Date: 07-01-2024

Case Style:

Chelsey Dudley v. Boise State University, et al.

Case Number: 1:22-CV-495

Judge: David C. Nye

Court: United States District Court for the District of Idaho (Ada County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Boise Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Michael Edward Kelly and Shannon Marie Graham

Description:

Boise, Idaho civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued seeking injunctive relief.

On May 7, 2022, Dudley graduated from BSU with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Social Work. As part of her degree requirements, Dudley had to complete an internship. The BSU course code for her specific internship was SOCWRK 481. Dudley participated in an internship with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“IDHW”) in the spring of 2022, and, upon completion, received a passing grade in SOCWRK 481. In turn, Dudley qualified for, and received, her bachelor's degree.

On July 14, 2022, Dudley took and passed her Social Work Licensing Exam through the Idaho Department of Occupational Licensing. On August 24, 2022, Dudley became a licensed social worker in the State of Idaho.

On November 2, 2022, Defendant Tony Roark[1] sent Dudley a letter informing her that the IDHW had brought to his attention certain events that occurred during Dudley's internship earlier that year. Based upon information gleaned from a third party, the IDHW had opened an investigation into Dudley, the results of which established “beyond doubt that [Dudley] accessed confidential client information within IDHW's database . . .” during her internship and that she had “no authorization” or “legitimate business interest” in

3

looking into those files. Dkt. 15, at 19.[2]

Roark then informed Dudley that because of her conduct during her internship her passing grade for SOCWRK 481 would be changed to a failing grade. Id. He then explained to Dudley that, as a result of the grade change, she no longer met the requirements for graduation and would be contacted by the Office of the Registrar for further action. Id. Roark also told Dudley that, pursuant to University Policy 3130 (“Grade Appeal”), she could appeal his decision to change her grade. Id. Finally, Roark noted that the entire matter had been referred to the Dean of Students for possible disciplinary action under University Policy 2020 (“Student Code of Conduct”). Id.

As Roark alluded, the following day, Defendant Mandy Nelson from BSU's Office of the Registrar sent Dudley a letter stating that, in light of the grade change to SOCWRK 481, she “no longer satisf[ied] the graduation requirements for a Bachelor of Arts in Social Work” and her degree would be “rescinded.” Id.

BSU subsequently sent the State of Idaho's Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses Board of Social Work Examiners a revised transcript showing that Dudley's bachelor's degree in social work had been removed from her official transcript.

On November 17, 2022, Defendant Kate Law, Assistant Dean of Students at BSU, sent Dudley an email entitled “Notification of Incident and Pre-Hearing Meeting.” Dkt. 15, at 21. This email stated, among other things, that BSU had received information that Dudley had allegedly violated the Student Code of Conduct, the National Academy of

4

Social Work code of ethics, the BSU student Professional Conduct and Professional Standards, IDHW's expectations for employees and interns, and state and federal privacy laws. Dkt. 2-2, at 12-13. Law said BSU was referring the allegations to the Conduct Hearing Board for review. She also set a pre-hearing date and time when she and Dudley could meet to discuss what would take place at the hearing. Law provided additional information regarding the hearing process itself and Dudley's rights in her email. The prehearing meeting was set for November 29, 2022, and the hearing for December 12, 2022.

Dudley attended the pre-hearing meeting. During that meeting, Law explained the procedures that would be followed at the Student Conduct Hearing in December and informed Dudley that the Complainant (the Office of the Dean of Students) did not intend to call any witnesses at the hearing but would instead present summaries from the IDHW investigation. She also informed Dudley of her rights at the hearing.

On December 7, 2022, Law provided Dudley with an information packet that included information about the Student Conduct Hearing and the evidence the Complainant intended to rely upon at the hearing. Dkt. 9-3.

Also on December 7, 2022, Dudley filed the instant lawsuit and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). Dkts. 1, 2.

In her Motion for TRO, Dudley asked the Court for two things: first, to enjoin BSU from conducting the Student Conduct Hearing scheduled for December 12, 2022; and second, to require that Defendants follow certain procedural safeguards during any

5

rescheduled hearing.[3]

On December 9, 2022, the Court issued a decision granting, in part, Dudley's Motion for TRO. Dkt. 4.[4] The Court noted it does not normally grant temporary restraining orders without hearing from the adverse party, but, considering the exigent circumstances and short timetable, it would temporarily do so in this case. Dkt. 4, at 9 n.5. In sum, the Court enjoined Defendants from holding the Student Conduct Hearing on December 12, 2022, required Dudley to serve Defendants, required Defendants to respond to Dudley's Motion for TRO on or before December 19, 2022, and set a hearing (via Zoom) for December 20, 2022. Id. at 10-11.

Based upon the Court's ruling, BSU vacated the December 12, 2022, Student Conduct Hearing.

The Court then held a hearing of its own on December 20, 2022, on whether to extend the TRO. Dkt. 10. Ultimately, the Court decided it would not extend the TRO but would allow it to expire on December 23, 2022. Dkt. 11, at 16, 18.

On January 9, 2023, Law sent a new notice to Dudley informing her that the Student Conduct Hearing had been reset for February 17, 2023. Dkt. 15, at 22. Law reiterated that BSU had received information that Dudley had violated Student Code of Conduct “Section 4/AC.

6

Violation of University Policy and/or Law”[5] and alleged that Dudley had accessed confidential client information from IDHW's database in violation of the School of Social Work's field requirements, the NASW Code of Ethics, the Student Professional Conduct and Professional Standards, IDHW's expectations for employees and interns, and state and federal privacy laws. Id. On February 10, 2023, Law provided Dudley an informational packet for the rescheduled hearing. Again, the packet contained material about the hearing process, the information the Complainant intended to rely on, and a written response to the allegations Dudley had prepared following the previous round of communications.

On February 17, 2023, BSU held the Student Conduct Hearing. The Complainant presented its case in the same form as outlined in its notification to Dudley: with no live witnesses, only statements. One such witness statement came from Mike Dixon, IDHW Child Welfare Chief at Department of Health and Welfare, Region 3. Dixon's statement explained that he had informed Roark that Dudley “used [IDHW's] database which holds confidential, client information, to look up people she knows in her personal life” and that she “presumably read information from past child protection cases on these individuals” which, had it been discovered at the time of the events “would have been reason for immediately ending [Dudley's] internship.” Dkt. 15, at 24.

Dudley presented her defense at the hearing. She did not dispute that she had viewed files of persons unrelated to her internship work at the IDHW, but stated she likely had

7

“clicked on hyperlinks of caregivers in her own [] file.” Id. at 34.[6] Dudley also took questions from members of the Student Conduct Board. At the end of the hearing, the Complainant requested the Student Conduct Board revoke Dudley's degree and expel her from BSU.[7]

On March 1, 2023, Law informed Dudley that the Student Conduct Board had determined that it was “more likely than not that [her] actions were in direct violation of the ethical and professional standards and expectations that were set forth” as part of her internship and imposed the sanctions of degree revocation and expulsion. Dkt. 15, at 37.

Dudley appealed the decision and was notified by Law on April 28, 2023, that the appeal had been denied.

Dudley filed the operative Amended Complaint on July 14, 2023, alleging four causes of action. Dkt. 15. Dudley's first three claims assert violations of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution.[8] Id., at 39-49. Dudley's fourth claim is for injunctive relief. Id. at 49-50.

8

On September 25, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss Dudley's Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible cause of action. Dkt. 19.[9] After an extended briefing period (see Dkts. 20, 23), the Court set the matter for oral argument. Dkt. 29.
Dudley v. Boise State Univ., 1:22-cv-00495-DCN (D. Idaho May 03, 2024)

Outcome: Now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and CLOSED.

3. The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
Dudley v. Boise State Univ., 1:22-cv-00495-DCN (D. Idaho May 03, 2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: