School defeats ex-student’s First Amendment claim

Where the record showed that the University of Virginia School of Medicine expelled a student because of his “confrontational, threatening, behavior,” and not because of his speech, the school prevailed on the former student’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Background

Kieran Bhattacharya is a former medical student at the University of Virgnia School of Medicine. He claims that numerous UVA officials reprimanded, suspended and then expelled him in violation of the First Amendment because of the views he expressed during a faculty panel. Appellees assert they took these actions against appellant not because of his speech, but as a result of appellant’s confrontational, threatening, behavior. The district court sided with appellees.

Retaliation

The district court determined that appellant presented no evidence at summary judgment from which a reasonable factfinder could decide he was retaliated against because of his protected speech. Instead, the court held, UVA took action because of appellant’s conduct, which included his being “repeatedly involuntarily committed to mental health institutions for threatening others.”

The court agrees with the district court’s assessment. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the record is replete with evidence that appellees took the actions they did against appellant based upon his conduct, which rendered him unfit, in their view, for the professional practice of medicine. On the other hand, the evidence they took these steps because of the content of his speech is slim to none, and no reasonable factfinder could agree with appellant’s theory of the case.

Amendment

The district court denied appellant leave to amend his complaint to add a claim of civil conspiracy because the proposed amendment would have been futile for two reasons. First, though appellant sought to add his ex-girlfriend to the lawsuit, he had no plausible claim that she shared with UVA administrators an “illegal objective,” nor that she committed any tortious conduct that would sustain a claim against her. And appellant could not bring a conspiracy claim against UVA administrators because, pursuant to Virginia’s intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, school officials cannot conspire with each other.

Appellant contends that his ex-girlfriend and appellees collaborated, and that he adequately alleged that individual administrators had an independent personal stake in retaliating against him such as would undermine the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. This court agrees with the district court.

Due Process

Appellant alleged that his due process rights were violated because he was subject to a disciplinary removal from UVA, and a disciplinary removal requires more process than he received. The Due Process Clause does not require a “formal hearing” or “stringent procedural protections” for academic dismissals as opposed to disciplinary action. Appellant’s dismissal was not disciplinary, but academic, because the professionalism concerns that the ASAC raised dealt with core competencies of UVA’s curriculum for medical students.

Given the academic nature of appellant’s discipline, and affording appropriate deference to the judgment of UVA administrators, the process appellant received was sufficient. Appellant had a hearing in which he was allowed to air his grievances at length,

and during which appellees repeatedly explained to appellant they were considering taking action against him because of his behavior.

To the extent appellant complains the grounds for discipline were not more thoroughly described during the hearing, or that the hearing was too short, the reasons for both those issues are clear from the recording appellant himself took of the meeting: namely, that appellant seized the floor at the outset of the hearing and held it as long as he pleased.

As to the no trespass order, or NTO, appellant was afforded appropriate process given the dangers to students and faculty perceived by university police. Appellant had notice by phone and in writing of the NTO, and he had the opportunity to contest the NTO by appeal.

Affirmed.

Concurring/dissenting opinion

Quattlebaum, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I take no issue with the district court’s order granting summary judgment as to UVA’s decisions after the vote to suspend Bhattacharya and as to his due process claim. I likewise see no reversible error in denying Bhattacharya’s motion to amend.

Bhattacharya nevertheless claims that UVA used concerns about professionalism as a pretext to retaliate against him for protected speech. And in my view, genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether he is right. So, I respectfully dissent in part.

Bhattacharya v. Murray, Case Nos. 22-1999, 22-2064, Feb. 26. 2024. 4th Cir. (Thacker), from WDVA at Charlottesville (Moon). Michael J. Lockerby for Appellant. Frederick William Eberstadt for Appellees. VLW 024-2-070. 57 pp.