Title: Lucas v. Hahn

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

LUCAS_V_HAHN.94-015; 162 Vt. 456; 648 A.2d 839

[Opinion Filed July 15, 1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied August 23, 1994]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 94-015


 John Lucas                                   Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Lamoille Superior Court

 Dr. Robert Hahn, Dr. Vincent                 May Term, 1994
 Crockenberg, Stanley Carpenter,
 All of Johnson State College,
 Johnson, Vermont


 Alan W. Cook, J.

 John Lucas, pro se, Morrisville, plaintiff-appellant

 Michael J. Harris and Paul K. Sutherland of Sutherland & Collins, Inc.,
   Burlington, for defendants-appellees


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Plaintiff John Lucas appeals the summary judgment granted
 to defendants on claims arising from a decision by Johnson State College
 (JSC) not to recommend him for licensure as a teacher.  We affirm.
      Until the Spring of 1992, plaintiff was a graduate student enrolled in
 the education program at JSC, pursuing certification as a high school
 teacher.  As part of the program, he was teaching a history class at
 Spaulding High School in Barre.  A dispute over grades arose between
 plaintiff and his supervising teacher, and plaintiff, believing that the
 supervisor had wrongfully lowered many of his students' tentative grades,

 

 sent letters to that effect to the supervising teacher and the students
 involved.
      On April 9, 1992, plaintiff met with three professors from the JSC
 education department to discuss the incident.  Following this meeting, the
 department representatives informed him by letter of their finding that he
 had not adhered to policies outlined in JSC's Student Teaching Handbook
 1991-92, which pertained to confidentiality and compliance with host-school
 regulations.  They decided that plaintiff would not return to Spaulding,
 would not have further student teaching placements, and would not be
 recommended for licensure by JSC.  The letter also notified plaintiff of the
 availability of an appeal to the Dean of Academic Affairs.  Plaintiff
 appealed the decision to the education department, the graduate committee,
 the academic dean, and JSC's president, all of whom affirmed the decision
 to remove plaintiff from his position at Spaulding and the licensure aspect
 of the master's program.  However, plaintiff was allowed to remain in the
 program to earn a master's degree in education.
      In the course of his JSC appeals, plaintiff filed numerous requests for
 documents with the school, and JSC responded either with the requested
 documents, a request for clarification, or notification that the requested
 documents did not exist or were otherwise unavailable.  Plaintiff continued
 to file requests, many of which JSC considered reformulations of earlier
 requests.
      In March 1993, plaintiff commenced an action alleging violation of
 {{ 316 and 318 of Vermont's Access to Public Records Act, 1 V.S.A. {{ 315-
 320, requesting attorney fees and litigation costs pursuant to { 319(d), and
 penalties pursuant to { 320.  Plaintiff further alleged that JSC failed to

 

 afford him due process in removing him from the teaching licensure program.
 Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment on both claims, and
 plaintiff appeals.
      To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must
 demonstrate both the absence of genuine issues of material fact and
 entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.  V.R.C.P. 56(c); Murray v.
 White, 155 Vt. 621, 628, 587 A.2d 975, 979 (1991).  In determining whether
 an issue of material fact exists, the party opposing the motion receives the
 benefit of any reasonable doubts and inferences, Pierce v. Riggs, 149 Vt.
 136, 139,