From Doe v. Univ. of Pennsylvania, decided Friday by the Third Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, joined by Judges David Porter and Jane Roth:
In 2020, Doe enrolled as a student in UPenn's Pre-Med Post-Baccalaureate Program …. She planned to complete the Program in Spring 2021 and apply to medical school. Doe alleges that a chemistry professor in the Program discriminated against her based on her race by denying her extensions, grading her unfairly, and reporting her for academic dishonesty. She reported this discrimination to UPenn. According to Doe, UPenn retaliated by launching a deficient academic integrity investigation, finding she committed academic dishonesty, and suspending her for one and a half years. Doe further contends that
[b]y improperly suspending Plaintiff and placing a notation on her transcript and disciplinary record, UPenn has damaged Plaintiff's future educational and career prospects. Specifically, as a result of UPenn's actions, Plaintiff will be forced to disclose and explain to medical schools and potential employers to which she may opt to apply that she was disciplined at UPenn for academic dishonesty….
As a result, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer reputational damage, economic losses, and damages to her future educational and career prospects.
The District Court refused to let Doe sue pseudonymously (under Title VI and state contract law), and the Third Circuit held that this was not an abuse of discretion:
