Mulla v. University of Minnesota, The

Background

Mehdijaffer Allyakber Mulla sued the University of Minnesota, the Regents of the University of Minnesota, Michael Kim, and Julia Weston. He alleged constitutional due-process and equal-protection violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state-law claims for defamation, breach of contract, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Mulla had attended the University’s Medical School. After an earlier suspension, the Committee on Student Scholastic Standing readmitted him in 2019 on the condition that any further professionalism concern would lead to immediate suspension and a dismissal hearing. After new reports about his conduct, the Medical School suspended him. The University’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office investigated allegations that included reports of sexual misconduct. It found insufficient evidence of sexual or gender-based harassment but made factual findings about unwelcome social-media messages and in-person interactions.

The Committee held a hearing in July 2020, where Mulla provided a statement, witnesses testified, and Mulla was represented by counsel. In August 2020, the Committee voted to find a professionalism violation and to dismiss Mulla. It characterized the dismissal as academic rather than disciplinary and told Mulla about possible appeal and academic-complaint procedures.

Mulla sought a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction requiring the University to allow him to continue his academic progression while the lawsuit proceeded. Because the University Defendants responded to the motion, the court treated it as a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Legal standard

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. The moving party must show that the four relevant factors favor relief: a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without relief, the balance of harms, and the public interest. The court stated that the likelihood-of-success factor is the most significant, although no single factor automatically controls.

Likelihood of success

The court limited its merits analysis to Mulla’s due-process claims because those claims supported his request for an injunction. The court assumed, without deciding, that Mulla had a protected property interest in attending the public school and a protected liberty interest in his name and reputation.

For substantive due process, which protects against especially extreme government conduct, the court found Mulla unlikely to prove that the University Defendants acted irrationally, arbitrarily, or in a way that was shocking to the conscience. The court rejected Mulla’s contention that Kim’s email seeking reports about potentially inappropriate communications was such conduct. The court also noted that Weston had recused herself from the dismissal and professionalism decisions and that Mulla’s allegations about her conduct and motives were speculative.

For procedural due process, which concerns whether the government provided adequate procedures before taking a protected interest, the court applied the rule that academic dismissals generally require notice and a careful, deliberate decision, but less process than disciplinary dismissals. The court found that Mulla received notice, a hearing, the opportunity to testify and present evidence, representation by counsel, and information about possible appeals. The court also found that the Committee did not rely on an alumni letter with redacted signatories, that Mulla had an opportunity to respond to the investigation’s findings, and that the professionalism requirements existed before his 2019 reinstatement. The court therefore found Mulla unlikely to prevail on his procedural due-process claim.

Other injunction factors

The court found that Mulla had not shown irreparable harm. Although it did not minimize the possible effects of delaying completion of his degree, it found his asserted harm too speculative. The court also noted that University appeal and complaint procedures were available and that Mulla had not pursued an administrative appeal before seeking injunctive relief.

The balance of harms favored the University because an injunction would undermine the Medical School’s professional judgment and integrity, particularly before Mulla completed the University’s review process. The public-interest factor also favored the University because courts generally should not second-guess academic decisions, especially when the student received an investigation and hearing and had an avenue for appeal.

Disposition

The court held that Mulla had not met the requirements for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. It ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED. This order did not state a final disposition of Mulla’s underlying constitutional and state-law claims.