The opinion
rriday, 20 Vecember, 2024 □□□□□□□□
Clerk, U.S. District Court, IL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
ARASH GHAYOORI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 23-cv-2116
)
TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN and THE )
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE )
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION
COLLEEN R. LAWLESS, United States District Judge:
Before the Courtis the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants University President
Timothy Killeen (“Killeen”) and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (“the
Board”). (Doc. 26). On July 12, 2024, this Court granted, in part!, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss his Second Amended Complaint and allowed Ghayoori leave to amend his
complaint within 21 days of the entry of its order. (Doc. 21). Ghayoori timely filed his
Third Amended Complaint, to which Defendants moved to dismiss Count II based on
Plaintiff's alleged failure to state a breach of contract claim.
1 The Motion was granted with prejudice as to Ghayoori's Fifth Amendment claim, Section 1983 claim
against the Board, and Fourteenth Amendment claim against the Board. The Motion was granted without
prejudice as to the breach of contract claim. The Motion was denied as to Ghayoori's Section 1983 claim
I, FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Prior to awarding students with a doctoral degree, the University of Illinois (“the
University”) requires its students to meet minimum GPA requirements and registration
requirements for their specific degrees. (Doc. 1, Ex. 4 at 26). The University also requires
students to pass preliminary examinations and complete a dissertation. (Id. at 26-30).
When a student is accused of plagiarism, the student is subject to the University’s
discipline system. (Id. at 46).
The Student Code requires that when a student is suspected of plagiarism, a
disciplinary officer is appointed to notify the student and investigate the allegations
against them. (Doc. 1, Ex. 2 at 5). The student may admit or deny the allegations. (Id.). If
the student denies the allegations, a disciplinary officer may refer the matter to a
subcommittee who holds a hearing with the student present. (Id.).
Prior to the subcommittee hearing, the student may submit a list of witnesses, who
are subject to the approval of the Committee Chair, (Id, at 7), At the hearing, the student
can provide a narrative description of the alleged incident and present evidence. (Id.).
The subcommittee is tasked with determining whether it is more likely true than not true
that the student's conduct constitutes a violation of the student code. (Id.). If a violation
is found, the subcommittee will consider the appropriate sanction, including the
revocation of a degree based on “fraud, misrepresentation, or other violation of the
University standards in obtaining a degree, or for other serious violations committed by
a student prior to graduation.” (Id. at 122). The student may appeal the decision to the
executive director. (Id. at 13).
In Spring 2014, Ghayoori began his graduate studies at the University of Illinois.
(Doc. 23 at 8-9). During his time in the Industrial Systems Engineering program, he
maintained appropriate grades, acted as a teaching assistant, published peer-reviewed
papers in that field, lectured for undergraduate students, and maintained full-time
enrollment. (Id. at 712-14). In May 2019, Ghayoori began working for MTEK Sciences.
(Id. at $18).
In January 2020, Ghayoori passed his preliminary examinations and submitted his
dissertation to the Dissertation Committee for review. (Id. at 419-20). After receiving
feedback on that dissertation, he incorporated suggestions into his final Doctoral
submission, including adding a section regarding HIV incidences in Rwanda. (Id. at 21).
In July 2020, the Doctoral Committee determined Ghayoori’s dissertation represented
original work and fully satisfied all requirements for a doctoral degree from the
University. (Id.). The University conferred Ghayoori with his doctoral degree in
December 2020. (Id. at 923).
On May 6, 2021, the University received a complaint accusing Ghayoori of
plagiarizing a portion of his dissertation. (Id. at 429). Ghayoori alleges the original
plagiarism complaint was made by a disgruntled former coworker, who convinced
? Defendants note that the attached exhibit is the 2013 edition of the Student Disciplinary Procedures, and
suggest that the 2023 edition of the Student Disciplinary Procedures would be more appropriate based on
the date of the disciplinary proceedings. (Doc. 27 at 6, n.3) However, Defendants concede that the
“Revocation of Degree” provision is the same in both the 2013 and 2023 version of the Student Disciplinary
another colleague to report Ghayoori’s dissertation for plagiarism. (Id.). The University
began investigating these allegations and found “additional claims of purported
plagiarism.” (Id. at (31). Ghayoori was represented by counsel during the process. (Id. at
/41). After the University completed the research misconduct investigation, it revoked
Ghayoori's doctoral degree in August 2023. (Id. at 9932-33).
Ghayoori argues the University failed to interview several witnesses who would
have supported his claim that he did not engage in plagiarism. (Id. at 441). Additionally,
Ghayoori believes he was not able to plagiarize because his dissertation was published
before the other work. (Id. at 46). Finally, Ghayoori asserts the University deleted his
protected electronic data from his email account, which would have supported his claim
that he did not have access to the other work. (Id. at $47).
H. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. See
Christensen v. Cnty. of Boone, Ill., 483 F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2007). When considering a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court construes the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true, and construing
all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Christensen, 483 F.3d at 458. To state a claim
for relief, a plaintiff need only provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing
he is entitled to relief and giving defendants fair notice of the claims. Maddox v. Love, 655
F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir, 2011). However, the complaint must set forth facts that plausibly
demonstrate a claim for relief. See Bell Atl, Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). A
plausible claim is one that alleges factual content from which the court can reasonably
infer that defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009).
B. Analysis
Defendants argue Ghayoori’s Complaint does not identify any specific promises,
while Ghayoori argues the disciplinary procedures properly form an enforceable
contract. A breach of contract claim requires Ghayoori to allege: “(1) the existence of a
valid and enforceable contractual promise, (2) a breach of that promise, (3) plaintiff
performed his contractual obligations, and (4) resultant damages.” Doe v. Columbia Coll.
Chicago, 933 F.3d 849, 858 (7th Cir. 2019). To establish the terms of a contact, the complaint
must specify “the source of the implied contract, the exact promises the university made
to the student, and the promises the student made in return.” Charleston, 741 F.3d at 773.
In the academic context, the terms are usually set forth in the school’s catalogues,
bulletins, and student handbooks, Columbia Coll. Chicago, 933 F.3d at 858. Only the
“specific promise[s]” contained therein constitute the terms of the contract. Bissessur v.
Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2009).
“Illinois courts have expressed a reluctance to interfere with academic affairs and
have held that a student's breach of contract claim must involve decisions that were
arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith.” Columbia Coll. Chicago, 933 F.3d at 858. Thus,
a university would not be liable for breach of contract unless it “did not exercise its
academic judgment at all, instead acting arbitrarily or in bad faith,” or that it disciplined
a student “without anv rational basis.” I
The Court may consider attachments to the Complaint when ruling on a Motion
to Dismiss. Forrest v. Universal Savings Bank, F.A., 507 F.3d 540, 542 (7th Cir. 2007). Here,
Ghayoori attached to his Third Amended Complaint the offer letter sent by the
University; the student disciplinary procedures; the University’s Student Code; and the
University’s Graduate College Handbook of Policy and Requirements for Students. The
Student Disciplinary Procedures outlined concrete, specific actions the University would
take when investigating a student accused of academic dishonesty. For example, it
outlined the particular order that evidence would be presented before a subcommittee,
the timeline for giving the accused student notice of the hearing, and the decision-making
process. Therefore, the procedures outlined in those sources constitute contractual
promises. See Doe v. Butler University, 696 F.Supp.3d 520, 528 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2023)
(finding that a contract exists where the University’s student handbook identified with
specificity its Title IX investigatory procedures).
Ghayoori alleges that “[p]ursuant to that contractual agreement, Defendant was
required to award Mr. Ghayoori a Doctoral degree in the event that he performed ail
conditions precedent to its award and to allow him to retain that Doctoral degree.” (Doc.
23 at 61). Although the University expressly reserved the right to revoke a student's
degree in its Student Disciplinary Procedures, Ghayoori argues that the University acted
in bad faith when applying those discretionary standards.
To challenge the University’s discretionary decision-making under the policy,
Ghayoori is required to plead sufficient facts indicating the University has acted
arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith. Ghavoori must show that the dacielen “lacie...
discernible rational basis” or “is such a substantial departure from accepted academic
norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise
professional judgment.” Bosch v. Northshore Univ. Health Sys., 2019 IL App (1st) 190070, at
(34 (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted):.
In Bosch, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the dismissal of a student's breach
of contract claim against his university, where the student alleged that the defendants
“wholly invented” the charges against him. Bosch, 2019 IL App (1st) 190070, at 44. The
appellate court noted that these allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss
because the student did not merely allege that defendants were mistaken or that their
judgment was poor. Id. The appellate court further cautioned dismissal at that stage
because the prevailing questions of motive and intent are properly adjudicated by the
courts. Id. at 945.
Here, Ghayoori alleged that the University acted in bad faith by deleting electronic
data from his email account and improperly declining to interview several witnesses. As
noted in this Court's prior decision, Ghayoori’s allegations sufficiently raise the question
of whether the University provided him with a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
These allegations also sufficiently allege the University acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or
in bad faith. Similar to Bosch, Ghayoori's allegations do not involve mere mistakes or poor
judgment and properly allege a claim for breach of contract against the University.
* When interpreting state law, a federal court's task is to determine how the state’s highest court would
tule.” Rodas v. Seidlin, 656 F.3d 610, 626 (7th Cir. 2011). In the absence of a ruling by the Illinois Supreme
Court, courts should “defer to interpretations offered by state appellate courts unless there is a ‘persuasive
indication] ] that the state supreme court would decide the issue differently.’” Rodas, 656 F.3d at 626 (quoting
Ill. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
Defendants shall respond to the remainder of the Complaint within 14 days of the entry
of this Order.
ENTER: December 20, 2024
COL R. LAWLESS
NITE ATES DISTRICT JUDGE