COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by Rajin Patel. (Filing fee $400; Receipt number 0539-8558364) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of¶

Patel v. Texas Tech University et al, No. 5:17-cv-00174-C (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 1 · 2017-07-25 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 1 of 26

PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
RAJIN PATEL,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 5:17-cv-174

v.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY; DUANE
JONES, individually and in his official capacity
as adjunct professor; WILLIAM PASEWARK,
individually and in his official capacity as TTU
Rawls College of Business Associate Dean of
Graduate Programs and Research; ROBERT
RICKETTS, individually and in his official
capacity as Area Coordinator in Accounting; and
BRITTANY TODD, individually and in her
individual capacity as Associate Director of the
Office of Student Conduct;

COMPLAINT
(Jury Demanded)

Defendants.

COMES NOW, Plaintiff RAJIN PATEL (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Patel”), by and through his
attorney of record, Jason J. Bach, Esq., of The Bach Law Group, PLLC, and hereby complains and
alleges against the above-named Defendants, based upon knowledge, information and a reasonable
belief derived therefrom, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Patel seeks relief to remedy violations of his substantive due process rights secured by
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and contractual rights by Defendants
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY (“TTU” or the “School”), DUANE JONES (“Jones”), WILLIAM
PASEWARK (“Pasewark”), ROBERT RICKETTS (“Ricketts”), and BRITTANY TODD
(“Todd,” and with TTU, Jones, Pasewark, and Ricketts, collectively, the “Defendants”) in relation

1

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 2 of 26

PageID 2

to those rights. Mr. Patel was the target of patently defective plagiarism allegations while he was
a student at TTU’s Rawls College of Business. Defendants targeted Mr. Patel for speaking out
against exam inadequacies and summarily dismissed him from the School without substantive due
process. Mr. Patel’s various defenses to the plagiarism allegations were wholly ignored and, in
fact, were concealed from the committee who voted on his dismissal, as was the fact that other
students were treated very differently. Following his expulsion from TTU, Mr. Patel voiced his
objections to the Defendants to no avail. Accordingly, he now petitions this Court for redress in
the form of injunctive relief, damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in relation to the
violation of those rights, as well as damages for breach of contract pursuant to Texas common
law.
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Rajin Patel is currently a resident of the State of Texas and, at all relevant

times, was a student at TTU.
2.

Defendant TTU operates the Rawls College of Business, a public educational

institution located in Lubbock, Texas. Defendant TTU receives financial assistance from the
federal government.
3.

Defendant DUANE JONES is an adjunct professor at TTU. He is being sued

individually and in his official capacity as adjunct professor.
4.

Defendant WILLIAM PASEWARK is the Associate Dean of Graduate Programs

and Research at the TTU Rawls College of Business. He is being sued individually and in his
official capacity as the Associate Dean.
5.

Defendant ROBERT RICKETS is Area Coordinator in Accounting. He is being

sued individually and in his official capacity as Area Coordinator.

2

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

6.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 3 of 26

PageID 3

Defendant BRITTANY TODD is the Associate Director of the Office of Student

Conduct. She is being sued individually and in her official capacity as Associate Director.
7.

At all times herein, Defendants have been acting under color of law.

8.

At all times relevant hereto, and in all their actions described herein, Defendants’

actions took place in the State of Texas, County of Lubbock.
9.

Defendants, and each of them, did the acts and omissions hereinafter alleged in bad

faith and with knowledge that its conduct violated well established and settled law.
VENUE & JURISDICTION
10.

This Court has jurisdiction over the claims set forth in this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 (question of federal law) based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), as the claims
are based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
11.

Supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Patel’s pendant state law claims are proper

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as there exist claims arising out of the same transaction and
occurrence as her federal claims.
12.

Venue in this jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as Defendants

are located in this District and the events giving rise to Mr. Patel’s claims occurred therein.
13.

Costs, expert witness fees, and attorney’s fees are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14.

Mr. Patel matriculated to TTU as an undergraduate in 2012 and was accepted to the

Rawls College of Business at the School to complete his Master of Science degree in Accounting
in August 2016. He took concurrent baccalaureate and graduate classes in 2016 and was offered
a prestigious internship in relation to his academics. In his long tenure at TTU, Mr. Patel proved

3

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 4 of 26

PageID 4

to be an exceptional student who excelled in his courses. He had never faced a prior allegation of
academic misconduct, let alone been judged guilty of any wrongdoing, and was set to graduate in
2018.
15.

In enrolling in TTU and during the course of his enrollment, Mr. Patel and TTU

entered into several contracts via school publications and individual agreements defining both the
student’s and the School’s expectations and obligations for academics, discipline, and
miscellaneous elements of university administered programs. One relevant contract includes the
Texas Tech University Student Handbook 2016-2017 (“Handbook”), pertinent parts not limited
to:
a.

“The University provides a fair and equitable student conduct

process, utilizing a thorough, neutral, and impartial investigation” and that
“No student will be found in violation of University policy without
sufficient information and evidence showing that it is more likely than not
that a policy violation occurred....” Handbook, p. 4 (emphasis added).
b.

“A Student Conduct Officer/Investigator is a trained University staff

member whose role is to conduct a thorough, reliable, and impartial
investigation of alleged violations” and “present the information and
evidence obtained through the investigation to the Panel.”

Id., p. 5

(emphasis added).
c.

“[A]ll of the evidence and/or information gathered by the Student

Conduct Officer/Investigator” must be included in the report. Id., p. 99.

4

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

d.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 5 of 26

PageID 5

“[A]ny sanctions will be proportionate to the severity of the

violation and to the cumulative conduct history of the student.” Id., p. 4,
(emphasis added).
16.

During Mr. Patel’s tenure at TTU, TTU Office of Student Conduct Director Sofia

Chapman has gone on record saying, “First time [academic dishonesty] offenders receive a
deferred suspension” and that first-time offenders are generally punished the same unless there are
extreme exceptions. See “Academic dishonesty growing problem for colleges” at The Daily
Toreador by Hannah Hipp, accessed at http://www.dailytoreador.com/lavida/academicdishonesty-growing-problem-for-colleges/article_c50d2d8c-a03e-11e3-acbf-0017a43b2370.html
17.

During his time at TTU, Mr. Patel remained in compliance academically and

financially in conformance with contractual expectations and general guidelines promulgated by
TTU faculty, staff, and administrators.
18.

During the fall 2016-2017 term, Mr. Patel was enrolled in the graduate school

course BLAW 5392 Advanced Business Law (“BLAW”) with adjunct professor Duane Jones. Mr.
Patel excelled in the class for which he studied hard to earn a 97.7% test average and a 96% quiz
average going into the final exam. He is an excellent student, and his grades in BLAW reflect his
incredibly thorough understanding of the subject.
19.

The BLAW final examination followed the structure of past exams and quizzes and

was administered electronically to the 100 enrolled students in small groups of about ten students
at a time, over the course of ten days. Students were instructed to bring their own laptops to take
the exam and were advised in the syllabus it was a closed-book exam. However, the test-bank
final exam was proctored differently and was proctored by Defendant Jones himself.

5

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

20.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 6 of 26

PageID 6

Despite the closed-book rule in the syllabus, the first session of examinees were

permitted to use their e-text, notes and the internet to complete the exam. Later final exam
sessions, including Mr. Patel’s, returned to the strictly closed-book rule.
21.

After diligent study and completing the sample questions in every relevant chapter

of the textbook, Mr. Patel took the exam on December 12, 2016. He did not bring his notes or
book to the exam or reference any other prohibited materials to complete the exam and instead
relied on his extensive knowledge and skill in studying the textbook, notes, and materials created
from his presence in class lecture.
22.

Mr. Jones served as the group’s proctor and was seated four feet away from Mr.

Patel the entire session where he could see Mr. Patel’s computer screen. Mr. Patel completed the
exam in about an hour and twenty-seven minutes, which was average for the class. Mr. Patel’s
earned a high grade on the exam consistent with his earlier BLAW quizzes and exams. Mr. Jones
noted there were no discrepancies in the exam process that day.
23.

On December 19, 2016, Mr. Jones emailed Mr. Patel claiming there was a

“quandary regarding your grade” and made reference to the closed-book rule in the syllabus. The
email also sent the question, “Before I decide what is to be done is there anything that you would
like to talk to me about the Final Exam you took on December 12, 2016?”
24.

Mr. Patel immediately called Mr. Jones and, after no one picked up, left Mr. Jones

a voicemail asking to talk. Mr. Jones then emailed Mr. Patel back, refused to speak to him, and
accused him of “apparently highly plagiarized” test answers.
25.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Patel drove to TTU where he, along with two of his

classmates, Preston and Travis, who Defendant Jones also accused of cheating during the same
exam session, met with Dr. William Pasewark, TTU Rawls College of Business Associate Dean

6

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 7 of 26

PageID 7

of Graduate Programs and Research. Mr. Patel immediately told Dr. Pasewark that he did not
cheat and instead arrived at his answers through copious studying and preparation. He and the
other two students also told Mr. Pasewark about the irregularities between exam sessions,
including the fact that some students in earlier sessions were allowed to use open books and enotes and that the structure of the exam was strange and in fact mimicked the textbook review
questions.
26.

At the meeting, Dr. Pasewark expressed concern about Mr. Patel’s allegations

against Mr. Jones and noted that he had explained to Mr. Jones “differential treatment could be a
basis for grade appeals and that grade appeals are handled by my office. I let each of the students
know that cheating issues were handled by your office and that if there was an issue regarding a
grade appeal, they were welcome to approach me.” Dr. Pasewark also stated that “all students
(with allegations) should go through the student conduct process.” The group discussed the
unfairness between sessions at length, and Dr. Pasewark indicated he would consider the
differential testing conditions as part of TTU’s decision to press charges.
27.

During the meeting, Dr. Pasewark contacted Dr. Robert Ricketts, Area Coordinator

in Accounting, who confirmed Mr. Jones had alleged cheating against the three students. Dr.
Ricketts later updated Dr. Pasewark that there “was solid evidence to suggest one of the individuals
was cheating and not enough evidence to bring a case against the other two.” He did not name
names.
28.

Mr. Patel later learned that the other two students were accused by a classmate of

using Google to find their answers and that the students discussed Google use openly with Dr.
Pasewark. However, after confirming that earlier examinees were allowed open book and notes,
the charges against the two other students were dropped when witnesses to the students’ Google

7

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 8 of 26

PageID 8

use later recanted. Mr. Patel also later learned that one student from the “open book” group, C.C.
C.C.

, used exam reviews during her exam session.

C.C.

also stated that other

students openly used open book, open notes, and internet during the exam, as well. None of those
students faced penalty either.
29.

On December 21, 2016, at 2:14:10 a.m., less than twenty-four hours after Mr. Patel

told Dr. Pasewark about the exam session irregularities, Mr. Jones filed an academic integrity
incident report against Mr. Patel alone. Mr. Jones’ chief complaint was that Mr. Patel’s test answer
to question 8 was “almost verbatim” to the textbook test bank answers, and Mr. Jones complained
that because of the similarity, “the bigger issue is opening test bank copy (books/notes/internet)
during a closed book/closed note exam.”
30.

In fact, a cursory review of the textbook used for the class demonstrates the answer

to question 8 can also be found almost verbatim in the textbook chapter, as an answer to the review
question, on online study guides, before the test was even administered. As he explained
throughout this process, Mr. Patel studied the exam and textbook materials and memorized
relevant law and legal analysis vigorously to prepare for the exam. Mr. Patel’s answer to question
8 was not only similar to the test bank answers but also was the correct answer. Mr. Patel is still
confused how remembering and writing down the correct answer is actionable.
31.

On January 2, 2017, Ms. Brittany Todd from the Office of Student Conduct sent

Mr. Patel a formal letter opening an initial inquiry. That same day, Ms. Todd also modified Mr.
Jones’ incident report, but it is unclear what changes she made.
32.

In line with the open investigation, Mr. Patel spoke via telephone with Ms. Todd

on January 4, 2017. Ms. Todd immediately accused Mr. Patel of cheating before he had even
spoken and refused to listen to or memorialize Mr. Patel’s statements. Mr. Patel was not contacted

8

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 9 of 26

PageID 9

again during Ms. Todd’s investigation nor offered the opportunity to present evidence in his own
defense. Mr. Patel felt railroaded.
33.

By January 10, 2017, Ms. Todd apparently gathered enough “evidence” to

formalize Mr. Jones’ allegations of both cheating and plagiarism against Mr. Patel, and TTU
charged him with two counts of misconduct for the single incident, one for alleged plagiarism and
one for use of prohibited materials. Mr. Patel was notified that he would have to endure a hearing.
34.

Mr. Patel met Ms. Todd in person on January 19, 2017, as part of the pre-hearing

process. After Ms. Todd’s treatment of Mr. Patel over the phone on January 4, 2017, Mr. Patel’s
mother, Mrs. Anu Patel, accompanied Mr. Patel to the meeting as a witness. Mr. Patel calmly
refuted the misconduct allegations and asked why he was facing such unfounded charges. Ms.
Todd began screaming, “You already know why you are here!”, “You are a liar!”, and “that this
will be like you winning the lottery. This will go to hearing and you will be expelled!”
35.

Ms. Todd did not give Mr. Patel any opportunity to provide evidence either at the

meeting or afterwards, and the Patels were concerned that the investigator did not convey a neutral
or impartial tone and, in fact, was already biased and inflammatory. Mr. Patel did not know Ms.
Todd was simultaneously preparing a Final Investigation Report to be used against him or that he
could provide evidence to her directly, because she did not permit him any opportunity to do so in
between calling him a liar and threatening expulsion.
36.

On January 24, 2017, Ms. Todd presented Mr. Patel with her “Final Investigation

Report,” which included “all of the documents that have been provided by the professor,” notes
she claimed to have taken during the January 4 and January 19 meetings, and the investigation
documents that she created using her own Turnitin plagiarism detection analysis to detect
plagiarism. It included nothing from Mr. Patel except a few emails between him and Mr. Jones,

9

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 10 of 26

PageID 10

which Mr. Patel did not provide and half a dozen bullet-point clauses Ms. Todd took during her
caustic meetings with Mr. Patel. In fact, Mr. Patel was never given any opportunity to contribute
to the supposed Final Investigation Report prior to its completion by Ms. Todd, and much of his
exculpatory evidence was left out, even though the investigation was supposed to be thorough and
impartial and the report was supposed to “present the information and evidence obtained through
the investigation.”
37.

The Turnitin report included in the Final Investigation Report noted that Mr. Patel’s

exam answers were similar, in places, to several other exams turned into the software data mine
program. In fact, rather than just input the discrepancy cited by Mr. Jones, Ms. Todd actually
inputted Mr. Patel’s entire exam into Turnitin. The analysis showed that no one source provided
all of the allegedly “almost verbatim” answers. But because Ms. Todd entered all 6 of the essay
answers combined to be assessed as one, instead of entering each essay response independently
into the program, Turnitin reported a false positive plagiarism overall aggregate percentage
number. Even words like “the” and common course terminology were flagged, which increased
the similarity percentage tremendously.
38.

Yet, TTU as an institution has been wary to interpret Turnitin results as outright

proof of wrongdoing. As the School’s library instructs, “Faculty can also use Turnitin as a tool to
detect possible instances of plagiarism” but cautions that “Users of Turnitin must interpret
matching text in the Originality Report.”

https://library.ttu.edu/turnitin/turnitin_faq.php

(emphasis in original). In fact, a research team from TTU published a nationally-recognized series
of academic reports on the inherent problems with Turnitin software’s false positives. The initial
report came out in 2009, and the TTU researchers say the results are still relevant in 2015.

10

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

39.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 11 of 26

PageID 11

The emailed letter accompanying Ms. Todd’s Final Investigation Report gave Mr.

Patel little more than forty-eight hours to provide additional, contradictory information and choose
between a panel hearing or administrative hearing. The email said Mr. Patel could “address any
information contained in the report and make any additional statements or comments related to the
investigation.” The email further provided that if Mr. Patel chose a panel hearing, Ms. Todd would
“provide a list of the Panel Members and a script” to the panelists that she would select. The letter
warned that if Mr. Patel failed to respond to the email with additional statements and information
and choose a hearing type by January 26, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., she would “make a decision in
absentia.”
40.

Once Mr. Patel saw the documents, he emailed Ms. Chapman (Director of Student

Conduct) and Ms. Todd regarding missing evidence that should have been included into the socalled impartial report. He quickly provided a list addressing information contained in the report,
and highlighted that the Final Investigation Report was deficient because:
a.

the Final Investigation Report failed to show the multiple substantial

discrepancies in the administration of the test processes from group to
group;
b.

the Final Investigation Report failed to show that Mr. Patel

questioned the School’s decision to drop allegations against the other two
students or why he was treated differently;
c.

the Final Investigation Report failed to include statements that Mr.

Jones said there were no test irregularities the day Mr. Patel tested;

11

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

d.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 12 of 26

PageID 12

the Final Investigation Report failed to provide a statement from

technology services showing that there are no videos or other recordings of
Mr. Patel cheating; and
e.

the Final Investigation Report failed to provide documentation that

TTU discourages the use of Turnitin as proof of plagiarism and TTU’s
wariness of Turnitin overall.
41.

Mr. Patel also requested a 30-day extension of the pre-hearing process to allow the

investigator to thoroughly investigate his counter-allegations, as well as to address the allegations
in the 104-page Final Investigation Report. He was concerned that Panelists would see only the
Final Investigation Report ahead of the hearing, which contained no information from him.
42.

TTU denied Mr. Patel’s request for more time. Moreover, NONE of Mr. Patel’s

concerns or counter-allegations were added to the supposedly neutral Final Investigation Report
given to panelists.
43.

TTU’s actual investigation into Mr. Patel’s allegations were meager. Ms. Todd

contacted the BLAW students who were allowed to use their notes and books and confirmed Mr.
Patel’s allegation of unequal testing practices. She also forwarded his email list of concerns
directly to Mr. Jones and Dr. Pasewark, with Mr. Patel’s name attached.
44.

Dr. Pasewark confirmed that Mr. Patel complained about unfair exam processes

previously in December 2016 and confirmed that originally, three students were accused of
misconduct. Mr. Jones, faced directly with allegations of his own multiple missteps by Mr. Patel,
first tried to minimize his open-book procedural error, but upon being pressed with other
witnesses’ statements, admitted he proctored exams unfairly and stated, “If there is an issue with

12

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 13 of 26

PageID 13

the way that I have proctored the exams, I am sure Dr. Ricketts will discuss that with me.” He
then scathingly wrote:
Mr. Patel continues to attempt to throw the blame on everyone but himself.
He has now even brought you into the mix. None of his accusations touch
on the fact that four (4) of his essay answers were probably over 90% word
for word from the answers given in the test bank. He cheated on the final
exam, he knows he cheated on the final exam, we have proof that he cheated
on the final exam, and he is still continuing to deny any personal
responsibility.
Mr. Jones also stated, “It does not appear to me that he would have expressed any concern if he
had not been discovered cheating.” Mr. Patel understood Mr. Jones’ disposition from this email
to be both angry and frustrated, as well as vindictive. Ms. Todd further failed to provide
documentation in the Final Investigation Report about this incident, which goes to Mr. Patel’s
accuser’s credibility and should have been among the factors considered in the decision to dismiss
him.
45.

Because of Ms. Todd’s biased treatment throughout, Mr. Patel chose the panel

hearing. Mr. Patel ultimately faced the panel on February 10, 2017. At the hearing, Ms. Todd
presented her “Final Investigation Report,” leaving out all of the information Mr. Patel provided
and other pertinent information supporting his defense, including:
a.

That there is nothing – no computer record, no classmate or proctor

testimony, no video from an in-room camera – showing Mr. Patel copy-andpasting or retyping an answer into the blackboard space while he looked at
the opened answer on a computer screen or on a paper;
b.

The inflammatory email from Mr. Jones calling Mr. Patel a cheater;

13

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

c.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 14 of 26

PageID 14

The notes from the investigative meetings demonstrating Ms.

Todd’s bias, as evidenced by her screaming at Mr. Patel in those meetings
that he was a liar and would be expelled;
d.

That Mr. Jones and Ms. Todd had no eyewitnesses to Mr. Patel

alleged cheating and that at least two other students’ charges of cheating
were dropped for that very reason;
e.

That Mr. Patel offered his computer for review, but it was refused;

f.

The textbook and study materials provided many of the answers that

appeared on the exam, word for word, just like Mr. Patel had studied;
g.

That Ms. Todd input inaccurate data into the Turntin plagiarism

detection system;
h.

Mr. Jones’ admission that Mr. Patel’s final grade was consistent

with all of his other assessment grades; and
i.

That Mr. Jones previously documented “there were no issues with

any student that took the exam on December 12th, 2016,” when Mr. Patel
took the test sitting four feet away from him with his computer screen visible
to Mr. Jones.
46.

Rather, in line with the “script” Ms. Todd presented at the hearing, the panel heard

that the “Final Investigation Report” was a thorough, neutral document prepared by an impartial
investigator. Mr. Patel’s attempt to present contrary data contradicted the “script” and intent
presented by Ms. Todd’s report. At best, her one-sided report from Student Services gave the
appearance that Mr. Patel did not attempt to exonerate himself during the investigation and, worse,
the Final Investigation Report tainted the entire hearing.

14

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

47.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 15 of 26

PageID 15

When a faculty panelist stated at the hearing that he did not agree with either of the

two allegations (01.b.01–Plagiarism or 01.a.03–Cheating) because they were not appropriate, Ms.
Todd, whose “scripted” role was as a neutral, impartial investigator, responded that he and the rest
of the panel must choose between the charges, refusing to appropriately advise the panel that they
could find Mr. Patel innocent.
48.

Ultimately, the Student Conduct Office found Mr. Patel guilty by a preponderance

of the evidence standard on February 15, 2017, after considering the biased “available
documentation, evidence, reports received from a faculty member, and Mr. Patel’s statement.” In
fact, the Student Conduct Office noted there was no “direct evidence” at all in their report, but they
found Mr. Patel guilty nonetheless. Apparently, Ms. Todd’s “script” worked as she promised.
49.

On February 22, 2017, Mr. Patel was dismissed from the TTU Rawls College of

Business graduate program for his very first misconduct charge, put on deferred suspension until
January 2018 in his TTU undergraduate classes and given an F in BLAW. Pursuant to the deferred
suspension, TTU further mandated that Mr. Patel must pay a penalty related to the plagiarism,
must admit he plagiarized, and must enroll in an Academic Integrity BlackBoard course about
plagiarism. No one from TTU has ever explained why Mr. Patel’s case was an extreme exception
warranting a dismissal for a first time offense.
50.

Mr. Patel immediately appealed the decision, which was denied on March 7, 2017,

finding that there were no procedural or substantive errors and that there was no “new” information
to consider.
51.

Mr. Patel has been in contact with TTU via attorneys since early March 2017

attempting to resolve his wrongful treatment, to no avail. Because he did not plagiarize, he is
unwilling to admit to a defective plagiarism finding just to appease TTU, and he is further

15

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 16 of 26

PageID 16

unwilling to register for the plagiarism course or to pay any penalty for the erroneous finding. He
is rightfully concerned that TTU will construe these actions as an admission of plagiarism, and it
will harm his academic and career pursuits; a concern he has expressed several times to TTU. It
would also preclude this instant suit.
52.

On April 26, 2017, TTU froze Mr. Patel’s student account because he refused to

pay the plagiarism penalty, effectively barring him from his baccalaureate degree progression or
even getting a copy of his transcripts. Further, Mr. Patel lost a prestigious internship due to his
academic status, and his baccalaureate status is effectively on hold unless and until he falsely
admits wrongdoing. Mr. Patel will be unable to register for fall 2017 classes. If he misses
registration and is prevented from enrolling, he is unsure how long he will have to wait for the
classes to be offered again, and his résumé will show a gap.
53.

On June 1, 2017, Mr. Patel received notice that TTU would send him to collections

on July 1, 2017, unless he paid the penalty that amounts to an admission of cheating.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(DENIAL OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS)
Against Defendant Texas Tech University and Against Defendants Jones, Pasewark,
Ricketts, and Todd in their Official Capacities
54.

Each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 53, inclusive, are hereby

incorporated by this reference as if realleged fully herein.
55.

That all persons residing in the United States are afforded the right to substantive

due process through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
56.

That the protections of the Substantive Due Process clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment bar the government from taking arbitrary action that results in the deprivation of a
person’s interest without reasonable justification.

16

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

57.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 17 of 26

PageID 17

That Mr. Patel, through his contracts with TTU, had a constitutionally protected

property interest in his continued enrollment in his education at TTU Rawls College of Business.
Further, he invested significant amounts of money into paying for the education that he completed,
strengthening his claim to the interest.
58.

That pursuant to his contracts with TTU, Mr. Patel is afforded rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause that enables this Court to override a postsecondary public university’s academic decision where the school’s actions were such a substantial
departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that they did not actually exercise
professional judgment when stripping him of that protected property interest.
59.

That when viewed against the background of Mr. Patel's entire career at the School,

Defendant TTU’s arbitrary and capricious expulsion of Mr. Patel after the Defendant held a biased
disciplinary hearing in which the panel was given a completely one-sided Final Investigation
Report was an extreme departure from academic norms and had no rational academic basis.
a.

Mr. Patel and TTU had entered into several preceding agreements

and arrangements during his enrollment, in which both parties performed
both rationally and professionally without discord. Defendant TTU cannot
claim Mr. Patel would have acted differently here.
b.

In this case, TTU could – and should – have allowed Mr. Patel’s

hearing to progress organically, where TTU’s academic ruling and
sanctions on the basis of his academic conduct would have been supported
by court deference to academic decisions.
c.

Instead, TTU expelled Mr. Patel after a cursory investigation and

biased hearing that excluded any and all information that supported his

17

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 18 of 26

PageID 18

defense and during which the panelists were not informed that they had the
option to find Mr. Patel innocent.
d.

TTU’s acceptance and actions to expel Mr. Patel in conjunction with

the Defendants’ biased actions were unreasonable, and not rationally related
to any legitimate educational interest.

School policies and contracts

permitted substantial recourse for TTU to sanction Mr. Patel fairly, openly,
and with appropriate safeguards that were proportionate to the severity of
the allegations and to his cumulative conduct history, which was pristine.
That TTU chose to rely on deceitful means to achieve certain ends is not
justified and constitutes arbitrary, capricious, and irrational professional
judgment.
60.

That Defendant TTU’s subsequent treatment of Mr. Patel following his expulsion

from the Rawls College of Business demonstrates its decision to permanently separate Mr. Patel
was not related to a rational educational purpose of removing an academically deficient or
unethical student. TTU continued to offer Mr. Patel participation in TTU undergraduate classes
with a sanction fee despite Mr. Patel’s alleged lack of academic integrity; TTU did not restrict Mr.
Patel’s completion of undergraduate coursework.
61.

That Defendant TTU’s treatment of Mr. Patel’s baccalaureate status is also

arbitrary, capricious, wrongful and designed to guarantee maximum harm upon Mr. Patel’s
curriculum vitae. His account is frozen and he is unable to register for classes, perform at
internships, or obtain transcripts, not because he is academically deficient or unethical, but simply
because he refuses to admit to false plagiarism charges. By de facto forcing Mr. Patel to admit to
plagiarism in order to take classes, TTU is attempting to manipulate Mr. Patel to assure he cannot

18

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 19 of 26

PageID 19

maintain legal action and will be unable to enroll in a Master’s program elsewhere, due to a forced,
admitted plagiarism mark on his transcript.
62.

As a result of Defendants’ official policies, acts, omissions, and practices, Mr. Patel

was improperly dismissed from the Master’s program and given an unfair undergraduate status
on the sole basis of a biased investigation and hearing that denied Mr. Patel due process.
63.

As a result of Defendants’ official policies, acts, omissions, and practices, Mr. Patel

has suffered irreparable harm because he was deprived of his contractual rights to be free from
arbitrary, capricious abuse perpetrated by state actors acting on behalf of the state.
64.

As a proximate result of the illegal, arbitrary and capricious acts of Defendants, Mr.

Patel has suffered and continues to suffer damages academically, financially, and emotionally.
65.

Defendants’ actions and omissions proximately caused Mr. Patel to suffer, and he

continues to suffer damages, including humiliation, severe emotional distress, loss of professional
reputation, and permanent professional damage.
66.

The acts, conduct, and behavior of Defendants have denied Mr. Patel his

substantive due process rights, by reason of which Mr. Patel is entitled to injunctive relief of
immediate re-enrollment as a student of the TTU Rawls College of Business Masters program,
change of status to good standing in the baccalaureate program, and the termination of any
collection actions to correct further suffering.
67.

It has been necessary for the Mr. Patel to obtain the services of an attorney to

prosecute this action, and he is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred
herein.

19

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 20 of 26

PageID 20

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(DENIAL OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS)
Against Defendants Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd in their Individual Capacities
68.

Each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusive, are hereby

incorporated by this reference as if realleged fully herein.
69.

That Defendants Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd in their individual capacities,

intentionally violated Mr. Patel’s constitutional rights under the Substantive Due Process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants knew that their actions in the conduct of perpetuating
a biased investigation and unfair hearing to expel Mr. Patel denied Mr. Patel of his constitutional
right to substantive due process and, therefore, exceeded the authority granted to them in their
official capacities as representatives of TTU and thus are individually and personally liable for any
damages incurred by Mr. Patel.
a.

That Defendant Jones knowingly, arbitrarily, and capriciously

accused Mr. Patel of cheating and plagiarism without any actual evidence
of either solely in order to expel Mr. Patel because Mr. Patel spoke out about
BLAW testing inadequacies.
b.

That Defendant Todd ratified Jones’ acts by omitting pertinent

details to Mr. Patel’s defense in her Final Investigation and Report in an
attempt to improperly dismiss Mr. Patel without any rational basis, and that
Defendant Todd committed additional violations related to the investigation
and hearing that were arbitrary and capricious.
c.

That other defendants knew and were in a position to stop Jones’

and Todd’s actions, but did nothing and in fact contributed to the problem
by allowing other students to get away with worse actions without impunity.

20

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

70.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 21 of 26

PageID 21

That Defendants acted under color of law in violating the Fourteenth Amendment,

as described herein in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
71.

That, as a result of Defendants’ acts, omissions, and practices, Mr. Patel was

improperly dismissed despite the absence of any evidence of him cheating or plagiarizing.
Individual Defendants Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd, under the color of law, violated Mr.
Patel’s right to substantive due process by exercising their power without reasonable justification.
72.

As a result of the individual acts, omissions, and practices of Defendants Jones,

Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd, Mr. Patel has suffered irreparable harm because he was deprived of
his contractual rights to be free from arbitrary, capricious abuse perpetrated by state actors acting
on behalf of the state.
73.

As a proximate result of the illegal, arbitrary and capricious acts of Defendants

Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd, Mr. Patel has suffered and continues to suffer damages
academically, financially, and emotionally.
74.

The actions and omissions of Defendants Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd

proximately caused Mr. Patel to suffer, and he continues to suffer, damages, including,
humiliation, severe emotional distress, loss of professional reputation, and permanent professional
damage.
75.

The acts, conduct and behavior of each of the individual Defendants Jones,

Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd in acting to deny Mr. Patel his substantive due process rights were
performed knowingly, intentionally, oppressively, and maliciously, by reason of which Mr. Patel
is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants in their individual capacities
in a sum in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00).

21

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

76.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 22 of 26

PageID 22

It has been necessary for Mr. Patel to obtain the services of an attorney to prosecute

this action, and he is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred herein.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(EQUAL PROTECTION)
Against All Defendants in their Individual and Official Capacities
77.

Each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 76, inclusive, are hereby

incorporated by this reference as if realleged fully herein.
78.

All persons residing in the United States are protected by the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars the government from intentional discrimination
including “class of one” discrimination, when the intentional discriminatory treatment lacks any
rational basis and there was improper motive.
79.

That Mr. Patel, by facing a plagiarism charge at TTU, was singled out and

discriminated against compared to similarly situated individuals. Defendants chose not to
formalize charges of misuse of materials against two other students in the BLAW final exam
despite actually having an eyewitness report their cheating but who later recanted.
80.

That by choosing to prosecute Mr. Patel for alleged plagiarism, Defendant TTU

treated Mr. Patel differently than those similarly situated students subject to the same school rules.
81.

That Defendants Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd, in their individual

capacities, intentionally violated Mr. Patel’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Defendants Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd individually knew that their
actions in choosing to charge Mr. Patel with plagiarism denied Mr. Patel of his constitutional right
to equal protection and exceeded the authority granted to them in their official capacities as
representatives of TTU, and thus, are individually and personally liable for any damages incurred
by Mr. Patel.

22

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

82.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 23 of 26

PageID 23

That the actions of Defendants Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd were the result

of personal animus against Mr. Patel, and their said actions in violation of and denials of Mr.
Patel’s rights were taken without any rational basis.
83.

That Mr. Patel’s cumulative history of success in TTU courses and lack of prior

academic misconduct allegations were completely ignored in choosing to disproportionately
prosecute this individual allegation of misconduct is clear.
84.

That by reason of the aforesaid actions, Defendants’ official and individual actions

exhibit deliberate indifference and/or reckless disregard for the constitutional rights of Mr. Patel
and other similarly situated students, all in violation of his constitutional rights.
85.

As a result of the official actions taken by Defendants TTU, Jones, Pasewark,

Ricketts, and Todd, Mr. Patel suffered and continues to suffer damages, including the deprivation
of his rights, privileges, and immunities secured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment, and, thus,
he is entitled to injunctive relief from Defendant TTU.
86.

As a result of the individual actions taken by Defendants Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts,

and Todd, Mr. Patel suffered and continues to suffer damages, including the deprivation of his
rights, privileges, and immunities secured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment, and, thus, he is
entitled to an award of compensatory damages from them in their individual capacities in a sum
in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.
87.

The acts, conduct and behavior of each of the individual Defendants Jones,

Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd were performed knowingly, intentionally, oppressively, and
maliciously, by reason of which Mr. Patel is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants
Jones, Pasewark, Ricketts, and Todd in their individual capacities in a sum in excess of
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00).

23

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

88.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 24 of 26

PageID 24

It has been necessary for Mr. Patel to obtain the services of an attorney to prosecute

this action, and he is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred herein.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Against Defendant Texas Tech University
89.

Each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 88, inclusive, are hereby

incorporated by this reference as if realleged fully herein.
90.

That courts in Texas and the Fifth Circuit impose a contract on the relationship

between students and universities. Materials actually provided to students, including enrollment
agreements and catalogs, may become part of the agreement.
91.

That Mr. Patel had express and implied contracts with Defendant TTU in

connection with rights explicitly guaranteed by the various School materials, including the
Handbook.
92.

That Mr. Patel timely paid all tuition and fees legitimately due and dutifully

complied with the mandates of the contractual materials governing his relationship with
Defendant TTU.
93.

That, in contrast, Defendant TTU’s treatment of Mr. Patel’s purported plagiarism

violation was extreme and out of scope with the contractual promises between them. Specifically,
Defendant TTU breached its promises in the Handbook to provide “a fair and equitable student
conduct process, utilizing a thorough, neutral, and impartial investigation” and that “[n]o
student will be found in violation of University policy without sufficient information and
evidence showing that it is more likely than not that a policy violation occurred....” Handbook,
p. 4 (emphasis added). TTU breached these promises by conducting a biased investigation and

24

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 25 of 26

PageID 25

one-sided hearing that omitted all information supporting Mr. Patel’s various defenses and
summarily dismissed Mr. Patel without any evidence proving that he did in fact plagiarize.
94.

That Defendant TTU violated its contractual obligation that the Student Conduct

Officer/Investigator be a “trained University staff member whose role is to conduct a thorough,
reliable, and impartial investigation of alleged violations” and “present the information and
evidence obtained through the investigation to the Panel.” Id., p. 5 (emphasis added). Moreover,
“all of the evidence and/or information gathered by the Student Conduct Officer/Investigator”
must be included in the report. Id., at p. 99. Defendant TTU violated this obligation because the
investigation into Mr. Patel’s misconduct claim was completely biased in favor of Defendant
Jones the entire time, and all evidence that supported Mr. Patel’s defenses and an instruction that
the panelists could find Mr. Patel innocent was withheld from the panel.
95.

That Defendant TTU also violated its promise that “any sanctions will be

proportionate to the severity of the violation and to the cumulative conduct history of the
student.” Handbook, at p. 4 (emphasis added). TTU violated this obligation by expelling Mr.
Patel from the Rawls College of Business even though it was his very first allegation of academic
misconduct.
96.

That, as a proximate result of the illegal, arbitrary and capricious breaches by

Defendant TTU, Mr. Patel has suffered and continues to suffer damages academically, financially,
and emotionally.
97.

Defendant TTU’s actions and omissions proximately caused Mr. Patel to suffer,

and he continues to suffer damages, including, humiliation, severe emotional distress, loss of
professional reputation, and permanent professional damage.

25

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

98.

Document 1

Filed 07/25/17

Page 26 of 26

PageID 26

But for Defendant TTU’s illegal breaches, Mr. Patel would remain in good standing

at TTU Rawls College of Business. Accordingly, Mr. Patel demands injunctive relief to reinstate
his status as an active student.
99.

It has been necessary for Mr. Patel to obtain the services of an attorney to prosecute

this action, and he is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred herein.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Mr. Patel demands a jury trial for all
issues in this matter.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Mr. Patel prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor, and
against the Defendants: (a) for Injunctive Relief to reinstate Mr. Patel as a student in good standing
at Texas Tech University Rawls College of Business; (b) for compensatory damages from the
individual Defendants in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($75,000.00) to be determined at trial; (c) for punitive damages against the individual Defendants
in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00) to be determined at trial;
(d) for interest; (e) together with the costs and disbursements of this action and such other
attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (d) further relief as justice requires.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2017.
THE BACH LAW GROUP, LLC
By

26

/s/ Jason J. Bach
JASON J. BACH, ESQ.
Texas Bar No. 24071556
2802 Flintrock Trace, Suite 255
Austin, Texas 78738
Telephone: (512) 879-3901
Facsimile: (702) 925-8788
Attorney for Plaintiff