On the Blogs
-
News
Special Report: DPS Oversight Committee may be in violation of state law
-
The Statement
-
The Statement
About Campus: The law student "party" house behind West Quad
-
The Statement
-
News
Prof. once denied meeting with MSA execs about DPS Oversight Committee, airs issues at meeting
-
The Statement
-
Men's Basketball
-
Bside
Printmaker Takeshi Takahara: mixing metal and acid to make beauty
-
Bside
Lila Kalick: Hippie hash, spunky clientele and greasy spooning at Fleetwood Diner
-
Men's Basketball
Comments
Anon: thanks for pointing that out. Very interesting article. You sound like a lawyer. If you are in need of a secretary, as I am fascinated with the law, post a missed connections in A2 craigslist. Gotta do what ya gotta do in today's economy!
Hallie: The defendants' motion for summary judgement, which you summarized and provided a link to, is definitely NOT the best place to find an unbiased account. If you a more detailed picture of what actually happened, read this:
http://www.allbusiness.com/11717369-1.html
The pdf can be found here: http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/pdf/DefendantsMotion.pdf
Ah, the power of the media!
The article did not provide both sides of the story. I suggest you read the actual court documents which can be found by googling the plaintiff's name. It's a real eye opener.
The student was NOT dismissed on the basis of her disability. She was given ample opportunity to remediate her many failed course/clinical exams and was on the Dental School's "Warned List" numerous times. She could have been dismissed for those reasons, however the Dental School gave her ADDITIONAL opportunities to improve her clinical exams, including offering her an additonal TERM to improve, which was above and beyond what the Dental School rules dictated.
The main reason she was dismissed, as you will read in the pdf above, was that she continued to provide LESS than adequate dental procedures to clinic patients, i.e., letting a patient gag six times after having been repeatedly guided by the attending professor not to, who had to finish the procedure for Zwick. The two professors who resigned from the Dental School did so because they didn't agree Ms. Zwick should take her clinical exams in a private setting, unlike the other Dental Students who took them in the regular Clinic setting, since that is not how the REAL WORLD Dental Profession works.
Dr. Marilyn Lantz, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, went all out to help Zwick, only to be accused later of not helping her at all. Zwick's suit was ultimately, a greedy affair.
Hallie, the "actual court document" you posted a link to is "defendant's motion for summary judgement", the statement written by the counsel (Dickinson Wright PLLC) for the defendants.
Translation: a law firm hired by the defendants maligning the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants and listed all plausible excuses for what they did.
What else could be possibly in this document, an admission of guilt? That would be the day.
As to seeing "both sides of the story", this is what courts are for. Apparently they looked and did not like what they saw.
This is disturbing. As an alum, I'm embarrassed at the way the University is treating persons with disabilities. The attempt to side-step the ADA on the Stadium Renovations and now this?
I think the real question we should ask is not about the legal procedures but why the Dentistry Administration dismissed the student on the basis of her disability in the first place. Isn't that exactly what the ADA was enacted to prevent? Furthermore, what is the global message UM is sending to all students with disabilities?
UM's motive to settle out of court is that it gets to expunge the legal judgement against the school & institution - & the illusion of an 'spotless record' can maintained (however risibly). Ms. Zwick, on the other hand, has two possible motives to settle: a larger &/or a quicker payout.
What are the lessons for the Dental School administration, & how will this case change how the place is run? (I.e., how can the grievance be avoided in the 1st place?)
"expunge" a civil judgment? ain't no such thing. you're erroneously confusing criminal and civil law procedures.
The question we should be asking is why didn't the Universities own grievance policy work to prevent this problem? It was precedent setting for the jury to give $1 million in punitive damages. They must have found the Universities behavior deserving of punishment. The taxpayers are now responsible to pay for the settlement because the University faculty misbehaved and the Universities grievance policy did not work. What now will happen to the Dean and faculty members who misbehaved and will the University administration learn anything from this? Let's demand a review of the grievance procedures and make procedures that work!!
Have you ever served on a jury? You get weirdos who don't listen to facts but use it as an opportunity to make other people listen to their theories about all sorts of crackpot stuff, others with axes to grind, and some people who don't care about the verdict, they just want to get done.
It's "University's".
And nobody misbehaved. This gal is a paranoid kook. Thankfully she will not be injuring anyone's teeth for a living. Can't figure out how she got accepted in the 1st place. Grades and test scores do not equal technical ability and emotional maturity.
Post new comment