Opinion ID: 1931375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Colby Breached the Agreement's Requirement of a Fundamentally Fair Disciplinary Process

Text: [¶ 13] The court found that Colby's disciplinary procedure provides for notifying the accused of the nature of the accusations, a hearing before [an] impartial body with an opportunity to present evidence and state one's position, and a right to appeal. Millien does not challenge this general finding, but he contends that the process was fundamentally unfair because: (1) there were no valid grounds to grant an appeal under the written rules governing the Appeals Board; (2) he was unrepresented at the hearing while the claimant and the Board had legal representatives; and (3) the Appeals Board refused his request to present evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by the claimant.
[¶ 14] Millien asserts that Colby violated the handbook's provisions regarding the circumstances under which an appeal may be taken. The handbook provides that cases may be appealed on the basis of new information which could not have been presented at the original hearing or when there is reason to believe that a violation of procedure occurred which could have affected the outcome. The procedures also state that the Board's decision whether to hear an appeal is based on the content of the written appeal and on discussion at a meeting with the appellant and other appropriate parties. Millien contends that the subcommittee's actions were fundamentally unfair because there were insufficient grounds for an appeal and the subcommittee failed to meet with the claimant, as well as with him as an other appropriate part[y]. [¶ 15] The claimant's written notice of appeal set forth eight grounds, one asserting new information and the others asserting procedural errors. A subcommittee of the Appeals Board considered the notice of appeal and determined that the appeal should be permitted on some, but not all, of the eight grounds. Although the court found that the appeal did not result in a breach of contract, it did not make findings as to whether the appeal was justified on the basis of new information or a violation of procedure. Because Millien did not request additional findings of fact or conclusions of law on the issue pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52(a), we will infer that the court made all the necessary findings of fact to support the judgment, if those findings are supported by evidence in the record. Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 2002 ME 137, ¶ 13, 804 A.2d 364, 369. [¶ 16] Competent evidence in the record supports a finding that an appeal was justified either on the basis of new information or a procedural violation. The victim's advocate testified that she did not believe that a tape recording of a telephone conversation was available during the Dean's hearing, and Christine Wentzel, the faculty member on the subcommittee, testified that the tape was new evidence which [she] believed [was not] admitted the first time the hearing was done. In addition, Wentzel testified that the subcommittee felt that it was a procedural irregularity for [Dean Serdjenian,] who was fact-finding [for the Dean's Hearing Board,] to then move into the position of ... mediation or trying to offer ... a solution to both parties and then ... going back to the board and actually forcing a decision. Despite stating in her deposition that she did not think that the claimant was prejudiced by her refusal to agree to Serdjenian's proposal, Wentzel also testified that the mediation could have affected the outcome of the hearing. [¶ 17] Because the record supports a finding that there were grounds for an appeal that satisfied the required criteria, we cannot conclude that the Appeals Board's decision to grant the appeal was fundamentally unfair or resulted in a breach of contract. Moreover, the Appeals Board's failure to meet with Millien or the claimant before it decided to permit the appeal did not result in a breach of contract. The Board's procedures do not require it to meet with the student accused of wrongdoing before it decides whether to permit an appeal if that student is not the appellant. As written, the procedures commit to the Board's discretion the decision as to with which other appropriate parties it will meet before it decides whether an appeal should proceed. Although the Appeals Board's failure to meet with the claimant before deciding to allow the appeal contravened Colby's appeals procedures, this procedural default was insubstantial and does not compel a finding of fundamental unfairness because the subcommittee received and considered the claimant's detailed statement of her grounds for appeal.
[¶ 18] Millien contends that the Appeals Board hearing was fundamentally unfair because he had no legal representative at the hearing, even though the claimant was represented by a victim advocate who was a law school graduate and the Board was represented by its attorney. Millien does not assert that Colby was obligated to provide him with appointed counsel, but rather argues that it was unfair that the Appeals Board allowed the hearing to proceed because he did not have an attorney present. Colby contends that Millien had retained an attorney prior to the Appeals Board hearing and knew his attorney would be unavailable for the hearing, but nevertheless chose not to request a continuance. [¶ 19] The record establishes that Millien had retained an attorney prior to the Appeals Board hearing, that his attorney was not available to attend the hearing, and that Millien did not request a postponement of the hearing to accommodate his attorney's schedule. Under these circumstances, it was not inherently unfair for the hearing to proceed even though Millien's attorney was not present.
[¶ 20] Millien also contends that the Appeals Board hearing was fundamentally unfair because he was not permitted to question the claimant regarding the statements she made before the Dean's Hearing Board indicating that she was not intoxicated at the time of the incident. Millien contends that these were inconsistent with the statements she made before the Appeals Board indicating that she was intoxicated at the time of the incident. He argues that because intoxication may raise doubts concerning mutual consent in a sexual assault case, he should have been permitted by the Appeals Board to introduce evidence of the claimant's earlier statement that she was not intoxicated. [¶ 21] Colby argues that the claimant admitted at both hearings that she was intoxicated and, as a consequence, made no inconsistent statements. The court did not address the issue, concluding that to do so would be to essentially conduct an appellate review of the decision. [¶ 22] As Millien contends, the Appeals Board's refusal to consider evidence of the claimant's alleged prior inconsistent statements bears on the fairness of the process afforded to him, and should have been considered by the court. Any error, however, in the court's failure to address this issue was harmless because the Appeals Board's decision to not entertain the evidence did not result in a fundamentally unfair process. See Bouchard v. Frost, 2004 ME 9, ¶ 8, 840 A.2d 109, 111 (noting that we will affirm a judgment based on a rationale different than that relied on by the trial court); see also Alexander, Maine Appellate Practice § 403 at 175 (2004). [¶ 23] Addressing Millien's assertion that the claimant advanced a prior inconsistent position before the Dean's Hearing Board would have resulted in a trial within a trial before the Appeals Board. Millien does not assert that the claimant positively stated to the Dean's Hearing Board that she was not intoxicated at the time of the incident. Rather, Millien contends that because the claimant and a second student witness disagreed about the quantity of alcohol they each drank the night of the incident before the Dean's Hearing Board, it can be inferred that the claimant's original position was that she was not intoxicated. [5] The Appeals Board's decision to consider the claimant's statements made before it, but not those statements made before another body, was reasonable. Cf. In re Maine Clean Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736, 746 (stating that administrative agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and such restrictions may include restricting or precluding the right to cross-examine witnesses) (quotation marks omitted). In the informal setting of a private college's disciplinary process, this approach was not fundamentally unfair. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.