A Pennsylvania judge has denied an appeal by a man suing Kansas University for defamation and retaliation.
Craig Marten, a former student in the university's nontraditional pharmacy doctoral program, filed a suit against the university several years ago after he was dismissed from the program.
He argued that his dismissal for plagiarism was retaliation for a complaint he made against the program and its professors, according to court filings.
"Essentially, he's arguing he was retaliated against for bringing forward a complaint that should be a public concern," said Stanley B. Cheiken, Marten's attorney.
The program allows students around the country to complete a pharmacy degree through KU. In Marten's case, he was doing the work from his home in Pennsylvania.
In last week's ruling, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision and determined that the U.S. district court in Pennsylvania had no jurisdiction over Kansas University or any of the professors in the program.
Marten, according to the court filing, regularly complained about the grades he received on assignments, and eventually escalated his complaints to Ronald Ragan, director of the program.
Marten said that Ragan later called and threatened to have him expelled from the program.
It was the following fall when Marten was expelled for plagiarism after two instances of including unattributed work in his papers, according to court documents.
KU argued that because the program is in Kansas and all the individual defendants are in Kansas, a district court in Pennsylvania has no jurisdiction in this case.
Without addressing the facts of the case, first the district court and then the appeals court ruled that KU was correct and the district court in eastern Pennsylvania did not have jurisdiction.
KU had no other comment Tuesday.
Cheiken said that he had no comment on whether his client would choose to pursue the case in another district that might have jurisdiction, such as the Kansas district.
Marten could pursue an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but, Cheiken said, as a practical matter, the Supreme Court hears very few cases.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
toefungus (anonymous) says…
Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
Informed (anonymous) says…
The dude cheats and then cries "foul" when he's caught?
staff04 (anonymous) says…
The rules on plagiarism, as I understand it in most schools, are exceptionally easy to use against someone.
At what point does one's knowledge become their own, not needing citation? If a professor DID want to go after and individual, it would be very easy--I'm not suggesting that that is what happened here, but a current colleague of mine just won a case against her graduate school in which a professor reported that she had self-plagiarized from a paper she had previously written for a different class.
bevy (anonymous) says…
"self-plagiarized"?!? Reminds me of the military gal who got in trouble for taking an old pain prescription for a new toothache.
Or the John Fogarty thing
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiari...
"In 1994 John Fogerty was sued for self plagiarism after leaving Fantasy Records and pursuing a solo career with Warner Brothers. Fantasy still owned the rights to the CCR library and sound. Saul Zaentz, the owner of Fantasy, claimed Fogerty's song "Old Man Down the Road" was a musical copy of the Creedence song "Run Through the Jungle." The court made a landmark decision when it ruled that an artist cannot plagiarize himself."
Notice how I cited the source...