Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2647 Civil JOSHUA R. ERHARDT, MICHAEL CIATTO, JEREMY LYON, PATRICK SHEAHAN, ALEX WHITNEY, and OMICRON CHAPTER OF SIGMA CHI: FRATERNITY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, v. DICKINSON COLLEGE, Defendant. NO. 06-2647 CIVIL IN RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2007, the petition of Plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. BY THE COURT, M.L. Ebert, Jr., Judge Timothy M. Burke Daniel 1. McCarthy Manley Burke 225 West Court Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-1098 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kevin Canavan Thomas Ollason Swartz Campbell LLC 1601 Market Street, Floor 34 Philadelphia, P A 19103 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Elizabeth A. Maguschak Kimberly M. Colonna Kimberly A. Selemba McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1166 Attorneys for Defendant Dana Scaduto Dickinson College West College Building P.O. Box 1773 College & Louther Streets Carlisle, P A 17013 General Counsel for Defendant JOSHUA R. ERHARDT, MICHAEL CIATTO, JEREMY LYON, PATRICK SHEAHAN, ALEX WHITNEY, and OMICRON CHAPTER OF SIGMA CHI: FRATERNITY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, v. DICKINSON COLLEGE, Defendant. NO. 06-2647 CIVIL IN RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OPINION and ORDER OF COURT EBERT, J., January 17,2007:-- Plaintiffs Joshua R. Erhardt, Michael Ciatto, Patrick Sheahan and Alex Whitney ("student Plaintiffs") are students of the Defendant Dickinson College ("Dickinson"). They are also members of the Omicron Chapter of Plaintiff Sigma Chi Fraternity ("the Chapter"), which is comprised only of Dickinson students. Plaintiff Jeremy Lyon was also a member of the Chapter but graduated from Dickinson College in May 2006. The Chapter was expelled from Dickinson in 2004 and, in February 2006, Dickinson adopted a policy prohibiting membership in an umecognized fraternity but declined to extend the policy retroactively to those who were already members. On August 18, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the enforcement of the policy. Following a hearing held on September 15,2006, and the submission of briefs by both parties, the Motion will be denied for the reasons set forth in this opinion. FINDINGS OF FACT Dickinson is a private, liberal arts college with the stated mission of preparing students, "through education in the liberal arts and science, for engaged lives of citizenship and leadership in the service of society."l This includes an academic program and a residential program for Dickinson's approximately 2000 students. As part of the residential program, Dickinson regulates the students' residential experiences, including the recognition of various student organizations in which students may choose to participate. Included in these recognized organizations are six fraternities and four sororities, which the College views as an integral part of its residential educational program. A recognized group is a group that is in "good standing" and which works "with the college, within the college's parameters, within our rules that help [Dickinson] achieve [its] educational aims.,,2 Dickinson's Student Handbook is distributed to all students at the beginning of the academic year and applies to all students for that year. Dickinson retains the right to modify the regulations in the Student Handbook and those changes also apply to all students. The Student Handbook for the 2005-2006 academic year includes the following provision, in pertinent part: Student Rights and Responsibilities College students are both members of the academic community and citizens. As citizens, students enjoy the same freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and right of petition that other citizens enjoy. The College shall 1 Defendant's Exhibit 3, p. 4. 2 Transcript from Hearing held on September 15,2006, p. 148-49 (hereinafter "NT at _"). 2 not inhibit such intellectual and personal development of students as may be prompted by their exercise of these rights both on and off campus. College authority shall never be used merely to duplicate the function of civil laws; only where the College community's pursuit of its educational objectives is distinct, and clearly involved, shall its special authority be asserted. The College shall clarify those general standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational objective and its community life. These general behavioral expectations and the resultant specific regulations shall represent a reasonable regulation of student conduct in areas which have persuasive relevance to the educational aim of the College.3 The student Plaintiffs recognized and understood that this portion of the Student Handbook permitted Dickinson to adopt specific regulations regarding student behavior. 4 In fact, Dickinson regularly alters its rules and regulations to best serve its educational and residential mission, and this ability to modify regulations is important to Dickinson's mission.5 In pursuit of its educational mission, Dickinson imposes regulations governing where students live, with whom they may live, and when and under what circumstances they may join fraternities.6 This includes the imposition of a specific period of time, the spring semester of freshman year, during which recognized fraternities may solicit new freshman members. Those seeking fraternity membership must also have a GP A of at least 2.25? In addition to the broad purpose of achieving its educational and residential mission, Dickinson's interests in regulating student conduct in umecognized organizations include preventing the recruitment process from interfering with 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit "C", Dickinson Student Handbook p. 63. 4 NT at 165. 5 NT at 106-111,160. 6 NT at 68-70,171,175-176,126,128. 7 NT at 171, 128. 3 academics, preventing student behavior from disrupting the Carlisle community, and minimizing the risks associated with negative behaviors that exist in fraternities, such as binge drinking, underage parties, and underage drinking. 8 The Omicron Chapter of the international Sigma Chi fraternity was a recognized fraternity hosted by Dickinson until the fall of2004. Pursuant to the Chapter's rules, only Dickinson students are eligible for full membership in the Chapter. 9 After the Chapter repeatedly violated disciplinary rules, Dickinson asked the Chapter to voluntarily terminate its activities, retaining the ability to apply for reorganization in the future. The Chapter declined to terminate voluntarily and was expelled from Dickinson by a hearing board consisting of two faculty members, two students, and a chairperson.1o Following expulsion, the Chapter continued to operate off-campus by recruiting new members, holding meetings, and engaging in social activities that included students from the Dickinson College community. Because the Chapter's recruitment was no longer regulated by Dickinson, it is able to extend membership bids to new Dickinson students before recognized fraternities are able to begin the recruitment process. 11 At the time of expulsion of the Chapter, Dickinson's policy was that as long as the Chapter did not cause a disruption on campus, Dickinson would take no action against it or its members.12 Before this situation, Dickinson had not dealt with an umecognized 8 NT at 120-122, 192. 9 NT at 83. 10 NT at 152, 7, 50. 11 NT at 33-34,172-176 12 NT 153, 187. 4 organization which consisted solely of Dickinson students operating off-campus.13 In January, 2006, councils comprised of members from each of the recognized fraternities and sororities voiced complaints about the Chapter's being able to operate without regulation from Dickinson, including its ability to recruit year-round, and adopted two resolutions stating the councils' commitment to Dickinson's educational mission and condemning the umegulated operation of the Chapter. In consideration of these resolutions, Dickinson issued an official policy prohibiting membership in umecognized fraternities or sororities.14 This new policy was sent via email to all current students, and mailed to parents and students of the class of 2009, who were eligible to consider fi . b h. 15 raternlty mem ers Ip. On February 6,2006, Dickinson issued a notice to members of the Chapter indicating that the policy would not be enforced retroactively - that is, those who had become members of the Chapter before February, 2006, were not subject to discipline unless they participated in recruiting new members; but that in keeping with the policy any student who joined an umecognized fraternity would be suspended or expelled. A notice concerning the modified policy was placed in the 2006-2007 Student Handbook. In addition to the concerns of the recognized fraternities and sororities, Dickinson expressed concern that the operation of umegulated organizations would be dangerous because of the risks associated with binge-drinking, underage parties and underage drinking. This would render Dickinson less able to partner with the Carlisle Borough 13 NT at 151. 14 Defendant's Exhibits 5, 7, 8, NT 157-159 15 NT at 157-160. 5 Police to deal with problematic student behavior. Additionally, Dickinson expressed the concern that if it cannot regulate umecognized fraternities, the rest of the (now regulated) Greek system would be much less motivated to follow Dickinson's rules and 1. 16 regu atlOns. DISCUSSION There are six "essential prerequisites" that a party must establish prior to obtaining preliminary injunctive relief. The party must show: (1) that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages; (2) that greater injury would result from refusing an injunction than from granting it; (3) that a preliminary injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) that the activity it seeks to restrain is actionable, that the right to relief is clear, and that the wrong is manifest, or, in other words must show that it is likely to prevail on the merits; (5) that the injunction it seeks is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and (6) that a preliminary injunction will not adversely affect the public interest. Warehime v. Warehime, 860 A.2d 41 (Pa. 2004). These prerequisites are cumulative, and relief may not be granted if one element is lacking. N orristown Municipal Waste Auth. v. West Norriton Twp. Municipal Auth., 705 A.2d 509,512 (Pa. Commw. 1998). The burden is on the party who requested preliminary injunctive relief. Warehime, 860 A.2d 41. 16 NT at 173. 6 Failure to Demonstrate Clear Right to Relief As the Superior Court has explained, "unless the plaintiff s right to relief is clear and the wrong is manifest, a preliminary injunction will generally not be awarded." All- Pak Inc. v. Johnson, 694 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. 1997). In applying these principles to the present case, one cannot ignore the history between Dickinson and the Chapter which has lead to the current crisis. The Chapter, its parent organization, Sigma Chi Fraternity, and even the student plaintiffs have not contested the fact that Omicron Chapter's former members' failure to comply with Dickinson College's rules led to the total expulsion of their Fraternity from campus. The Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish their problems with the College into two categories. One category being "disciplinary issues". The second category being fraternity recruiting violations for admitting members after the College approved period for such admissions was closed. This attempted distinction is without merit. The bottom line is that Omicron Chapter continually violated Dickinson's rules, and it voluntarily chose to turn down Dickinson's offer of suspension which resulted in its being expelled from the campus. In the present case, Plaintiffs' request for relief is based on their assertion that the College breached its contract with the student Plaintiffs by violating their freedom of association.17 The facts presented at the hearing and the law governing the relationship between private colleges and their students fail to indicate that Plaintiffs have a clear 17 For purposes of their motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs relied only upon Count I of their Complaint, which excludes the Chapter and Plaintiff Jeremy Lyons, who graduated from Dickinson College in May 2006, who have no standing to assert this claim. 7 right to relief. As such the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, which is an integral part of showing a clear right to relief. In Schulman v. Franklin & Marshall College, 538 A.2d 49 (1988), a student was suspended after being found guilty of misconduct directed to female students. The trial court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to enjoin the suspension, and the Superior Court affirmed, stating: "The courts have been very reluctant to interfere with college proceedings concerning internal discipline. A college is a unique institution which, to the degree possible, must be self-governing and the courts should not become involved in that process unless the process has been found to be biased, prejudicial or lacking in due process." Id. The Court went on to note that while others may apply different standards than those applied by a private college, by the very nature and composition of a private college it will reflect different standards and attitudes concerning student misbehavior, and that frequently, colleges are chosen by parents and students because of the special quality of life that distinguishes it from other institutions. Id. Plaintiffs argue that Dickinson contracted with its students to provide them with the same associational rights that other citizens enjoy, and failed to properly modify these contractual guarantees of First Amendment rights. Not only have courts recognized that a college is entitled to modify its rules and regulations in order to properly exercise its educational responsibility, but Dickinson explicitly reserves the right to modify the contract by declaring standards of behavior. The 2005-2006 Student Handbook states 8 that the College may adopt specific regulations regarding student behavior which it considers "essential to its educational objective and its community life." The plaintiff students failed to meet their burden of showing that Dickinson improperly exercised its right to modify the contract with its students. When the Chapter was first expelled from campus, Dickinson's policy was that it would take no action against the Chapter or its members unless the Chapter caused a disruption on campus. 18 At that time, Dickinson encouraged students to join only organizations that were recognized and supported by the campus.19 When the continued operation of the Chapter began to disrupt the College's recognized Greek system, in response to resolutions filed by the councils of all recognized fraternities and sororities, Dickinson took action to regulate student conduct in furtherance of its educational mission, of which it considers the recognized Greek system to be an integral part.20 In response to the specific interference to the campus community caused by an off-campus organization made up exclusively of only Dickinson students, Dickinson College specifically acted to regulate the behavior of its students in furtherance of its educational and community life objectives. In addition to the disruption caused by the Chapter, Dickinson also argues with merit that taking away its ability to regulate student behavior in this case threatens to undermine its ability to regulate student behavior altogether - if students in off-campus, umecognized student organizations are not subject to Dickinson regulation and are thereby at an advantage, the entire Greek system, as well as other organizations, could 18 NT at 153, 187. 19 NT at 153. 20 NT at 101-102. 9 find it advantageous to give up recognition. Dickinson would then effectively lose the ability to exercise its educational and disciplinary responsibility. Pennsylvania courts have consistently afforded great deference to a private college's disciplinary policies and decisions. Common sense and logic support this approach. To grant the relief requested by the Plaintiffs rewards bad behavior. In essence such a decision would promote the idea that when a student group breaks the rules of the College and is expelled from campus, they will be rewarded by not only continuing to exist in a manner almost identical to the way they did before expulsion, but now they will have the added benefit of not being required to follow any of Dickinson College's rules. The College's announced change of policy and restrictions were designed to deal with this situation in a reasonable fashion. The current members of Omicron Chapter continue to function as a social organization. Under the policy promulgated by Dickinson in February 2006, the current members of Omicron Chapter can associate with all students of Dickinson College, can hold social events and continue their philanthropic activities. What they cannot do is recruit new members because the Chapter repeatedly broke the rules of the College. Now, the College as a private entity is entitled to fashion reasonable rules to control the mode and opportunity for association of its students with Omicron Chapter of Sigma Chi as it is currently constituted. In this case, the rules established by the College in February 2006 not only satisfied their contractual obligations but were reasonable under the circumstances. See Psi Upsilon v. University of Pennsylvania 591 A.2d 755 (Pa.Super. 1991). As stated by Judge Bayley in 10 Colletti v. Messiah 43 Cumbo 185 (1994) "[i]t is not for a court of equity to pass judgment on the propriety of the standards set by the College." In light of the deference afforded to a private college's disciplinary policies and decisions, this Court refuses to read Dickinson's Student Handbook as contracting to provide unconditional First Amendment rights of association to student groups, especially in light of the express language to the contrary. Because the plaintiff students were aware of the contract terms and failed to show that Dickinson improperly modified these terms, the Plaintiffs' have failed to show that their right to relief is clear, and they are thereby not entitled to a preliminary injunction. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2007, the petition of Plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. BY THE COURT, M.L. Ebert, Jr., 1. Timothy M. Burke Daniel 1. McCarthy Manley Burke 225 West Court Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-1098 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 Kevin Canavan Thomas Ollason Swartz Campbell LLC 1601 Market Street, Floor 34 Philadelphia, P A 19103 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Elizabeth A. Maguschak Kimberly M. Colonna Kimberly A. Selemba McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1166 Attorneys for Defendant Dana Scaduto Dickinson College West College Building P.O. Box 1773 College & Louther Streets Carlisle, P A 17013 General Counsel for Defendant 12