richards v. university of alaska, alaska (2016)

7/25/2019 Richards v. University of Alaska, Alaska (2016)

1/27

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.

Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email

[email protected].

THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA

QWYNTENRICHARDS,

Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSITYOFALASKA,

Appellee.

)) SupremeCourtNo.S-15245

SuperiorCourtNo.4FA-10-01246CI

OPINION

No.7090March18,2016

)))))

))

_______________________________)

Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska,FourthJudicialDistrict,Fairbanks,PaulR.Lyle,Judge.

Appearances: Qwynten Richards, pro se, Fairbanks,Appellant. Susan Orlansky, Reeves Amodio LLC,

Anchorage,forAppellee.

Before:Stowers,ChiefJustice,Fabe,Maassen,andBolger,Justices.[Winfree,Justice,notparticipating.]

STOWERS,Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

After a two-day hearing, the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)

dismissedQwyntenRichardsfromherPh.D.programforfailingtorespondtofeedback

fromherprofessorsinavarietyofsettings.AnAppealsCommitteeatUAFaffirmed

Richardssdismissalfromtheprogrambecauseitconcludedthatthereweresufficient

negativereviewsfromherprofessorstosupportherdismissalandthatshehadfailedto

satisfactorilycompletearemediationassignmentgiventoherafterthefacultyfound


2/27

sheplagiarizedpartsofapaper. Richardsappealedtothesuperiorcourt. Thecourt

affirmed,holdingthatUAFwasreasonableincharacterizingherdismissalasacademic,

thatit substantiallycompliedwithitsprocedures, andthatRichardsreceiveddueprocess.

ItalsoawardedUAF10%ofitsclaimedattorneysfees. Richardsappeals,andwe

affirm.

II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS

A. FactsAndAdministrativeProceedings

Qwynten Richards began attending UAF for a Ph.D. program in

Clinical-CommunityPsychologyin thefallof2007. Inheryear-endreviewforthe

2007-2008academicyear,Richardsreceivedasatisfactoryreview. Thereviewwas

generallypositive,butitalsonotedafewareasofconcern,namelythatRichardswas

quietinclassbutthiswasimproving,thatshewastoocriticaloftheDiagnosticand

StatisticalManual(DSM),andthatherinstructorsnotedthatshehaddifficultyaccepting

feedback.

Immediatelyfollowingthisreview,Dr.ChristianeBrems,aprofessorfor

oneofRichardsscourses,broughtapossibleincidentofplagiarismtotheattentionof

theco-teacherofthecourse,Dr.JamesAllen.Dr.AllenalertedDonFoley,theAssociate

ViceChancellorofStudentLifeandDirectorofJudicialServices,totheincident,and

Dr.Allenrequestedthathe,Dr.Brems,Foley,andRichardsmeettodiscusstheissue.

Drs.AllenandBremswerealsotheDirectorsofClinicalTrainingfortheprogram.They

notifiedRichardsanddirectedhertoattendameetingtodiscusstheallegations. They

informedRichardsofthe specific paper inquestion: the integratedpapershehad

submittedinfulfillmentofthecourserequirementsofPsychology601,aseminarinClinical/Community/Cross-Cultural Integration. They also notified her of the

provisionsoftheUniversityofAlaskaStudentCodeofConduct(StudentCodeof

Conduct)prohibitingplagiarism. Richardsdeniedtheplagiarismallegation.

-2- 7090


3/27

Dr.Brems,Dr.Allen,Foley,andRichardsmetonMay28,2008. Atthatmeeting

Richardswasadvisedsectionsofthe[integration]paper[she]submittedappearedto

havebeenplagiarized. Shewasgiventheopportunitytopresent[her]viewsonthe

situation.AfterthemeetingRichardsemailedDr.Allen,Dr.Brems,andFoleyandsaid

thatshewasgladshehadbeengiventhechancetoexplainthatshehadsatisfactorily

citedallofhersourcesinthepaper.

OnJune19thecorefacultyofRichardssprogrammetinanexecutive

session without Richards to discuss the situation. At this meeting the faculty

unanimouslyconcluded [thatRichardss]writingconstitutedplagiarism,defining

plagiarismaspresentingas[ones]owntheideasorworksofanotherpersonwithout

properacknowledgmentofsources. TheygaveRichardsanewannualreviewthat

changedherperformancetounsatisfactory,statedthatshewouldreceiveanFforthe

paperandagradeofNotPassing(NP)forthecourse,andthatshewouldberequiredto

writearemediationpaperonhowandwhy[her]Integrationpaperwasjudgedtohave

beenplagiarized. Thefacultydecisionalsonotedthatsheshouldknowthat[shehas]

therighttoappealacademicdecisionsandthatsheshouldrefertotheAcademicsand

Regulations,AppealofAcademicDecisionssectionofthe2008-2009UAFcatalog.

Richardsdidnotappealthisdecision. Theupdatedreviewalsowarnedthat[a]ny

breachoftheseexpectationscanresultinnon-continuationinthePh.D.Programin

Clinical-CommunityPsychology.

Richardssubmittedherremediationpaperforfacultyreview.InJanuary

2009Dr.WilliamConnor,UAFDirectorofClinicalTraining,andDr.Bremsnotified

RichardsthatthecorePh.D.facultyhadconcludedthatherremediationpaperdidnotmeettheassignmentrequirementsbecauseitdidnotdemonstrateanunderstandingof

howandwhy[the]paperwasjudgedtohavebeenplagiarized,anditdidnotshowan

acknowledgment that there is an agreed upon standard with regard to crediting

-3- 7090


4/27

authorshipthathasbeenestablishedbyandusedintheprofessionofpsychology.

Whilethedocumentdidnotcontainappeallanguage,thefacultydidconductaninformal

reconsiderationoftheirdecisionatRichardssrequest.

Richardssinabilitytoacceptfeedbackwasnotlimitedtoproblemswith

herremediationpaper. Manyotherprofessorsnotedtheseissuesinavarietyofsettings.

Forinstance,theprofessorforwhomRichardsservedasaresearchassistantaskedher

toresign.TheprofessorstatedthatRichardssfuturesuccessisinpartcontingenton

[her]abilitytoacceptandberesponsivetofeedbackandthatRichardssinabilityto

dosocontributedto[theprofessors]decisiontoaskhertoresign.

RichardsalsoengagedinaclinicalpracticumwithDr.MichaelHopper.

Dr.HoppernotedthatRichardswasquicktoquestionanddoubtthejudgementand

experience of others. At her final review in May 2009, Dr. Hopper wrote that

Richardss

inabilitytoacceptconstructivecriticism insupervisionandtoexplorepersonalissues...ledtoseriousimpasseswiththissupervisorandtoasuspensionofherrighttopracticebrieflyintheclinic. IntheendIfoundsupervisiontohavebeen

extremelydifficultwith[Richards]asshedoesnotseemtounderstandtheroleofatraineeandinsistsonapositionofequalityand personal competencewhich she has not yetearned.

Heconcludedthatalthoughherworkwithclientswascommendable,Richardsdid

notearn[his]confidenceinherabilitiesand[he]do[esnot]recommendheratthispoint

forcontinuedclinicaltraininguntilsheisabletoresolvetheissuesthathaveplaguedher

trainingtothispoint.1

1 Thesuperiorcourtfoundthat,giventhetoneofthecomments,Dr.Hoppermeanttowritedonotrecommendratherthandorecommend. Richardsdoesnotdisputethisfindingonappeal.

-4- 7090


5/27

InApril,justpriortoDr.Hoppersreview,thefullPh.D.facultymetatits

annualstudentreviewmeetingandunanimouslyrecommendednotcontinuingRichards

intheprogram.OnJune11thefacultysentRichardsaletterstatingthat[d]uetothe

fact[]that[shehad]receivedtwoyearsofnegativeevaluations,andthatthecorefaculty

in the Ph.D. program ha[d] lost faith in [her] ability to receive and respond to

professional feedback in academic, clinical and research settings, the faculty

recommendsthat[she]resignfromthePh.D.program. Thefacultyinformedherthat

shehadthreeweekstoeitherrespondtothisrecommendationorresignandthatifshe

chose not to resign, the next steps outlined in the Student Impairment and

Incompetence Policy as listed in the current Ph.D. Student Handbook [the

Handbook]...[would]befollowed. Specifically,thefacultyinformedherthatifshe

chosenottoresign,theGovernanceCommitteewouldholdahearingtodetermine

whethertodismissherfromtheprogram.

Richardschosenottoresign. Instead,shesubmittedvoluminousmaterials

totheGovernanceCommitteedetailinghighmarksanddocumentingfavorablereviews

fromherprofessors. ThefacultytransmittedamemototheGovernanceCommittee

outliningthestepsithadtakenanditsreasonsforrecommendingRichardssdismissal.

TheGovernanceCommitteeheldahearingonSeptember3-4. Richardsdidnotpresent

anywitnesses,butshedidtestifyonbothdaysofthehearing. Richardsdidnotexercise

heroptiontohaveanattorneypresent,butshedidhaveastudentrepresentativeattend

withher.

On September 17, UAF sent Richards a letter notifying her that the

GovernanceCommitteehaddecidedtodismissherfromthePh.D.program. ThelettercitedRichardsstwosemestersofnot-in-good-standingstatus,herfailuretosatisfactorily

completetheremediationassignment,andherfailuretoacceptoractuponfeedbackin

clinicalandresearchsettings.TheletterinformedRichardsthatshehad10daysfrom

-5- 7090


6/27

the receipt of this letter to appeal thisdecision in writing to UAFProvost Susan

Henrichs.

RichardsfirstinformallyappealedthedecisioninameetingonOctober6

withLawrenceDuffy(theInterimDean),LauraBender(theDirectoroftheGraduate

School),andDr.AbelBult-Ito(aprofessorwhohadbecomeanadvocateforRichards).

TheDeannotedthatRichardssdetailedappeal

mainlyaddresse[d][her]disagreementwiththeprofessionalswhoworkedwith[her]andgave[her]grades.... Inthisinformalappeal,[his]decisionremain[ed]unchangedinthat[heplaced]greaterweightontheprofessionalopinionofthefacultythanon[Richardss]opinionofhowtheprogram

shouldevaluatestudents.Heconcludedthatthedecisionremain[ed]unchanged,andheadvisedRichardsofher

righttoappealtoUAFProvostHenrichs.

RichardsformallyappealedthedecisiontotheProvostonOctober31.The

AppealsCommitteemetonDecember3andissuedadecisiononDecember10. The

decisionstatedthattheAppealsCommitteehadreviewedallofthedocumentation

submitted[]andengagedinlengthydeliberation. TheAppealsCommitteedismissed

RichardssappealconcerningherterminationfromthePh.D.program. 2 Itdetermined

thatthefacultywaswithinitsrightstomakethedecisiontodismissherfromthePh.D.

program,thatfeedbackwasvitalinpsychology,andthatevenifastudentdisagreedwith

feedbackitiscriticalinaprogram requiringprofessionallicensurethatstudentscomply

withprofessionalrequestsandadvice. ButtheAppealsCommitteedeterminedthat

Richardscouldapplytootherprogramsinthegraduateschoolthroughthenormal

applicationprocess. Richardsappealedthisdecisiontothesuperiorcourt.

2 TheAppealsCommitteeusedthetermdismissedinthesensethatitdeniedorrejectedRichardssappellatearguments,therebyupholdingtheGovernanceCommitteesdecisiontodismissherfromthePh.D.program.

-6- 7090


7/27

B. SuperiorCourtProceedings

ThesuperiorcourtaffirmedRichardssdismissalfromthePh.D.program

atUAF. First, itconcludedthatitwasnotarbitrary,unreasonable,oranabuseof

discretion for UAF to characterize Richardss dismissal as academic, rather than

disciplinary.3 ItfurthernotedthatthereasonsRichardshadbeendismissedfailureto

acceptfeedbackfromherprofessorsthroughouthertimeintheprogram,particularlyas

a research assistant and in her clinical practicum, and failure to demonstrate an

understandingofwhyherpaperconstitutedplagiarism wereacademicreasonsinlight

ofNickerson v. University of Alaska Anchorage,whereNickersonsacademicdismissal

wasforhostile, abrasive, intimidating,and unprofessionalbehavior.4 Second,it

concluded that UAF substantially complied with its policies relating to academic

violationsaslaidoutintheHandbook.Finally,itheldthatRichardsreceivedampledue

processbecauseUAFprovidedherwithnotice,multipleopportunitiestobeheard,

carefuldeliberation,andindependentreview.

UAF asked for 50% of its attorneys fees, roughly $25,000, because

Richardsslongandcomplexbriefingresultedinsubstantialextraexpenses.Richards

arguedthatrequiringhertopayanyattorneysfeeswasimproperbecauseshewasa

constitutionallitigant and didnothaveamonetary interest inthecase. The court

concludedthatRichardswasnotaconstitutionalclaimantanddeterminedthatanaward

of 20% of UAFs fees would be appropriate under Alaska Rule of Civil

Procedure82(b)(2).However,thecourtalsoworriedaboutchillingfutureclaimsand

thereforeawardedonly10%ofUAFsclaimedattorneysfees.

3 Theuniversityproceduresandthelevelofdueprocessthatourprecedentrequiresdifferforacademicproceedingsanddisciplinaryproceedings. See Nickersonv. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage,975P.2d46,52-54(Alaska1999).

4 Id.at52.

-7- 7090


8/27

Richards appeals. In this appeal, we address three central issues:

(1)whethertheappealwasacademicordisciplinary;(2)whetherUAFsubstantially

compliedwithitsproceduresandwhetherevidenceintherecordsupporteditsdecision;

and(3)whetherRichardsreceiveddueprocess.

Wewillalsodiscussthesuperiorcourts

awardofattorneysfees.

III. STANDARDOFREVIEW

In administrative appeals, we directly review the agency action in

question.5Wereviewquestionsoffactforsubstantialevidence,whichissuchrelevant

evidenceasareasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusion. 6 We

need only determine whether such evidence exists, and do not choose between

competinginferences.7

Wewillnotoverrideaschoolsacademicdecisionunlessitissucha

substantialdeparturefromacceptedacademicnormsastodemonstratethattheperson

orcommitteeresponsibledidnotactuallyexerciseprofessionaljudgment.8 Wereview

whether the school complied with its policies under the arbitrary, unreasonable,

or...abuseofdiscretionstandard.9 Questionsoflawthatrequireagencyexpertiseare

5 Brown v. Pers. Bd. for City of Kenai,327P.3d871,874(Alaska2014)(quotingGrimmett v. Univ. of Alaska,303P.3d482,487(Alaska2013)).

6 Id. (quotingGrimmett,303P.3dat487).

7 Handley v. State, Dept of Revenue,838P.2d1231,1233(Alaska1992).

8 Bruner v. Petersen,944P.2d43,48(Alaska1997)(quotingRegents of theUniv. of Mich. v. Ewing,474U.S.214,225(1985)).

9 Nickerson,975P.2dat50n.1(quotingSzejner v. Univ. of Alaska,944P.2d481,484n.2(Alaska1997)).

-8- 7090


9/27

reviewedunderthereasonablebasisstandard. 10

WhethertheUniversityprocedurescomportedwithdueprocessinvolve[s]

aquestionoflawnotrequiringagencyexpertise. 11 Thus,wereviewthisquestionusing

ourindependentjudgment.12

Wereviewanattorneysfeesawardforanabuseofdiscretionandwill

reversewhentheawardisarbitrary,capricious,manifestlyunreasonable,orimproperly

motivated.13

IV. DISCUSSION14

10 May v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commn, 175 P.3d 1211,

1215-16(Alaska2007).

11 Nickerson,975P.2dat50n.1.

12 Id.

13 Rhodes v. Erion,189P.3d1051,1053(Alaska2008)(quotingKellis v.Crites,20P.3d1112,1113(Alaska2001)).

14 WeareabletodisposeofseveralofRichardssargumentsinsummaryfashion.

(1)Richardsarguesthatshedidnotplagiarizeherpaper,thatnofindingofplagiarismwasevermade,andthatnooneidentifiedtheproblematicportionsofthepaper.However,therecordclearlyestablishesthatthefacultyunanimouslyconcludedthatRichardsswritingconstitutedplagiarism. Furthermore,theissuesdiscussedwithRichardsduringtheMay2008meetingandRichardssemaildiscussinghowshehadrespondedtotheallegationsbyshowingthatsourceswerecorrectlycitedrevealthatRichardsknewwhichportionsofthepaperwereinquestion.

(2)Richardsdoesnotdisputethatshedidnotappealtheplagiarismdecisioneventhoughshehadtherighttodosoandwasinformedofthisright. However,Richards argues that anappealwould havebeenfutilebecause the allegation was

unfounded,shewasnotthreatenedwithdismissalatthetime,heraccuserswouldbethedecision-makersonappeal,shehadnoadvisortoadviseher,andshewasexperiencingfamilyissues.Contrarytoherassertion,theamendedreviewclearlystatesthatdismissalwasapossibility.Secondly,theappealspolicyprovidesforaninformalappealwiththedecisionmakerfollowedbyaformalappealtotheProvost,apersonoutsideRichardss

(continued...)

-9- 7090


10/27

A. UAFActedReasonablyWhenItCharacterizedTheDismissalAsAnAcademicDismissal.

Richards contends that UAF arbitrarilycharacterizedherdismissalas

academicwhenthedismissalwasactuallydisciplinary. Richardsfocusesherargument

onthefactsthat(1)theStudentCodeofConductdefinesplagiarismasadisciplinary

infraction;(2)Foley, theDirectorof Judicial Services,initiatedtheplagiarism allegation;

(3)theinitialnoticeoftheplagiarismallegationdirectedhertotheStudentCodeof

Conductplagiarismsectionanddisciplinarypolicy09:02,nottheHandbook;and(4)

plagiarismproceedingsaredisciplinarybecauseplagiarismallegationsimplydishonesty.

Nickersonpresentedasimilarquestion. Nickersonwasenrolledinthe

UniversityofAlaskaAnchoragesTeacherCertificationProgram,andhewasdismissed

14(...continued)corefaculty.TheAppealsCommitteealsodidnotincludeheraccusers.Moreover,herfamilyissuesandthelackofadvisordonotmaketheappealfutileunderAlaskacaselaw,andherbeliefthattheallegationswereunfoundedshouldhavecausedhertoappeal.See, e.g.,Nickerson,975P.2dat52n.2;State, Dept of Revenue v. Hernandez,No.S10745,2004WL1092334,at*6(AlaskaMay12,2004)(holdingthatappealwasfutilewhentheStatealreadyrefusedtoaddressissue).

(3)Richardsmakesmanyfactualassertions,bothaboutfactsthesuperiorcourtfoundandfactsthatdidnotimpactthedecisionsoftheUniversityandthesuperiorcourt.RichardsallegesthatDr.Allenwastheonewhoaccusedherofplagiarismandthatallofthenegativereviewsinthe2008evaluationwerefromonesexistprofessor.Thesefactualallegationsareunsupported.

(4)Finally,Richardsarguesthatbeingforcedtowritetheremediationpaperviolatedherrightagainstself-incriminationandthatbyhavingoneinformalmeetingandthenasecondexecutivemeetingofthefacultyregardingtheplagiarismissue,UAFputherindoublejeopardy.Buttherightagainstdoublejeopardydoesnotapplyoutsidethe

criminalcontext,absentextremecircumstancesnotpresenthere.

Hudson v. U.S.,522U.S.93,98-99(1997).See also Doe v. State,189P.3d999,1007&n.58(Alaska2008).Andalthoughtherightagainstself-incriminationappliesinanyproceeding,civilorcriminal,formalorinformal,wheretheanswersmightincriminate[theparty]infuturecriminalproceedings,plagiarismisnotacrime.Armstrong v. Tanaka,228P.3d79,82(Alaska2010).See also Lawson v. Lawson,108P.3d883,887(Alaska2005).

-10- 7090


11/27

basedonhisfailuretorespondtofeedbackandhishostilebehaviortowardsprofessors

and colleagues.15 UAA characterized Nickersons dismissal as an academic, not

disciplinary,dismissal.16 Weacknowledgedthatthisissuewasaclosecallandaccepted

theUniversitysdecisionbecausethedeterminationwhethertodismissastudentfor

academicreasonsrequiresanexpertevaluationofcumulativeinformationandisnot

readilyadaptedtotheproceduraltoolsofjudicialoradministrativedecisionmaking. 17

Richardscontendsthatsheexperiencedallegations...thatwere...very

similartothosemadeagainstNickerson. ButRichardsappears,asawhole,toargue

thatshewasdismissedbecausesheplagiarizedherpaper. However,therecorddoesnot

support a finding that UAF dismissed Richards for plagiarism. Rather, she was

dismissedprincipally becauseshecouldnotappropriatelyacceptfeedbackinallsettings,

includinginherresearchassistantshipandclinicalpracticum,duringwhichshewas

unwillingtoacceptconstructivecriticismandwasquicktodoubtthejudgmentand

experienceofothers. TheseproblemsescalatedtothepointthatRichardswasaskedto

resign from her research assistant position and was suspended from her clinical

practicum. In dismissing Richards,UAF alsoreliedon thefacts thatshehadnot

completedtheremediationassignmenttosatisfactorystandards,andshehadnotbeenin

goodstandingfortwosemesters.

Although plagiarism is listed in the Student Code of Conduct as a

disciplinaryinfraction,theconductforwhichRichardswasactuallydismissedfitsinto

theHandbooksAcademicImpairmentsection. Thissectionlists,asexamplesof

15 Nickerson,975P.2dat48-49.

16 Id. at52-53.

17 Id. at 53 (quotingBd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz,435U.S.78,90(1978)).

-11- 7090


12/27

conductthatmayconstituteacademicimpairment,aninadequatelevelofself-directed

professionaldevelopmentandinappropriateuseofand/orresponsetosupervisionor

academicguidance.

Richardsalsoclaimsthatthedismissalmusthavebeendisciplinarybecause

Foley was involved fromthebeginning, andRichardswas initiallydirected tothe

StudentCodeofConduct.Theseargumentsdonothavemerit.WhenexaminingUAFs

course of conduct as a whole, the weight of the evidence makes clear that UAF

consistentlyusedacademicproceduresaftertheverybeginningoftheproceedings.Not

onlydidUAFs initialplagiarism-relateddecisionclearlystate thatRichardscould

appealtheacademicdecision[],butUAFalsofollowedthestepslaidoutinthe

Handbookforacademicissues[See SectionB,infra],andUAFsGeneralCounsel

discussedtheissueasbeingacademicininternalemails. Toplacetoomuchweighton

UAFs preliminary initiation of procedures before either party had all relevant

information when determining whetheran issue isacademicordisciplinary would

severely hamper UAFs ability to correctly classify proceedings as academic or

disciplinary.

We conclude, based on our holding inNickerson, that UAF acted

reasonablywhenitclassifiedRichardssdismissalforfailuretofollowfeedbackasan

academicdismissal.

B. UAFSubstantiallyFollowedItsLegallyValidProcedures,AndThe

DismissalWasNotArbitraryOrCapricious.

Richards argues (1) thatUAFshouldnothaveappliedthe Handbook

procedures18 and (2) that UAF did not comply with those procedures.

18 AfewofRichardssargumentsinthissectionofherbriefrelatebacktothedisciplinaryversusacademicdichotomy. Forexample,shearguesthattheMay2008meetingwithDr.Brems,Dr.Allen,andFoleywasnotinformalandtherefore

(continued...)

-12- 7090


13/27

ShealsotakesissuewiththesubstanceoftheHandbookproceduresastheyrelatetodue

processconsiderations.19

1. ItwasnotarbitraryorcapricioustoapplytheproceduresintheprogramHandbook.

UAFhasseveralsetsofgovernancerules: Regentspolicies,university

regulations,facultysenatepolicies, and theprogramHandbook. Regentspolicies

includeaverybroadstatementthatifastudentisdismissedforacademicreasons,the

challenge is to be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in university

regulationsandtheMajorAcademicUnitsrulesandprocedures.20 Theuniversity

regulationforacademicdismissalismorespecificandprovidesthattheMajorAcademic

Unitsrulesandprocedureswillsetforthformalandinformalprocessesbywhicha

studentcanobtainreviewofanacademicdismissalfromaprogramofstudy.21 Itdoes,

18(...continued)startedthedisciplinaryprocessbecauseshewasrequiredtobethere,theDeanandProvostwerecopied,andtherequestwassentonletterheadfromFoley,theDirectorofJudicial Services at UAF. This contention is merely another argument that the

proceduresweredisciplinary,anissueweaddressabove.Evenifherargumentisthatthe superior courterredbycharacterizing thisproceeding as informal, she isalsoincorrect. Nowitnesseswerecalled;itwasnotahearing. ItisbettercharacterizedasatimewhenRichardswasabletoexplainhersideofthestoryinaninformalsetting. TheHandbookitselfsupportsthisconclusion,notingthatStepFivebeginstheinitiationofformalactionandsuggestingthatpreviousstepsaremeanttoserveasinformalmethodsatproblemresolution.

19 RichardsarguesthattheHandbookproceduresaswrittendonotprovidestudentswithdueprocess;weaddresstheseargumentsinthefollowingsection.

20 R e g e n t s P o l i c y P 0 9 . 0 3 . 0 2 4 , a v a i l a b l e a thttp://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy/09-03.pdf.

21 University Regulation R09.03.024(C), available athttp://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy/09-03.pdf.

-13- 7090


14/27

however,requirethattheprocessincludearequestforaformalreview,reviewbyan

academicdecisionreviewcommittee,andafinaldecisionprovidedtothestudentin

writing.22 Thefacultysenatepoliciesincludeanevenmorein-depthdescriptionofthe

process.23 Under thesepolicies, theprocessbeginswith thestudent requestingan

informalreviewofthedecision. Afterwardsthestudentmayaskforaformalreviewby

a five-member Appeals Committee if the student is dissatisfied with the informal

review.24 AtthemeetingtheAppealsCommitteemaydecidetodismiss25thestudents

requestforformalreviewifthestudenthasfailedtoprovideasufficientreasonthatthe

academicdecisionwasarbitraryandcapricious.26 IftheAppealsCommitteedecides

toaccepttheappeal,itwillscheduleasecondmeetingtoreviewtherequest.27 Finally,

theprogram Handbooklistsanevenmoredetailedsetofmechanisms,especiallyleading

uptotheformalappeal.

ThereisnomerittoRichardssargumentthattheRegentsbroadpolicies

shouldhavebeenappliedoverthemorespecificprogramHandbook. TheRegents

policyexplicitlyprovidesthatthegrievancewillbereviewedinaccordancewiththe

22 University Regulation R09.03-024(C)(1)-(5), http://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy/09-03.pdf.

23 See UAF Governance, Appeals Policy For AcademicDecisions,Procedures,https://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty-senate/policies-procedures/appeals-policy-for-academ/.

24 Id. (A)-(B).

25 See supra note2.

26 UAF Governance, Appeals Policy For AcademicDecisions, Procedures (B)(3)(d), https://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty-senate/

policies-procedures/appeals-policy-for-academ/.

27 Id. (B)(4).

-14- 7090


15/27

MajorAcademicUnitspolicies,anditdirectsthereaderbacktotheHandbookitself.

TheHandbookappearstobethemostspecificsetofrulesapplicabletoRichardss

program,soitwasneitherarbitrarynorcapriciousforUAFtoconducttheproceedings

accordingtotheHandbook.

2. UAFsubstantiallycompliedwiththeprogramHandbook.

InNickerson weheldthattheUniversitysactionswerenotanabuseof

discretionbecausetheysubstantially compliedwiththecoursecatalog.28 UAFsprogram

HandbookissimilartothecoursecataloginNickerson.29 SinceUAFsubstantially

compliedwiththeHandbookspublishedproceduresondismissal,UAFsconductwas

notarbitrary,capricious,oranabuseofdiscretion. 30

TheprogramHandbookhaseightsteps. Itisastraightforwardexerciseto

relatetheturnofeventsinthiscasewiththestep-by-stepframeworkintheHandbook.31

28 Nickerson v. University of Alaska Anchorage, 975 P.2d 46, 52(Alaska1999).

29 See id.at51(describingthecoursecatalogassettingoutproceduresforappealsofacademicdecisions,includingdismissal).

30 Id.at52.

31 Thesesteps,insummary,are:

(1)AnyonemaybringacomplaintagainstastudenttotheDirectorsofClinicalTraining.Asmallgroupdiscussesthecomplainttodecidewhetheritwarrantsinvestigation.StepOneoccurredwhenDr.AllencontactedDr.BremsandFoley.ThethreediscussedtheplagiarismallegationviaemailanddecidedtomeetwithRichards.

(2) The Directors meet with the student. Step Two occurred whenDr. Allen, Dr. Brems,and Foley metwithRichards inMay 2008.

They allowedRichardstoprovideinput,asthesteprequires.

(3)ThefullPh.D.facultymeetsforanexecutivesessiontomakeaninitialdeterminationaboutwhethertopursuefurtheractionundertheHandbook. StepThree

(continued...)

-15- 7090


16/27

31(...continued)occurredwhenthecorePh.D.facultymetinJune2008.AtthemeetingthefacultymadeaninitialdeterminationthatRichardshadplagiarizedherpaperanddecidedtogiveher

aremediationassignment.

RichardswasnotifiedofthefacultysdecisionatameetingheldinJuly.Shewasalsonotifiedthatshecouldappealthedecision,whichshedidnot.Insteadshewrotetheremediationpaper.BecauseshedidnotappealthedecisiontotheGovernanceCommitteeandthefacultydecidednottorecommendherdismissalatthattime,theremainderofthestepsdidnotapplyin2008.WhenRichardsfailedtocompletetheremediationassignmentin2009,areasonablereadingoftheHandbookreturnedthe

process toStep Three. WhenthecorefacultymetagaininApril2009todiscussRichardsssituation,itrecommendeddismissingRichardsfromtheprogram,anditsentheraletteraskinghertoresign.

(4)Thestudent,thestudentsadvisor,andthefacultymembermakingtheaccusationmeettodiscussthematterand,ifapplicable,discussaremediationplan. Thestudentmayseekaninformalresolutionduringthismeetingifthestudentdisagreeswiththefacultysdecision.ThismeetingtookplaceonJune11,2009,andRichardsreceivedthememoaskinghertoresignatthattime.

(5) If the problem cannot be resolved informally, the GovernanceCommitteereviewsthedisputeanddecideswhethertodismissthestudent. Witnessesmaytestifyatthisstage,andthestudentwillbegivencopiesofallwrittenmaterialstheGovernanceCommitteeisconsidering.Thestudentmayhaveanattorneypresent.The

GovernanceCommitteemetinSeptember2009andtooktestimonyfromRichardsoverthecourseoftwodays,insatisfactionofStepFive.

(6)TheGovernanceCommitteereachesadecision.(ThisstepismislabeledasStepFiveintheHandbook.)TheGovernanceCommitteedecidedonaformalcourseofaction,dismissingRichards,duringStepSix.

(7) The Governance Committee notifies the student in writing of itsdecision.Thestudentmayappealthisdecision.(ThisstepismislabeledasStepSixintheHandbook.)TheGovernanceCommitteetransmitteditsdecisiontoDeanDuffy,whonotifiedRichardsofthedecisioninwritingthatsameday. StepSevenallows theGovernanceCommitteetodelegatenotificationtoathirdparty,soitwasproperforDeanDuffytonotifyRichards.

(8)Ifaremediationplanisgiven,thestudentandthestudentsadvisormeettoensureitiscompleted.Ifthestudentfailstocompletetheremediationassignment,she

(continued...)

-16- 7090


17/27

AfterStepSeven,whenDeanDuffynotifiedRichardsthattheGovernanceCommittee

haddecidedtodismissher,theproceduremovedtoUAFsfacultysenateregulations,

whicharereproducedintheHandbook.

Thesenateregulationsrequirethestudenttoattemptfirsttoresolvethe

issueinformally. RichardsinformallyappealedtoDeanDuffybecausethedepartment

chair,Dr.Allen,wasdirectlyinvolved. DeanDuffyconcludedthatthedecisionto

dismissRichardswouldremainunchanged. Aspertheregulations,Richardsfileda

formalappealwiththeProvostonOctober31,2009.TheAppealsCommitteemeton

December 3.32 The Appeals Committee dismissed Richardss appeal because it

concludedthatshedidnotprovidesufficientsupportforherassertionthattheacademic

decisionwasarbitraryandcapricious.

UAFdidathoroughjoboffollowingitsinternalpoliciesandregulations;

thereforeweconcludethatUAFdidnotactinanarbitraryorcapriciousmannerin

dismissingRichardsfromtheprogram.33

31(...continued)

maybedismissedfromtheprogram. (ThisstepismislabeledasStepSevenintheHandbook.)

32 Richardsarguedbeforethesuperiorcourt,butdoesnotnowargue,thattheAppealsCommitteemetoutsideofthemandatedten-dayperiod.Thesuperiorcourtsreasoningonthisissueispersuasive:thattheregulationrequirestheAppealsCommitteetosetadatewithintendaysofreceivingtheappeal. Buteveniftheregulationrequiredthemeetingtobeheldwithintendays,Richardshasnotshownshewasprejudicedbythismistake,andUAFsubstantiallycompliedwithitsregulationsoverall,evenwhenconsideringthisdeficiency.

33 Richardspointstothesubstantialamountofcourseworkshesubmittedintheadministrativeproceedingsdemonstratingfavorablecommentsasevidenceofher

positiveacademicperformance.Buttherewasalsosubstantialevidencethatsherefusedtoacceptfeedback,bothinclassesandontheplagiarismissue. ThefactthatRichards

(continued...)

-17- 7090


18/27

C. TheSuperiorCourtDidNotErrInHoldingThatRichardsReceivedDueProcess.

NeitherwenortheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasspecificallyheldthat

dismissal fromagraduateprogramconstitutesdeprivationofa liberty orproperty

interest.34 Butaschoolmustprovideminimalprocessbeforesuspendingordismissing

astudentfordisciplinary reasons.35 WehaveadoptedtheUnitedStatesSupreme

Courtsapproachthatsuchdueprocessissatisfiedif(1)theschoolfullyinformsthe

studentofitsdissatisfactionwith[her]performanceandthedangerthatthisdeficiency

posestocontinuedenrollment,and(2)theultimatedecisiontodismissiscarefuland

deliberate.36 Thelevelofdueprocessrequiredforanacademicdismissalwouldbeless

thantheminimaldueprocessrequiredforadisciplinarydismissal. 37

1. Amountofprocessrequired

Richardsarguesthatbecauseofthestigmatizingnatureoftheallegations

againstherfailuretoacceptfeedbackand(shecontends)plagiarismsheshould

receivemoredueprocess than requiredinNickerson. She interpretsNickerson as

dissolvingthedistinctionbetweenacademicanddisciplinarydismissals,entitlingherto

disciplinary due process protections. Neither of these argumentshas merit. The

33(...continued)had other, more favorablecomments onher workdoes not makeUAFs decisionarbitraryorcapricious.

34 Nickerson,975P.2dat52.

35 Id. at 52 (quoting Szejner v. Univ. of Alaska, 944 P.2d 481, 486(Alaska1997)).

36 Id. at 53 (citingBd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz,435U.S.78,85(1978)).

37 Id. at52-53.

-18- 7090


19/27

allegationsinNickersonhostile,abrasive,intimidating,andunprofessional

behaviorwhileteachingarejustasstigmatizingastheallegationsagainstRichards

herinabilitytoacceptfeedbackinvarioussituationsandherfailuretosatisfactorily

completeherremediationassignment. AndherargumentthatNickerson dissolvedthe

distinctionbetweenacademic anddisciplinary dueprocessdoesnotfollowfroma

reading of the case. InNickerson we repeatedly cited to the distinction between

academicanddisciplinaryprocess,atonepointstatingthatauniversityimposing

sanctions forimproperconductcannotavoid themarginallygreaterprotectionsfor

disciplinary proceedings, including an informal hearing, by labeling the dismissal

academicratherthandisciplinary.38 Moreover,thedifferenceinthesetwoprocedures

wasthebasisforourdiscussioninNickerson ofwhetherthedismissalwasacademicor

disciplinary.39

Nothing inRichardssargumentsprovidesareasontodepartfromthe

standardinNickerson that[d]ismissalofastudentforacademicreasonscomportswith

therequirementsofproceduraldueprocessifthestudenthadpriornoticeoffaculty

dissatisfactionwithhisorherperformanceandofthepossibilityofdismissal,andifthe

decisiontodismissthestudentwascarefulanddeliberate. 40

2. Biasbydecisionmakers

Tomeetanydueprocessstandardthedecisionmakersmustnothavebeen

biased,sowenextaddressRichardssaccusationsofbias.41 First,Richardsarguesthat

38 Id.at53.

39 Id.

40 Id. (quotingSchuler v. Univ. of Minn.,788F.2d510,514(8thCir.1986)).

41 See Withrow v. Larkin,421U.S.35,47(1975)(holdingthatabiased(continued...)

-19- 7090


20/27

Dr.Allenwasbiasedagainstherbecauseshereportedanincidentofsexismbyanother

professortohim. Notonlyisevidencerelatedtotheallegationofsexismnotpresentin

therecord,buttheprofessorinquestionwasnotamemberofeithertheGovernance

Committeeor theAppealsCommittee.NorwasDr.Allenon theGovernanceCommittee

ortheAppealsCommittee.

Richardssotherargumentsrelating tobias centeron theGovernance

Committeehearingand theAppealsCommitteemeeting. Sheargues thatMichael

OBrien,UAFsGeneralCounsel,hadanundueinfluenceontheAppealCommittee

proceedings.Andshearguesthattherewerenoindependentreviewsofherdismissal

becausetheGovernanceCommitteewasmadeupofaccusingparties. Shealsoalleges

thatthematerialsshesubmittedtotheGovernanceCommitteeweretamperedwith.

Finally,shearguesthatDeanDuffywasbiasedbecausehesignedherdismissalonthe

samedayhereceivedit.

Administrativeagencypersonnelarepresumedtobehonestandimpartial

untilapartyshowsactualbiasorprejudgment. 42 Richardsprovidesnoactualevidence

supportingherallegations. ShearguesthatithasnotbeenprovedthatOBriendidnot

participate in the Appeals Committee decision, but this argument is insufficient:

argumentisnotevidence.Andneitheroftheaccusingparties,Dr.AllenandDr.Brems,

werevotingmembersoftheGovernanceCommitteeortheAppealsCommittee.Finally,

otherthanherbareallegation,thereisnoevidencethatthematerialsshesubmittedtothe

GovernanceCommitteeweretamperedwith.HerargumentthatDeanDuffywasbiased

becausehesignedtheGovernanceCommitteedecisionthesamedayhereceiveditfails

41(...continued)decisionmakerrendersanadministrativeproceedingunconstitutional).

42 AT & T Alascom v. Orchitt,161P.3d1232,1246(Alaska2007).

-20- 7090


21/27

becausetheHandbookmakesclearthathewastransmittingthedecisionratherthan

independentlyreviewingit.

Inshort,Richardsoffersnoevidencethatwouldrebutthepresumptionthat

administrativeagency employees arepresumedtobehonestandimpartial.Biasdoes not

presentabasisforustoconcludethatUAFdeniedRichardsdueprocess.

3. DueprocessstandardunderNickerson

UnderNickerson,Richardsonlyneededtoreceivepriornoticeoffaculty

dissatisfactionwith. . .herperformanceandofthepossibilityofdismissalanda

decisionthatwascarefulanddeliberate.43 Generally,theHandbooksatisfiesthesedue

processrequirementsandaffordsstudentsadequatedueprocess.TheHandbook requires

writtennotice[w]henastudentisplacedonnot-in-good-standingstatusandcautions

thatifa studentdoesnotreturntogoodacademicstandingbytheendofthetwo

semestersfollowingplacementonnot-in-good-standing[status],thestudentmaybe

dismissedfromtheprogram.TheHandbookalsoexplicitlyrequiresnotificationtothe

studentinStepsFourandSix. Furthermore,theHandbooksrequirementshelpensure

thatdecisionsmadeunderHandbookprocedures,includingdismissaldecisions,are

careful and deliberate. The Handbook provides for multiple meetings between

interestedparties,includingapreliminarydiscussionofthecomplaintinStepOneand

meetingswiththestudentinStepsTwoandFour,aswellasnumerousopportunitiesfor

deliberation,includingadiscussionamongthecorefacultyinStepThree,anevaluation

bytheGovernanceCommitteeinStepFive,andareviewoftheremediationplaninStep

Eight.

ThesuperiorcourtcorrectlynotedthatUAFwentfarbeyondwhatdueprocess requiredwhen it dismissed Richards. Nonetheless,Richards raises many

-21- 7090

43 Nickerson,975P.2d46,53(Alaska1999)(quotingSchuler,788F.2dat514).


22/27

argumentsonappeal.44 Theargumentthatgoestotheheartofherdueprocessconcerns

isherargument that shedidnot receive proper notice of herdismissal. Richards

contends that the provisions in the Handbook warning of dismissal for failure to

remediateandcontinuednot-in-good-standing statuscannotbeconsideredpropernotice.

[N]oticemustprecedetheacademicdismissalbyareasonabletimesothat

astudenthasareasonableopportunitytocurehisorherdeficientperformance. 45 [T]o

bemeaningful,astudentmustbegivennoticepriortothedecisiontodismissthatthe

facultyisdissatisfiedwith[her]performanceandthatcontinueddeficiencywillresultin

44 Many of Richardss arguments related to this claim can be quicklydismissedasfactuallyinaccurateorunhelpful. (1)Shearguesthatshewasdenieddue

process because she did not havea lawyer or advisor present at the GovernanceCommitteemeetingunderStepFiveoftheHandbook. However,dueprocessdoesnotrequireanattorneytobepresent. See Nickerson,975P.2dat53(holdingthatahearingisnotrequiredandnotmentioninganyrighttorepresentationforacademicdismissals).

Nevertheless,theHandbookallowsanattorneytobepresent,butRichardschosenotto

haveanattorneyatthis stage,even thoughshedidhaveanattorneyearlier intheadministrativeproceedings.Althoughshedidnotchoosetohaveanattorneypresent,Richardsdidhaveastudentrepresentativeontheappealscommittee.(2)SheallegesthatshewasnotallowedtopresenthermaterialstotheAppealsCommittee. However,theAppealsCommitteethoroughlyreviewedallofthematerialsthatRichardssubmitted.(3)Shearguesthatsheshouldhavebeenpresentattheexecutivefacultymeetingwherethefacultyfoundthatsheplagiarizedtheintegrationpaper. UndertheHandbookthismeetingwasaclosedexecutive meeting.Furthermore,dueprocessdoesnoteven requireahearing,soitiscertainlynotnecessaryforUAFtopermitRichardstoattendtheexecutive meeting. See Nickerson, 975 P.2d at 53. (4) Richards also makes the

argumentthattheHandbookshereceivedwasindraftformandthatlaterchangestotheprocedures indicatethat UAF knewthatthedraft procedures were constitutionallyflawed.ButtheHandbookbeingindraftformisinsufficientforustoconcludethattherewereconstitutionalerrorsinit.


-22- 7090


23/27

dismissal.46

Richardswasgivenrepeatednoticethattherewereissueswithherinability

toacceptfeedbackandregardinghernot-in-good-standingstatus. Her initial2008

reviewdetailedherproblemsacceptingfeedbackinmanysituations,not justwithregards

toherintegrationpaper,andthefacultyclearlyinformedherthatherremediationpaper

didnot showthatsheunderstoodwhyher integrationpaperwasplagiarized. The

professorforwhomRichardswasaresearchassistantaskedhertoresign,citingher

difficultiesacceptingandrespondingtofeedback. AndRichardsssupervisorforher

clinicalpracticumalsostatedthatshedidnotacceptfeedbackwell,whichledtoserious

impassesresultinginasuspensionofherrighttopracticeintheclinic.Richardswas

informedthatshewasnotingoodstandingbothin2008whenshereceivedherupdated

annualreportandinJanuary2009whenthefacultydeemedherremediationpaper

insufficient. AlthoughRichardsreceivedsomepositivecommentsinthe2008annual

review,thepositivemessagesdonotoutweighthefacultysincreasinglynegativereports

to her, especially at the time her remediation paper was rejected, when she was

terminated from her research assistantship, and when she was continued in

not-in-good-standingstatus.

Giventheevidenceabove,Richardsreceivedsufficientnoticethatthere

wereseriousconcernsaboutherabilitytoacceptfeedbackinacademicandprofessional

settings. By the time of the Committees final decision to dismiss her in

September2009,shehadnoticeofseveralspecificexamplesdetailingherinabilityto

receivefeedback,includingtherejectionofherremediationpaper,thecontinuationof

hernot-in-good-standingstatus,andherdismissalfromherresearchassistantship.Secondly,Richardswasgivensufficientnoticethatcontinuationonher

46 Id.

-23- 7090


24/27

currentcoursewouldresultindismissal.47 AlthoughRichardswasnotdirectedtothe

Handbookduringthe2008annualreview,shewasdirectedthereinthe2009dismissal

recommendation. Andshewasinformedofhertenuousstatusinthe2008amended

reviewwhenthereviewstatedthatshewasexpectedtoreflect...professionalismin

conduct,andcompliancewiththeAPAEthicalCodeand theUAStudentCodeof

Conduct. Anybreachoftheseexpectationscanresultinnon-continuationinthePh.D.

Program. Thereviewalsoincludedthestatement,Areviewwillbeconductedatthe

AnnualStudentProfessionalDevelopmentReviewinSpring2009,atwhichtimea

determinationabout yourstandingasagraduatestudentwill bemade.Thesestatements

wereeachrepeatedoncemoreinthereview. TheprogramHandbookalsoservedas

notice,alertingRichardsthatmorethantwosemestersofnot-in-good-standingstatusas

wellasanyviolationsoftheAPAEthicalGuidelinescouldresultindismissalfromthe

program.48 TheHandbooklistedinappropriate...responsetosupervisionoracademic

guidance and inadequate level[s] of self-directed development as examples of

academicimpairment.One indicator ofanacademicimpairmentwarrantingmoresevere

interventionisif[t]hestudentsbehaviordoesnotchangeasafunctionoffeedback,

remediation efforts, and/or time. Additionally, the Handbook states that [i]f

remediationisnotsuccessful,studentdismissalmaybenecessary.

Furthermore,therecordreflectstheabundanceofcarefuldeliberationthat

occurredbeforeUAFfacultyterminatedRichardsfromtheprogram,includingmultiple

47 Id. ([T]obemeaningful, a studentmust begivennotice prior tothedecision todismiss that the faculty isdissatisfiedwith[her] performance and that

continueddeficiencywillresultindismissal.).

48 InHermosillo v. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage, No. S-10563, 2004WL362384,at*5(AlaskaFeb.25,2004),weadoptedtheopinionofthesuperiorcourt,whichheldtheappellantshouldhaveknownthatreadmissiontothecoursewouldbediscretionarybasedontheBSWStudentHandbook.

-24- 7090


25/27

meetingswithRichards,twogroupmeetingsoffaculty,andatwo-dayhearingwhere

Richardstestifiedandthefacultyreviewedthevoluminousevidenceshesubmitted.

Under our standard inNickerson, we hold that Richards received

appropriatelevelsofdueprocess. 49

D. TheSuperiorCourtDidNotAbuseItsDiscretionInItsAwardOf

AttorneysFees.

UnderAS09.60.010(c)thecourt

may notorderaclaimant to pay theattorney feesof theopposingpartydevotedtoclaimsconcerningconstitutionalrights if the claimant as plaintiff, counterclaimant, crossclaimant,orthird-partyplaintiffintheactionorappealdid

not prevail in asserting the right, the action or appealassertingtherightwasnotfrivolous,andtheclaimantdidnothavesufficienteconomicincentivetobring theaction orappealregardlessoftheconstitutionalclaimsinvolved.

ThesuperiorcourtconcludedthatRichardswasnotaconstitutionalclaimantbecause she

hadaneconomicinterestintheoutcomeofthecase. Butthecourtwasworriedabout

chillingfutureclaimantsandawarded$5,021,only10%ofUAFsclaimedattorneys

fees. Weconcludethatthesuperiorcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninthisaward.

Richardshadamorethansufficienteconomicincentivetobringthesuit.

Asshe states inher brief, she had twoyears ofcourseworkinvestedinthe Ph.D.

program,andtheopportunitytopursueaPh.D.isaneconomicinterest.50 Richards


50 Alaska Conservation Found. v. Pebble Ltd. Pship,350P.3d273,282

(Alaska2015)(Alitiganthassufficienteconomicincentivetobringaclaimwhenitisbroughtprimarilytoadvancethelitigantsdirecteconomicinterest,regardlessofthenatureoftheclaim.). Richardsalsoclaimsdamages,whichlessensthelikelihoodthatherclaimisconstitutional. See Ninilchik Traditional Council v. Noah,928P.2d1206,1219(Alaska1996)([T]hepartiesherehavemadenoclaimformonetarydamages,

(continued...)

-25- 7090


26/27

additionallybasesherclaimtoconstitutional-litigantstatusonherbeliefthatherdue

processallegationsmakeheraconstitutionalclaimantsuchthatthecourtmaynotrequire

hertopayUAFsattorneysfees.51 Richardsismistaken.AlthoughRichardsdoesassert

aconstitutionalright,shehadsufficienteconomicincentivetobringtheaction...

regardlessoftheconstitutionalclaim[]involved.52 Thecourtthereforeretainedthe

discretiontoawardattorneysfeestoUAF.

Second,UAFiscorrectthattheawardofattorneysfeesfallsunderAlaska

RuleofAppellateProcedure508(e),notAlaskaRuleofCivilProcedure82. 53 Appellate

Rule508(e)hasbeenchangedsubstantiallysincethesuperiorcourtsfeedecision,54but

atthetimethesuperiorcourtmadeitsdecision,itread:

Attorneys fees may be allowed in an amount to bedeterminedbythecourt.... Ifthecourtdeterminesthatanappealorcross-appealisfrivolousorthatithasbeenbroughtsimplyforpurposesofdelay,actualattorneysfeesmaybeawardedtotheappelleeorcross-appellee.

Thesuperiorcourthadsubstantialdiscretionunderthissectiontoaward

fees,andinthiscaseitonlyawarded10%oftheattorneysfeeseventhoughUAFasked

ittoaward50%. Thesuperiorcourtwaswithinitsdiscretiontoconsiderthechilling

50(...continued)indicatingthateconomicmotivationwasnotasignificantfactorinbringingtheclaim.).

51 AS09.60.010(c)addressesattorneysfeesastheyrelatetoconstitutionalclaimants.

52 AS09.60.010(c).

53 See Stalnaker v. Williams,960P.2d590,597(Alaska1998)(AsuperiorcourthearinganappealfromanadministrativeagencyawardsattorneysfeesunderAppellateRule508,notCivilRule82.).

54 See AlaskaSupremeCourtOrderNo.1843(April15,2015).

-26- 7090


27/27

effectahigherawardcouldhaveonfuturestudentsandreducetheawardaccordingly.

Andwehaveupheldanevenhigherawardpercentage-wiseinapastacademiccase. 55

WeholdthatthesuperiorcourtdidnoterrbyconcludingthatRichardswas

notaconstitutionalclaimantanddidnotabuseitsdiscretioninawarding10%ofUAFs

attorneysfees.

V. CONCLUSION

WeAFFIRMthesuperiorcourtsdecisionupholding UAFsadministrative

decisiondismissingRichardsfromherPh.D.program.

-27- 7090

55 Hunt v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 52 P.3d 739,746 (Alaska2002)(upholdingapproximate20%award).

richards v. university of alaska, alaska (2016)

Documents