Dean Debra H. Ford about his low scores on his USMLE Step 1 practice exams. Compl. ¶ 11. After discussing how Freeman might improve his scores, Dean Ford eventually recommended that he take a leave of absence, id., which he did starting in 2018, id. ¶ 34; see also Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 3, ECF 5-4 (approving leave of absence effective July 16, 2018 through July 14, 2019). In the letter approving this leave of absence, Dr. Ford noted that, consistent with Howard's policies, Freeman “must have a passing USMLE Step 1 score by June 26, 2019” to start his junior year in the fall of 2019. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 3, ECF 5-4.

Freeman took the USMLE Step 1 examination but learned in July 2019 that he had not earned a passing score. Compl. ¶ 13. He then contacted another Howard administrator, Dean David A. Rose, to seek additional time to study for another attempt at the exam. Id. ¶ 14. Dean Rose recommended that Freeman apply for a second leave of absence, which he did. Id. Shortly thereafter, Freeman received a letter from the Howard administration informing him, first, that his leave request had been denied on the basis that “[r]equests for leaves of absence will not be approved for more than one year.” Id. ¶ 15; Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 4, ECF 5-5. The letter further informed Freeman that, because he had not completed his first two years of study within the four years since his matriculation in July 2015, the Committee on Student Promotions and Graduations had voted to dismiss him from the College of Medicine. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 4, ECF 5-5; see also Compl. ¶ 15-16. Freeman appealed his dismissal to the Student Grievance Committee, which denied the appeal in September 2019. Compl. ¶ 17.

In August 2021, Freeman filed the present complaint alleging three causes of action against the College of Medicine. First, Freeman claims that by recommending that he take a second leave of absence and failing to inform him that he must have a passing USMLE Step 1 score by the summer of 2019, Howard breached an implied contract with him to adhere to the academic advising standards set forth in the Liaison Committee on Medical Education's accreditation standards. Id. ¶¶ 23-31. Additionally, Freeman claims that Howard's decision to dismiss him violated both his procedural and substantive due process rights. Id. ¶¶ 32-42. Howard moves to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Mot. to Dismiss at 1. The motion is ripe for the Court's consideration.

II. Legal Standards

Rule 12(b)(6) requires dismissal of a complaint that fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When evaluating a 12(b)(6) motion, the court must determine whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “assumes the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and construes reasonable inferences from those allegations in the plaintiff's favor.” Sissel v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 760 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2014). But the Court “need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff[] if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint,” Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994), nor must the Court “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).

III. Analysis

Freeman alleges that Howard's conduct leading up to and following his dismissal from the College of Medicine gives rise to breach of contract and due process claims. Freeman's claims are without merit.

A. Breach of Contract

Under District of Columbia law, “[t]o prevail on a claim of breach of contract, a party must establish (1) a valid contract between the parties; (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the contract; (3) a breach of that duty; and (4) damages caused by breach.” Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181, 187 (D.C. 2009)). In its motion to dismiss, Howard contends that its academic decision to dismiss Freeman is entitled to deference and, further, that Freeman has failed to allege either an enforceable contract, a duty owed to him, or a breach. Mot. to Dismiss at 11-17.

1. Academic Deference

At the outset, the Court acknowledges that a university's academic decisions, including the decision to dismiss students for academic reasons, are typically entitled to judicial deference. See, e.g., Jung v. George Washington Univ., 875 A.2d 95, 108 (D.C. 2005); Alden v. Georgetown Univ., 734 A.2d 1103, 1108-09 (D.C. 1999). For that reason, a plaintiff challenging an academic dismissal must show that there “was no rational basis for the decision or that it was motivated by bad faith or ill will unrelated to academic performance.” Chenari v. George Washington Univ., 172 F.Supp.3d 38, 47 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Alden, 734 A.2d at 1109). Howard invokes this precedent in urging the Court to dismiss Freeman's breach of contract claim on the basis of deference alone.

But there is an important difference between Freeman's breach of contract claim and the challenges to academic dismissals cited by Howard. Those cases, such as Alden and Chenari, generally involved a student's challenge to the university's dismissal decision itself. For instance, the plaintiff in Alden argued that Georgetown University Medical School's decision to dismiss him was not a “result of a legitimate academic judgment” but rather “was premised on a clerkship evaluation which was motivated by ill-will on the part of the resident evaluator.” 734 A.2d at 1107. Similarly, in Chenari, the plaintiff challenged George Washington University's decision to dismiss him from medical school after he continued working on an exam after the expiration of time because, in his view, that conduct did not constitute cheating under the university's regulations. 172 F.Supp.3d at 43-44, 48-49; see also Hajjar-Nejad v. George Washington Univ., 37 F.Supp.3d 90, 115-18 (D.D.C. 2014).

Here by contrast, Freeman's breach of contract claim does not turn directly on Howard's decision to dismiss him or its reasons for doing so; Freeman does not appear to dispute that he failed to pass his USMLE Step 1 exam on time, as required by Howard's policies. Instead, Freeman's contract claim alleges that Howard breached contractual obligations to him by maintaining an ineffective system of academic advising, which, he says, led to his dismissal. Compl. ¶¶ 23-31. Because Freeman's breach of contract claim does not challenge the dismissal decision itself but...