Urso v. Bradley University ( 2023 )

2023 IL App (4th) 230165FILED
NO. 4-23-0165 December 27, 2023
Carla Bender
th
4 District Appellate
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
NATALIE URSO, ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Peoria County
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, ) No. 18L116
Defendant-Appellee. )
) Honorable
) Frank W. Ierulli,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Turner and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 In April 2018, plaintiff, Natalie Urso, initiated an action for breach of contract
against defendant, Bradley University (Bradley), after Bradley prohibited Urso from continuing in
its nursing program. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court
denied Urso’s motion and granted summary judgment in favor of Bradley. Urso appeals, arguing
that there is no genuine issue of material fact that her removal from Bradley’s nursing program
was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith. We affirm.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 The following facts are taken from the record, including depositions attached to the
cross-motions for summary judgment. We will supplement the facts as necessary in our analysis.
Located in Peoria, Illinois, Bradley is an institution of higher learning that provides, among other
things, undergraduate education for students in its nursing program. In August 2017, Urso was a
student in Bradley’s nursing program.
¶4 A. Bradley’s Department of Nursing Policies
¶5 At the time Urso was a student, Bradley’s Department of Nursing maintained an
Undergraduate Student Handbook (Nursing Handbook) which communicated to nursing students,
inter alia, the department’s expectations and policies. The following provisions were contained in
the “Academic Progression” section of the Nursing Handbook:
“INDIVIDUAL COURSE GRADE REQUIREMENTS
Students must earn a grade of “C” or better in every required nursing course
in order to progress in the nursing program. A student must earn a “C” or better in
the cumulative score of exams in NUR 200, 204, 206, 303, 306, 308, 314, 316, 318,
404, 408, 410, 414, 418 [sic] to pass the course.
A student that is not successful in any required nursing course may not
progress to the next semester in the nursing program of study. The student must
petition to repeat the course and reenter the nursing sequence. ***
REPEATING OR RE-ENROLLING IN A NURSING COURSE
A student is permitted to reenroll or repeat a nursing course only once per
academic career. If a student fails a required nursing course at Bradley University,
the student may not take an equivalent course at another university and transfer that
course to Bradley University for credit.” (Emphases in original.)
Per the foregoing policy, students who failed two nursing courses were not permitted to continue
in Bradley’s nursing program. On some occasions, the Department of Nursing had employed an
unwritten exception to this policy. Those occasions involved a student failing two courses in a
-2-
single term and extenuating circumstances, such as documented illnesses throughout the semester
or family issues.
¶6 The Nursing Handbook indicated that practicum courses were graded on a
satisfactory/unsatisfactory scale. The “Clinical Practicum” section of the Nursing Handbook set
out the expectations and policies related to practicum courses, including the attendance policy,
required equipment for the practicum, and the use-of-technology policy. The “Clinical Practicum”
section also contained the following provisions:
“UNSAFE PRACTICE
The faculty of the Department of Nursing has an ethical, academic, and
legal responsibility to prepare competent professional nurses.
Unsafe practice is defined as an act or behavior which threatens or has the potential
to threaten the physical, emotional, mental, or environmental safety of the client, a
family member or substitute familial person, another student, a faculty member, or
other members of the health care team.
Guidelines for safe practice include, but are not limited to:
1) The Illinois Nurse Practice Act
2) The American Nurses’ Association Code of Ethics
3) Standards of care developed by regulatory and accrediting bodies, health
care institutions, nursing organizations, and other expert sources.
Unsafe practice includes, but is not limited to:
1) nursing practice for which a student is not authorized or educated to
perform at the time of the incident
-3-
2) attendance at the clinical site under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs
(illicit and/or prescription) that would impair judgment.
3) falsification of verbal report or written/electronic documents[.]”
This section also noted that, if an unsafe practice was observed, the “appropriate faculty members”
would meet, “come to a decision,” and notify the student of the decision. The Nursing Handbook
further provided:
“Decisions are based on [the] scope and severity of the incident and may include
(but not limited to) the following actions:
1) Formal written reprimand to be included in student’s permanent file
2) Remedial work to be completed by the student
3) Failure in practicum
4) Dismissal from the nursing program
Dismissal from the nursing program does not constitute dismissal from the
University. A student who is not in agreement with the decision of the faculty has
the option of pursuing the issue within the framework of the Bradley University
Student Grievance Committee Operating Procedure [(Student Grievance
Procedure)].”
The decision regarding what course of action to take in response to an incident involving an unsafe
practice was discretionary, based upon the severity of the incident.
¶7 B. Bradley’s Student Grievance Process
¶8 The Student Grievance Procedure was contained in Bradley’s Student Handbook
and outlined the following. A student academic grievance was defined as a case where a student
claimed “unfair, prejudicial, or capricious evaluation or treatment of an academic nature by a
-4-
[Bradley] faculty member.” Resolution of such a grievance first required a student to undergo an
“informal” procedure before proceeding to a “formal” procedure. Times listed in these procedures
were deemed “recommended guidelines.”
¶9 During the informal procedure, a student was required to meet with the faculty
member to attempt to resolve an issue. If the issue remained unresolved after that meeting, the
student, within five days of the faculty member’s decision, could “appeal to the
chairperson/director of the University faculty member’s department/division,” who would render
a “written decision upholding or rejecting the appeal” within five working days of the appeal. If
the student or faculty member was unsatisfied with the result, the aggrieved party could “appeal
the decision of the chairperson/director to the Dean(s) of the College(s) in which the given
academic concern resides.” Within five working days, the dean or the dean’s designee was to meet
with the parties. Within five days of the conclusion of the meeting, the dean or the dean’s designee
was to deliver a written decision upholding or rejecting the appeal.
¶ 10 If, after that informal process, the issue remained unresolved, the student or faculty
member could initiate the formal phase of the grievance procedure by appealing to the chairperson
of the University Student Grievance Committee (Committee) in writing. The chairperson would
then obtain written statements from the parties in the appeal, and the Committee would then meet
to decide whether a grievance was “in order.” If the Committee found that a grievance was in
order, the Student Grievance Procedure provided the following:
“[T]he Committee shall:
1) Determine a date, time and place for a formal hearing. Determine the
procedures for conducting the formal hearing. All parties concerned will be given at
-5-
least five working days [sic] notice of the time, date and place of the hearing, and of
the procedures.
2) Call on other faculty, staff and students if it would serve the purposes of
due process.
3) Retain records of all written matters dealing with each case.”
The Committee was to submit its written findings and decisions for review to the provost within
45 working days after the matter was submitted to the Committee. Finally, within 30 days of
receiving the Committee’s findings and recommendations, the provost was to notify the parties of
“his/her agreement or disagreement with the Committee’s decision, stating the reasons in writing.”
¶ 11 C. Events Giving Rise to This Appeal
¶ 12 During Urso’s 2016 spring semester, she was enrolled in NUR 206: Adult Health I
and received the grade of “D.” As a result, Urso reenrolled in the course during the summer session,
and she received the grade of “C.” In Urso’s 2017 spring semester, she was enrolled in, inter alia,
NUR 317, Adult Health II - Practicum.
¶ 13 On March 20, 2017, as part of her NUR 317 practicum curriculum, Urso attended
a clinical at OSF Saint Francis Medical Center in Peoria. The preceptor nurse for Urso’s primary
patient was Holly Phillips. It was Phillips’s first day of orientation for her job. That morning, Urso
informed Phillips that Urso would be taking the patient’s vital signs and conducting other duties
until 2 p.m.
¶ 14 At approximately 9:55 a.m., Urso went to her primary patient’s room to take his
vital signs and observed Phillips leaving the room with the vitals cart. Phillips informed Urso that
she had just completed the patient’s vitals. Urso did not record any vitals for her primary patient
at that time. Instead, Urso left and gave medication to her secondary patient. At 10:16 a.m., Urso
-6-
entered the vitals that Phillips had charted at 9:55 a.m. When Phillips discovered this, she informed
Urso’s clinical instructor, Assistant Professor Laura Wallenfang. Wallenfang subsequently asked
Urso about her entry, and Urso acknowledged that she had not personally taken the patient’s vital
signs that she recorded at 10:16 a.m. and had entered the vitals that Phillips had taken at 9:55 a.m.
Wallenfang wrote in her clinical anecdotal note for March 20, 2017, that she explained to Urso
that the patient could have been in severe hypotension at 10:16 a.m., and the vitals Urso had entered
did not accurately reflect the patient’s true state at that time.
¶ 15 Thereafter, Wallenfang met with Deborah Daniels, the course coordinator for NUR
317, to inform her that Urso had falsified a medical record. Daniels responded that this constituted
an unsafe practice and that, because Urso did not meet the required practicum expectations, she
would need to receive a failing grade of “Unsatisfactory” in the course, which was graded on a
satisfactory/unsatisfactory scale. The record contains no indication that Urso’s patient was, in fact,
harmed by her actions on March 20, 2017. During Daniels’s deposition, however, Daniels
explained that, by falsifying the patient’s vitals, Urso put the patient at risk because “if that client’s
vital signs were not stable as they had been 40 minutes earlier, that would not have been caught
and it would have looked to any other provider or healthcare worker that that client was stable,
when in fact they might not have been.”
¶ 16 On March 22, 2017, Wallenfang e-mailed Urso, requesting a meeting to discuss
Urso’s clinical performance. Urso agreed, and on March 23, 2017, she met with Wallenfang and
Dr. Peggy Flannigan, the associate chairperson of the Department of Nursing. At the meeting,
Wallenfang gave Urso a copy of her final evaluation of Urso’s performance in NUR 317. The
evaluation indicated that Urso received a grade of “Unsatisfactory.” The evaluation explained that
Urso “did not meet the critical behavior of safe practice which is required to successfully complete
-7-
the course” because she admitted that she had not completed her own vitals on her patient but had
copied her primary nurse’s vitals taken at 9:55 a.m. and entered them at 10:16 a.m. The evaluation
deemed Urso’s act a falsification of her documentation. Urso was informed that, because the
“Unsatisfactory” grade constituted a failure, and because this was her second failing grade, she
would be dismissed from the nursing program. Wallenfang and Dr. Flannigan asked Urso to sign
the evaluation, which would have indicated that Urso read it, but Urso refused to do so.
¶ 17 Unsatisfied with this outcome, Urso and her mother met with other faculty members
in the Department of Nursing, which did not lead to a resolution satisfactory to Urso. On March
24, 2017, Urso asked Wallenfang, via e-mail, to meet with her and her mother. Wallenfang
declined.
¶ 18 On March 27, 2017, Urso and her mother met with Dr. Flannigan and Dr. Cindy
Brubaker—the chair of the Department of Nursing—pursuant to the second stage of the informal
Student Grievance Procedure. At the meeting, Urso provided a packet of documents labeled
“Academic Grievance Supporting Documents.” Among the documents was Urso’s written account
of the events of March 20, 2017. In that document, Urso claimed that she was about to take her
patient’s vitals at 9:55 a.m. but learned that Phillips had already taken them, even though Urso had
told Phillips that she would record them. Urso’s account continued, “I told [Phillips] that if it’s
okay with her, I’ll just go ahead and include her vitals in my report.” Urso claimed that she did not
want Phillips to get angry for reassessing the patient’s vitals after Phillips had just done so, and
she did not want to make the patient go through the “ordeal” of having his vitals immediately
reassessed. Urso recounted that, after attending to her secondary patient, “I recorded the 9:55 am
vitals that [Phillips] had taken at approximately 10:16 a.m.,” but by doing so, she was “in no way
-8-
trying to misrepresent the fact that I was not the person who took the vitals.” Urso requested a
grade change, but Dr. Brubaker stated that she could not do that, and the meeting concluded.
¶ 19 Per the third stage of the Student Grievance Procedure, Urso and her mother—also
on March 27, 2017—met with Dean Joan Sattler and Interim Associate Dean Kara Wolfe, but this
meeting also did not lead to a conclusion that was satisfactory to Urso.
¶ 20 On March 30, 2017, Dr. Brubaker informed Urso, via letter, of her decision to
uphold Urso’s failing grade in NUR 317. Dr. Brubaker explained that she reviewed documents
relevant to Urso’s academic grievance, including Urso’s written account of the events,
Wallenfang’s evaluation, and content from prior courses establishing that Urso had been taught
about the legal guidelines for documentation. Dr. Brubaker explained that Urso’s act of copying
vital signs that were previously taken by her primary nurse and documenting them as her own
constituted an unsafe practice according to the Nursing Handbook. She further explained that,
since Urso had previously failed and repeated NUR 206, she would not be allowed to repeat NUR
317, and therefore, she would not be allowed to continue in the nursing program under the terms
of the Nursing Handbook.
¶ 21 On April 6, 2017, Dean Sattler and Interim Associate Dean Wolfe officially
informed Urso, via e-mail, of their decision to uphold Urso’s failing grade in NUR 317. They
indicated that they read the documents related to Urso’s academic grievance, which did not support
Urso’s claims that Phillips gave her a patient’s vitals to chart as her own and that Urso thought this
was permissible.
¶ 22 On April 9, 2017, Urso initiated the formal portion of the Student Grievance
Procedure via an e-mail to the chair of the committee. In her e-mail, Urso asserted that her
“instructor’s accusations have no merit” because she had “no intent to deceive *** and absolutely
-9-
no falsification of records occurred.” Urso claimed that her reputation had been defamed as a result
of the accusations. She further noted that she had never received a recording or transcript during
the informal portion of the Student Grievance Procedure. On that point, Urso referenced the
“ ‘Grievance Procedure’ ” section of the “2016-17 Undergraduate Catalog”:
“ ‘Due process requirements for a fair hearing shall be provided to all parties. The
record of the hearing before the Dean or the Dean’s designee(s) shall consist of
written statements of the instructor and student in support of their positions prior to
the hearing and a tape recording or transcript of the hearing itself.’ ”
However, the quoted provision appeared in the portion of the Undergraduate Catalog that applied
to the grievance procedure for breaches of academic integrity (i.e., when a student was accused of
engaging in bribes, favors, or threats to influence or tamper with a grade), not the Student
Grievance Procedure applicable to a student’s academic grievance, as outlined above (i.e., when a
student alleged unfair, prejudicial, or capricious evaluation by a faculty member).
¶ 23 On May 3, 2017, the chair of the committee, Kelly Roos, informed Urso via e-mail
that a formal hearing would take place on May 11, 2017. Roos attached to the e-mail a document
detailing the procedure to be followed during the hearing, as well as a link to the Committee’s
Student Grievance Procedure. Per the document outlining the hearing procedure, Urso and
Wallenfang, separately, would be given an opportunity to make a statement before being
questioned by the Committee, then the Committee would decide if further questioning of the
parties or witnesses would be necessary.
¶ 24 On May 11, 2017, the hearing occurred. No transcript of the hearing was made,
though the record indicates that witnesses included Wallenfang, Dr. Brubaker, and Daniels. The
witnesses informed the Committee that Urso had falsified the vital signs of her patient, which
- 10 -
caused Urso to receive a failing grade in the course. The witnesses informed the Committee that
Urso’s act constituted an unsafe practice that endangered the health of the patient, though no
explanation was given at that time as to why the act endangered the patient. The Committee was
also informed that there had been previous instances of students in the practicum who had falsified
written records with information that had not been measured by them. In those cases, the students
received failing grades.
¶ 25 On May 12, 2017, the Committee informed Provost Walter Zakahi in writing that
it unanimously recommended that Urso’s failing grade in NUR 317 should stand. The Committee
determined that Urso did not deny recording vitals she had not measured and that—even if she did
not intend to deceive, defraud, or harm anyone—“the ethical standards becoming of a nurse were
violated,” as asserted by Wallenfang and other witnesses. The Committee further noted that the
issuance of a failing grade for the practicum course was the consequence in prior instances of
students falsifying medical documentations and, therefore, “there is a clear precedent in the
Bradley nursing department for assigning a failing grade in this situation.” The Committee thus
concluded that Urso’s failing grade in NUR 317 should stand and recognized that Urso “will now
not be allowed to continue in the nursing program at Bradley.”
¶ 26 On May 23, 2017, Zakahi issued his written decision to Urso, accompanied by a
copy of the Committee’s letter outlining its decision. Zakahi notified Urso that he was “in
agreement with the recommendation of the committee” that her failing grade should stand and that,
as a result, she would not be allowed to continue in the nursing program.
¶ 27 D. The Underlying Proceedings
¶ 28 On April 30, 2018, Urso initiated an action in the circuit court, alleging breach of
contract. Specifically, Urso contended that Bradley failed to follow the policies outlined in its
- 11 -
handbooks, and it failed to perform its contractual duties and obligations in good faith in
discharging her from the nursing program.
¶ 29 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing on the
motions on January 18, 2023, the trial court granted Bradley’s motion for summary judgment and
denied Urso’s motion for summary judgment.
¶ 30 This appeal followed.
¶ 31 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 32 On appeal, Urso argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for summary
judgment and granting Bradley’s motion for summary judgment on her breach of contract claim.
Urso argues that there is no genuine issue of material fact that Bradley’s decision to remove her
from its nursing program violated its undergraduate nursing handbook and was arbitrary,
capricious, and in bad faith.
¶ 33 This court reviews summary judgment orders de novo. Seitz-Partridge v. Loyola
University of Chicago, 2013 IL App (1st) 113409, ¶ 16. Summary judgment is appropriate where
“the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2022). When ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, a court must consider the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits strictly against the
movant and in favor of the nonmoving party. Courson v. Danville School District No. 118, 301 Ill.
App. 3d 752, 755 (1998). The purpose of summary judgment is not to try a question of fact but to
determine whether a question of fact exists that would preclude the entry of a judgment as a matter
of law. Seitz-Partridge, 2013 IL App (1st) 113409, ¶ 20. Accordingly, a nonmoving party need
not prove his or her case in response to a motion for summary judgment but must present a factual
- 12 -
basis that would arguably entitle that party to judgment. Seitz-Partridge, 2013 IL App (1st)
113409, ¶ 20. When parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, they agree that only
questions of law are involved and invite the court to decide the issues based on the record. Sheckler
v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2022 IL 128012, ¶ 29.
¶ 34 “It is true that a college or university and its students have a contractual relationship,
and the terms of the contract are generally set forth in the school’s catalogs and bulletins ***.”
Raethz v. Aurora University, 346 Ill. App. 3d 728, 732 (2004). Despite this, the relationship
between a private university and a student “is unique and cannot be strictly categorized or
characterized in purely contractual terms.” Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 732. Courts are reluctant to
interfere with the academic affairs and regulation of student conduct in a private university setting.
Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 732; see Frederick v. Northwestern University Dental School, 247 Ill.
App. 3d 464, 469 (1993) (“Courts have been loathe to review, much less overturn, academic
dismissals.”). Accordingly, in the student-university context, a student may have a remedy for
breach of contract when it is alleged that an adverse academic decision was made concerning the
student “but only if that decision was made arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith.” (Emphases
in original.) Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 732.
¶ 35 Establishing arbitrary or capricious conduct is a heavy burden. Raethz, 346 Ill. App.
3d at 732. A plaintiff arguing that she was improperly dismissed must show that her dismissal was
without any discernible rational basis. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 732. Thus, “a court may not
override the academic decision of a university ‘unless it is such a substantial departure from
accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not
actually exercise professional judgment.’ ” Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 732 (quoting Regents of the
University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985)).
- 13 -
¶ 36 Urso argues that Bradley breached its contract with her by dismissing her from its
nursing program. In support of this argument, Urso first contends that the evidence
“unequivocal[ly]” showed that recording Phillips’s 9:55 a.m. vitals for her patient at 10:16 a.m.
did not constitute an “unsafe practice” within the meaning of the Nursing Handbook because the
health of Urso’s patient was not threatened or “compromised in any respect.”
¶ 37 We conclude that we may not review this argument, as it would require this court
to engage in a prohibited judicial determination of an academic decision. The Department of
Nursing applied its interpretation of an “unsafe practice,” as delineated in the Nursing Handbook,
to Urso’s acts, which occurred in a clinical learning setting. In doing so, nursing faculty determined
that Urso’s actions did not meet the criteria for a passing grade and, instead, warranted a failing
grade of “unsatisfactory” in her clinical practicum course. We are not at liberty to second-guess
how Bradley’s Department of Nursing applied its grading criteria to Urso. Frederick, 247 Ill. App.
3d at 470. “ ‘[C]ourts are particularly ill-equipped to evaluate academic performance.’ ” Frederick,
247 Ill. App. 3d at 470 (quoting Board of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 92 (1978)). We do
note, however, that Urso’s argument that the evidence “unequivocal[ly]” established that she did
not threaten or compromise the health of the patient fails to consider that the Nursing Handbook’s
definition of “unsafe practice” includes acts that “ha[ve] the potential to threaten the physical,
emotional, mental, or environmental safety of the client.” To that point, the record shows that
Bradley’s nursing faculty immediately recognized that Urso’s act of entering vitals at 10:16 a.m.
that she did not take—and that did not reflect the patient’s status at that time—was potentially
harmful. Wallenfang’s clinical anecdotal note for March 20, 2017, indicated that, upon learning of
Urso’s act, she told Urso that the patient could have been in severe hypotension at 10:16 a.m., and
the vitals Urso entered would not have accurately reflected the patient’s true status at that time.
- 14 -
Likewise, at Daniels’s deposition, she explained that Urso put her patient at risk because “if that
client’s vital signs were not stable as they had been 40 minutes earlier, that would not have been
caught and it would have looked to any other provider or healthcare worker that that client was
stable, when in fact they might not have been.” Thus, Urso has not established that Bradley acted
so beyond accepted academic norms that it was not exercising its professional, academic judgment
in deeming her act to be an unsafe practice as delineated in the Nursing Handbook. Raethz, 346
Ill. App. 3d at 732.
¶ 38 Accordingly, we reject Urso’s request to review Bradley’s academic decision to
give her a failing grade in NUR 317 which, per the Nursing Handbook, resulted in her dismissal
from the nursing program. See Harris v. Adler School of Professional Psychology, 309 Ill. App.
3d 856, 859 (1999) (“There is no judicial review of academic decisions,” and there is “no
justification for court intervention where a grade is dispensed by a teacher within that teacher’s
subjective discretion.”).
¶ 39 Urso nevertheless contends that her dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad
faith because Bradley breached various provisions of its Student Handbook during the Student
Grievance Procedure that ultimately upheld her failing grade. Specifically, Urso complains that
Dean Sattler and Interim Associate Dean Wolfe violated the Student Grievance Procedure by
delivering their decision to uphold Urso’s failing grade more than five working days after their
meeting with Urso. Additionally, Urso complains that Provost Zakahi violated the Student
Handbook by failing to state the reasons for his decision to uphold Urso’s failing grade in his letter
to her. Finally, Urso asserts that the hearing before the Committee should have been recorded.
These arguments miss the mark.
- 15 -
¶ 40 We find Raethz instructive. In Raethz, the plaintiff failed to earn credit for two
consecutive terms of field instruction in Aurora University’s master’s in social work program.
Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 728-29. Per the university’s School of Social Work Handbook, this was
grounds for dismissal from the program. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 729. After a review committee
considered the plaintiff’s situation and determined that she should be dismissed from the program,
the plaintiff appealed the decision to a dean, who upheld her dismissal. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at
730. The plaintiff sued the university, alleging that she was wrongfully expelled from the program.
Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 728-29. Specifically, she claimed that the university’s Field Instruction
Manual required that when a student’s performance in field instruction was deemed unsatisfactory,
a joint conference with the faculty liaison, the field instructor, and the student should be held to
develop a written plan to address the unsatisfactory performance. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 730.
Additionally, the Field Instruction Manual required instructors to document all verbal warnings
and notify the student and faculty field liaison if the student was not improving. Raethz, 346 Ill.
App. 3d at 730. At trial, evidence was presented that the plaintiff told her faculty liaison that she
needed additional supervision and instruction and that no one complained about her performance
or warned her that she was in danger of failing. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 730. Additionally, the
evidence showed that the university did not comply with the requirement to hold a joint conference,
per the Field Instruction Manual, to remediate the plaintiff’s unsatisfactory performance. Raethz,
346 Ill. App. 3d at 730. The trial court found that the university failed to fulfill the requirements
of the Field Instruction Manual and provide meaningful services to allow the plaintiff to complete
the field instruction portion of the curriculum. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 731. Accordingly, the
court found that the university breached its agreement to deliver a degree to plaintiff if she achieved
satisfactory grades. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 731.
- 16 -
¶ 41 The appellate court reversed. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 734. The court rejected the
plaintiff’s argument that the university’s breach of the Field Instruction Manual amounted to per se
arbitrary and capricious conduct. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 733. The court explained that, if it
sanctioned such an argument, “any failure by a university to comply with the terms set forth in the
university’s catalogs or manuals would amount to per se arbitrary and capricious conduct.” Raethz,
346 Ill. App. 3d at 733. The court further noted that:
“What would make the University liable for breach of contract in the
student-university setting is not that the University exercised its academic judgment
unwisely, by allegedly failing to properly comply with the Field Instruction
Manual, but that it did not exercise its academic judgment at all, instead acting
arbitrarily or in bad faith in its treatment of plaintiff.” Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at
733.
The court concluded that the University’s “alleged violations of the Field Instruction manual [did]
not amount to arbitrary, capricious, or bad faith conduct,” but instead amounted to an exercise of
the university’s academic judgment in dismissing the plaintiff. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 733-34.
¶ 42 Here, we first note that the purported breaches Urso alleges are without merit. As
to her claim that the hearing before the Committee should have been recorded, she points to no
provision in the Student Handbook requiring as much, nor has our review of the record revealed
any such requirement. While the record does indicate that transcripts are required for hearings in
the academic integrity (i.e., grade tampering) grievance procedure, there is no similar requirement
for proceedings pertaining to an academic grievance (i.e., unfair academic evaluation by a faculty
member), which is at issue here. Additionally, we note that Provost Zakahi noted in his letter
informing Urso of his decision that he was “in agreement with the recommendation of the
- 17 -
committee” and included the Committee’s letter outlining its reasoning for upholding Urso’s
failing grade. Finally, Urso’s contention that Bradley failed to abide by certain timing requirements
outlined in the Student Grievance Procedure ignores that the Student Grievance Procedure
delineated those times as merely “recommended guidelines.”
¶ 43 In any event, like in Raethz, we conclude that any alleged violations of the Nursing
Handbook or of the Student Grievance Procedure in Bradley’s Student Handbook did not amount
to conduct that was arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith. Instead, Bradley exercised its academic
judgment in (1) assigning Urso a failing grade for NUR 317, (2) upholding that grade through the
Student Grievance Procedure, and (3) sustaining her dismissal from the nursing program due to
her two failing grades, per the Nursing Handbook’s policy. The record shows that the procedure
regarding Urso’s grievance was well documented and that faculty and the Committee carefully
considered Urso’s claims. Thus, even if Bradley exercised its academic judgment unwisely by
deviating from certain provisions of the Student Grievance Procedure, Urso’s contention fails
because Bradley nevertheless exercised its academic judgment. Raethz, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 733-
34.
¶ 44 Finally, Urso argues that her dismissal from the nursing program was the result of
an arbitrary and capricious decision by Bradley, in that the decision was motivated by animus by
faculty members who could have opted for a less severe penalty. Specifically, Urso argues that
Wallenfang “did not have a high regard” of Urso, “thought that [Urso] was a liar,” was “not happy”
about comments Urso had made about Bradley, and attempted to make Urso sign her final
evaluation, which she claims would have amounted to “admitting guilt.” These arguments are
unpersuasive. The record does not support Urso’s claim that Bradley faculty treated her in any
manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith. As to Urso’s claim that Wallenfang attempted
- 18 -
to have her admit “guilt,” by signing her evaluation, Dr. Flannigan testified that she and
Wallenfang only sought Urso’s signature to indicate that Urso had read the evaluation. Further,
the record does not support Urso’s claim that Wallenfang or any other faculty member was
motivated by animus in recommending a failing grade. Indeed, at Wallenfang’s deposition,
Wallenfang testified that she had “no problems with [Urso].” While Wallenfang noted at her
deposition that she thought Urso had lied, she explained that this was because Urso had sent an e-
mail claiming that Wallenfang’s “accusations have no merit” and that “absolutely no falsification
of records occurred,” in direct contradiction to Urso’s prior statement to Wallenfang, in which she
“admitted to me that she did not take the patient’s vital signs” that were entered at 10:16 a.m. Thus,
Wallenfang’s determination that Urso had lied did not occur until after she had already assigned a
failing grade to Urso for engaging in an unsafe practice.
¶ 45 As such, the record does not establish that Bradley faculty was motivated by animus
in giving Urso a failing grade and removing her from the nursing program. To the contrary,
plaintiff took full advantage of Bradley’s comprehensive Student Grievance Procedure. Accepting
Urso’s argument that her removal was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith “would necessarily
lead one to reach a conclusion that there was a conspiracy to fail the plaintiff by each and every
professor who evaluated her academic performance.” Seitz-Partridge v. Loyola University of
Chicago, 409 Ill. App. 3d 76, 85-86 (2011). The record does not support this. Instead, the record
shows that Bradley carefully documented and considered Urso’s claims before finally upholding
her failing grade and dismissing her from the nursing program, per the Nursing Handbook. The
record indicates that this decision was consistent with prior instances when students in the nursing
program had falsified documents. While the record does suggest that exceptions had been made to
- 19 -
the Department of Nursing’s policy of prohibiting students from continuing in the program after
two failing grades, those situations involved extenuating circumstances that were not present here.
¶ 46 “ ‘Like the decision of an individual professor as to the proper grade for a student
in his course, the determination whether to dismiss a student for academic reasons requires an
expert evaluation of cumulative information and is not readily adapted to the procedural tools of
judicial or administrative decisionmaking.’ ” Frederick, 247 Ill. App. 3d at 469 (quoting Horowitz,
435 U.S. at 90). Here, the record establishes that Urso’s failing grade and subsequent dismissal
from Bradley’s nursing program was the result of an academic judgment exercised by Bradley.
That academic decision is not subject to judicial review. Accordingly, the trial court properly
denied Urso’s motion for summary judgment and granted Bradley’s motion for summary
judgment.
¶ 47 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 48 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 49 Affirmed.
- 20 -
Urso v. Bradley University, 2023 IL App (4th) 230165Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County, No. 18-L-116;
the Hon. Frank W. Ierulli, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys Joel F. Handler, of Chicago, for appellant.
for
Appellant:
Attorneys William R. Kohlhase, of Miller, Hall & Triggs, LLC, of Peoria,
for for appellee.
Appellee:
- 21 -