© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company
All rights reserved
A few days later, an investigator assigned by the
university allegedly reported the February 2015
encounter to both Student Conduct Director David
Elrod and Associate Dean Judith Haas. However,
upon the purported instructions of both Elrod and
Haas, details of that incident were not included in
the ﬁnal investigative report.
At the October hearing, Gulyas was not allowed
to question Costa about the February 2015 inci-
dent. The board ultimately found him responsible
for “unlawful entry” and “acts of harm.” He was
Gulyas ﬁled a suit seeking to expunge his record,
alleging: (1) Elrod and Haas directed the investiga-
tor to leave the February 2015 incident out of the
investigation report and (2) he was unable to question
Costa at the hearing about it. Gulyas also asserted
that he did not have adequate time to prepare because
the university refused his request to postpone the
Appalachian State ﬁled a motion to dismiss.
The district judge said that knowledge about the
details of the February 2015 incident might have
demonstrated to the board that Gulyas and Costa
had an understanding where each could enter
the other’s dorm room without obtaining explicit
consent, which might have defeated the “unlawful
The judge refused to dismiss the suit, ruling that
the concealment of the February 2015 incident, the
restrictions placed on Gulya’s questions, and the
inconvenient timing of the hearing created a signiﬁ-
cant risk of an erroneous outcome on that “unlawful
entry” charge. ■
Judge decides expelled student
received adequate due process
Case name: Johnson v. Arkansas State University,
et al., No. 3:17-CV-00093 (E.D. Ark. 09/06/17).
Ruling: The U.S. District Court, Eastern District
of Arkansas dismissed a suit against Arkansas State
What it means: The only due process required
prior to an administrative action is notice and an
opportunity to respond. A student is not entitled to
a lawyer at an expulsion hearing.
Summary: In April 2014, Arkansas State Uni-
versity Jonesboro graduate student Ryan Johnson
was informed by email that he faced unspeciﬁed
disciplinary charges, and that a meeting about those
charges was scheduled for April 29.
On April 28, Johnson asked for a postponement of
the meeting so that he could obtain legal counsel and
gather evidence. The university denied the request
and informed Johnson that he could not have either
legal counsel or an advocate at the meeting.
Johnson did not attend the meeting.
The next day, Johnson was notiﬁed by email that a
hearing to consider his expulsion was going to be held
in May. He was also informed that he faced additional
charges for failing to attend the April 29 meeting.
Johnson did not attend the May hearing, and the
university expelled him.
Johnson ﬁled a suit claiming he was deprived of
due process, and ASUJ ﬁled a motion to dismiss.
The district judge said the only due process
required prior to an administrative action was notice
and an opportunity to respond.
The judge ruled that Johnson had received all of
the due process to which he was entitled because
he: (1) was given written notice of the charges, (2)
refused the opportunity to present his side of the
story to administrators, (3) was given written notice
of a separate expulsion hearing, and (4) chose not
to attend that hearing.
Johnson alternatively argued that he was denied
due process because he was not allowed to have legal
counsel at the April 29 meeting. The judge disagreed,
quoting the U.S. Supreme Court as stating that for-
malizing the process might destroy its effectiveness
as part of the teaching process because it would
become too costly as a regular disciplinary tool.
The judge dismissed the suit. ■
College entered into agreement
to solve online accessibility issues
Case name: Letter to: Bay Mills Community
College, No. 15-16-2187 (OCR 10/14/16).
Ruling: Before the Ofﬁce for Civil Rights could
issue a decision, Bay Mills Community College
entered into a voluntary agreement to resolve online
accessibility concerns identiﬁed by a complainant.
What it means: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
require that recipient universities ensure accessibility
Submit an article
For Dean & Provost writers’ guidelines or to sug-
gest a topic, please contact the editor, Joan Hope, at