### FILED July 12, 2016 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt WA State Court ofAppeals, Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISIONTHREE EILEENEDDY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) V. ) ) WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, ) ) Respondent. ) No. 

### 33282-9-111

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, 

### J. -EileenEddy appeals her expulsion from Washington State University (WSU). Ms. Eddy's challenge focuses on alleged flaws in WSU's disciplinary process. Regardless ofany such flaws, Ms. Eddy's claim for reliefrequires herto show substantial prejudice. That burdenhas notbeenmet. The expulsion decision is therefore affirmed. 

### FACTS Ms. Eddy was an undergraduate student enrolled at WSU. Overthe span ofone semester she became involved inthree separate student disciplinary matters. The first incident involved an academic integrity violation regardingplagiarism. The second pertainedto a false report ofassault by another student. Ms. Eddy was sanctioned for these two incidents and both decisions became final priortothe initiation ofthis case.No. 33282-9-III 

### Eddyv. WSU
Ms. Eddy's third disciplinary action is the subject ofthis appeal. It arose during the pendency ofMs. Eddy's second disciplinary proceeding. The third disciplinary action involved another allegation ofplagiarism. Pursuantto WSU procedure, Ms. Eddy's professor first made a finding ofplagiarism. Ms. Eddy then appealed herprofessor's finding to WSU's Academic Integrity Hearing Board. According to WSU policy, Academic Integrity Hearing Board decisions are final and cannot be appealed. The Academic Integrity Hearing Board ultimately upheld the professor's finding of plagiarism. Shortly after the Academic Integrity Hearing Board decision, the Office ofStudent Standards and Accountability sent Ms. Eddy a written notice stating it would be holding its own disciplinary proceeding. The notice explainedthatwhile the Academic Integrity Hearing Board's finding was final and could not be appealed, the University Conduct Board (Conduct Board) needed to determine an appropriate disciplinary sanction. The notice also stated the Conduct Board would consider a new allegation regarding whether Ms. Eddy had violated WSU's Standards ofConduct for Students (Standards) by submitting false information during her appeal ofthe false reporting allegation. The notice warned Ms. Eddy that expulsion was a possible outcome ofthe Conduct Board's hearing.
2No. 33282-9-111 

### Eddyv. WSU
Ms. Eddy appeared for her disciplinary hearing before the ConductBoardpursuant to the notice. A Conduct Board hearing is not a full administrative hearing. Thus, Ms. Eddy's rights at the hearing were somewhat limited. Consistent with the terms sent out in the notice ofhearing, the bulk ofthe ConductBoard hearing was focused on whetherMs. Eddy had in fact submitted false information regarding the assault allegation. Ms. Eddy testified at the hearing and presentedtestimony from a character witness. The Conduct Board did not reassess the validity ofMs. Eddy's two priorplagiarism findings. Approximately a week after the hearing, the ConductBoard issued a written decision. The Conduct Board found Ms. Eddy responsible for violating WSU's Standards. As sanctions, the Conduct Board expelled Ms. Eddy from WSU, trespassed her from all WSU campuses, rescinded her Cougar Cardprivileges, and canceled her WSU email account. WSU later withdrew the trespass order. Ms. Eddy unsuccessfully appealed the ConductBoard's decision to the University Appeals Board (Appeals Board). In its written decision, the Appeals Board did not explicitly state whether it had considered referring Ms. Eddy's case for a full adjudicative hearing under Washington's Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ch. 34.05 RCW. Ms. Eddy then filed apetition for review in Whitman County Superior Court. The superior court affirmed WSU's expulsion decision. Ms. Eddy now seeks relieffrom this court.
3No. 33282-9-III Eddyv. WSU
ANALYSIS University disciplinary proceedings are reviewed underthe APA. AlphaKappa Lambda Fraternity v. Wash. State Univ., 152 Wn. App. 401,413,216 P.3d 451 (2009). There are nine potential bases for reversing a university's disciplinary decision, including: (1) the university engaged in an unlawful procedure or decision-makingprocess, or failed to follow a prescribedprocedure, (2) the university erroneously interpreted or appliedthe law, (3) the university did not decide all issues requiring resolution bythe university, (4) the university issued an order inconsistent with its ownrule, or (5) the university issued
an orderthat is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3). In reviewing a university's administrative action, this court sits in the same position as the superior court. AlphaKappa Lambda, 152 Wn. App. at 413. Thus, this courtreviews the administrative record rather thanthe superior court's findings or conclusions. Edelman v. State, 160 Wn. App. 294,303,248 P.3d 581 (2011). Ms. Eddy bears the burden ofshowingthe university's actions were invalid and that she was "substantiallyprejudiced" by those actions. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a), (d);AlphaKappa Lambda, 152 Wn. App. at 414. Ms. Eddy claims she is entitled to reliefbecause WSU violated WAC 504-26- 407(1 )(c) when the Appeals Board issued its decision upholding the order ofexpulsion
4No. 33282-9-III 

### Eddyv. WSU
without first considering whetherto hold a full adjudicative hearing under the APA. Regardless ofwhetherthere was a procedural violation, Ms. Eddymust showprejudice. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a), (d);

### AlphaKappa Lambda, 152 Wn. App. at 414. We therefore focus our attention on the issue ofprejudice. By the time the Appeals Board received Ms. Eddy's case, she had already sustained two Academic Integrity Hearing Board violations for plagiarism. Such findings
are final and cannotbe appealed. WAC 504-26-404(2)(c)(ii). Furthermore, a student who sustains two academic integrity violations "is ordinarily required to appearbefore a university conduct board with a recommendation that the student be" expelled. WAC 504-26-404(4). Given the prior findings by the Academic Integrity Hearing Board, the tasks before WSU's ConductBoard and Appeals Board were quite limited. An adequate basis for expulsion had already been established. 1 The only question was whetherthe recommended sanction ofexpulsion should be imposed against Ms. Eddy. Ms. Eddyhas failed to articulate how additional procedures wouldhave likely changedthe outcome. Although a full administrative hearing may have broadened Ms. Eddy's ability to present

1 Ms. Eddy does not challenge the validity ofthe academic integrity violation procedure under WAC 504-26-404. 

### 5No. 33282-9-111 

### Eddyv. WSU
evidence orto objectto improper hearsay, Ms. Eddy fails to point out what specific, material differences there would have been in the presentation ofevidence that could have changed the decision to expel her from WSU. Because she has not met herburden ofestablishingprejudice, Ms. Eddy's challenge must fail. Based on the foregoing, the order ofthe superior court is affirmed and Ms. Eddy's request for attorney fees is denied. A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuantto RCW 2.06.040.

# ~'~ Pennell,i WE CONCUR:

# ~**~** Fearing, C.~1

6 

# I I

f

# I
f 

# i I 

## l 

# I I 

# \ 

# l ;