FILED 

July 12, 2016 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

EILEEN EDDY, ) 

) 

Appellant, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

No. 33282-9-111 

UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

PENNELL, J. -Eileen Eddy appeals her expulsion from Washington State 

University (WSU). Ms. Eddy's challenge focuses on alleged flaws in WSU's disciplinary 

process. Regardless of any such flaws, Ms. Eddy's claim for relief requires her to show 

substantial prejudice. That burden has not been met. The expulsion decision is therefore 

affirmed. 

FACTS 

Ms. Eddy was an undergraduate student enrolled at WSU. Over the span of one 

semester she became involved in three separate student disciplinary matters. The first 

incident involved an academic integrity violation regarding plagiarism. The second 

pertained to a false report of assault by another student. Ms. Eddy was sanctioned for 

these two incidents and both decisions became final prior to the initiation of this case. 
No. 33282-9-III 

Eddyv. WSU 

Ms. Eddy's third disciplinary action is the subject of this appeal. It arose during 

the pendency of Ms. Eddy's second disciplinary proceeding. The third disciplinary action 

involved another allegation of plagiarism. Pursuant to WSU procedure, Ms. Eddy's 

professor first made a finding of plagiarism. Ms. Eddy then appealed her professor'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 of Student 

Standards and Accountability sent Ms. Eddy a written notice stating it would be holding 

its own disciplinary proceeding. The notice explained that while 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 of Conduct for Students (Standards) by 

submitting false information during her appeal of the false reporting allegation. The 

notice warned Ms. Eddy that expulsion was a possible outcome of the Conduct Board's 

hearing. 

2 
No. 33282-9-111 

Eddyv. WSU 

Ms. Eddy appeared for her disciplinary hearing before the Conduct Board pursuant 

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 of hearing, the bulk of the Conduct Board hearing was focused on whether Ms. 

Eddy had in fact submitted false information regarding the assault allegation. Ms. Eddy 

testified at the hearing and presented testimony from a character witness. The Conduct 

Board did not reassess the validity of Ms. Eddy's two prior plagiarism findings. 

Approximately a week after the hearing, the Conduct Board 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 Card privileges, and canceled her 

WSU email account. WSU later withdrew the trespass order. 

Ms. Eddy unsuccessfully appealed the Conduct Board'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 a petition for review in Whitman County Superior Court. The superior 

court affirmed WSU's expulsion decision. Ms. Eddy now seeks relief from this court. 

3 
No. 33282-9-III 

Eddyv. WSU 

ANALYSIS 

University disciplinary proceedings are reviewed under the APA. Alpha Kappa 

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-making process, or failed 

to follow a prescribed procedure, (2) the university erroneously interpreted or applied the 

law, (3) the university did not decide all issues requiring resolution by the university, (4) 

the university issued an order inconsistent with its own rule, or (5) the university issued 

an order that 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. Alpha Kappa Lambda, 152 Wn. App. at 413. Thus, this 

court reviews the administrative record rather than the superior court's findings or 

conclusions. Edelman v. State, 160 Wn. App. 294,303,248 P.3d 581 (2011). Ms. Eddy 

bears the burden of showing the university's actions were invalid and that she was 

"substantially prejudiced" by those actions. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a), (d); Alpha Kappa 

Lambda, 152 Wn. App. at 414. 

Ms. Eddy claims she is entitled to relief because WSU violated WAC 504-26-

407( 1 )( c) when the Appeals Board issued its decision upholding the order of expulsion 

4 
No. 33282-9-III 

Eddyv. WSU 

without first considering whether to hold a full adjudicative hearing under the AP A. 

Regardless of whether there was a procedural violation, Ms. Eddy must show prejudice. 

RCW 34.05.570(l)(a), (d); Alpha Kappa Lambda, 152 Wn. App. at 414. We therefore 

focus our attention on the issue of prejudice. 

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 cannot be appealed. WAC 504-26-404(2)( c )(ii). Furthermore, a student 

who sustains two academic integrity violations "is ordinarily required to appear before 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 Conduct Board and Appeals Board were quite limited. An adequate basis for 

expulsion had already been established. 1 The only question was whether the 

recommended sanction of expulsion should be imposed against Ms. Eddy. Ms. Eddy has 

failed to articulate how additional procedures would have likely changed the outcome. 

Although a full administrative hearing may have broadened Ms. Eddy's ability to present 

1 Ms. Eddy does not challenge the validity of the academic integrity violation 

procedure under WAC 504-26-404. 

5 
No. 33282-9-111 

Eddyv. WSU 

evidence or to object to improper hearsay, Ms. Eddy fails to point out what specific, 

material differences there would have been in the presentation of evidence that could 

have changed the decision to expel her from WSU. Because she has not met her burden 

of establishing prejudice, Ms. Eddy's challenge must fail. 

Based on the foregoing, the order of the superior court is affirmed and Ms. Eddy's 

request for attorney fees is denied. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

~'~ Pennell,i 

WE CONCUR: 

Fearing, 

~ C.~ 1 ~ 

6 

f 

f 

i 

I 

l 

I 

I 

\ 

l 

;