Anthony Eid v. Wayne State Univ. ( 2023 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0132n.06
No. 22-1458
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
)
FILED
ANTHONY EID, Mar 15, 2023
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY; WAYNE ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MEDICINE; NIKOLINA CAMAJ; MARGIT )
CHADWELL; MATT JACKSON; RICHARD ) OPINION
S. BAKER; R. DARREN ELLIS, )
Defendants-Appellees. )
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Anthony Eid sued Wayne State University (WSU),
WSU’s School of Medicine, and various administrators (collectively, Defendants or WSU),
following his dismissal from the medical program for lack of professionalism. Eid was dismissed
after admitting that he had sent deceptive messages to a former undergraduate student, referred to
as Jane Roe throughout the proceedings. In these messages, Eid sought passwords to Roe’s online
accounts; falsely claimed that he was in contact with and had received information from Apple
Support; threatened to report Roe to the University if she did not comply with his demands; and
threatened to have his attorney file a lawsuit against her.1 The district court granted Defendants’
1
For a more detailed description of the factual background to this appeal, see Eid v. Wayne State Univ., 599 F. Supp.
3d 513, 518-29 (E.D. Mich. 2022).
No. 22-1458, Eid v. Wayne State University, et al.
motion for summary judgment in full. Eid’s appeal is limited to the dismissal of his Fourteenth
Amendment procedural due process claim against the individual administrator Defendants.
Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we are not persuaded that the district
court erred. Given the district court’s thorough analysis of the facts and law, issuing a detailed
opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we
AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. We address only one specific matter.
Eid argues that the district court overlooked our decision in Endres v. Northeast Ohio
Medical University, 938 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2019), in concluding that he was dismissed from the
medical school for academic rather than disciplinary reasons. Eid acknowledges that designating
his dismissal as academic is outcome-determinative for his lawsuit. If his dismissal was for
academic reasons, he concedes that his due process claim fails because students facing academic
dismissals are afforded only minimal protections—they are not entitled to a hearing—whereas Eid
received a hearing and two levels of appellate review from WSU. See Bd. of Curators of Univ. of
Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 87-92 (1978).
Although Eid did not cite Endres below, he argued in opposition to summary judgment
that he received insufficient due process protections, citing other cases involving disciplinary
(rather than academic) decisions. The district court recognized this as an implicit argument that
“the dismissal was disciplinary in nature.” Eid did not forfeit the argument that his dismissal was
disciplinary. See United States v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 574 F.3d 329, 332 (6th Cir. 2009) (to
preserve an argument, a litigant need only identify the issue and “provide some minimal level of
argumentation in support”).
We have previously held, however, that dismissing a medical student for lack of
professionalism “amounts to an academic judgment to which courts owe considerable
-2-
No. 22-1458, Eid v. Wayne State University, et al.
deference[.]” Al-Dabagh v. Case W. Rsrv. Univ., 777 F.3d 355, 357, 359 (6th Cir. 2015). And
Endres affirmed this rule, explaining that a university’s decision is academic when it is deciding,
based on undisputed facts, “whether the student possessed the necessary traits to succeed in the
medical profession.” 938 F.3d at 300-01. A university’s decision is disciplinary, by contrast,
when it “requires a factual determination as to whether the conduct took place or not.” Id. at 301
(quoting Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 95 n.5 (Powell, J. concurring)).
Because Eid took “full responsibility” for sending the deceptive messages to Roe—
acknowledging that he “stretched the truth” and “lied to [her] about many things”—WSU was
never called upon to make a factual determination in this matter. Indeed, WSU specifically
declined to resolve the sole factual dispute Eid raised in the proceedings. Eid denied that he sent
Roe an email impersonating an attorney, and that he texted Roe the next day about the email. But
WSU never “engage[d] in first-level factfinding” to resolve this dispute. Endres, 938 F.3d at 300.
It explained that while “the committee does not know whether Mr. Eid sent the email . . . the other
evidence is enough to base [the] decision on.” Relying on Eid’s admissions, WSU ultimately
decided to dismiss him “from medical school based on his professionalism actions and lack of
integrity.” In other words, WSU drew “subjective conclusions from established facts,” rendering
its decision academic. Endres, 938 F.3d at 300. Endres does not alter the district court’s
conclusion that Eid’s dismissal for lack of professionalism was for academic reasons.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
-3-