United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W.MOSMAN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before me on Defendant Reed College's
(“Reed” or the “College”) Motion for
Summary Judgment. I heard oral argument on the Motion on
November 30, 2018. After careful consideration, I GRANT
Reed's Motion  and dismiss Plaintiff Andrew
Choi's (“Choi”) claims with prejudice.
enrolled in Reed's four-year bachelor degree program in
2009. [49 at ¶ 5]. Choi is disabled due to Attention
Deficit Disorder (“ADD”). [Id. at
¶¶16, 18]. Shortly after he started at Reed, Choi
formally requested accommodations due to his ADD-related
disability from the College's Disability Support Services
(“DSS”) office. [Id.]. Choi provided the
DSS office with medical records establishing his ADD
diagnosis and explained that he would “from time to
time” need disability related accommodations like extra
time for exams and to complete assignments. [Id. at
¶ 16]. Each semester that Choi attended Reed, he
provided the DSS office with medical documentation of his ADD
diagnosis and requested accommodation for his ADD-related
disability. [Id. at ¶ 18; 63-1 at
2012, when Choi was a student in one of political science
professor Mariela Szwarcberg Daby's seminars, he went to
her house for a party and they had sex. [49, ¶¶ 35,
41, 44]. Weeks later, Daby became Choi's thesis advisor.
[Id. at 46]. Daby and Choi had sex again in the
summer of 2013. [Id. at ¶¶ 47-48].
the summer of 2013, Choi and Daby worked together to apply
for the Alta S. Corbett Grant for Research. [49 at ¶
128]. Daby planned to use the Corbett Grant to write a book
about voting, and Choi hoped to earn a publishing credit as
her research and writing assistant. [Id. at
¶¶ 130, 129]. Even though Choi provided original
content, Daby did not acknowledge his contributions.
[Id.at ¶¶ 136, 139, 142-143].
early September 2013, Daby ended her sexual relationship with
Choi but told him she would remain his thesis advisor. [49 at
¶¶ 49-53]. Around the time their sexual
relationship ended, Choi complained to political science
professor Darius Rejali (“Rejali”) that he had
interpersonal difficulties working with Daby and expressed
concerns about his ability to complete his thesis with Daby
as his advisor. [Id.]. Rejali reported Choi's
concerns to the Dean of Faculty Nigel Nicholson
(“Nicholson”). He also suggested Choi tell Paul
Gronke, another political science professor who Choi had
chosen to serve on his thesis panel, about Daby.
[Id. at ¶¶ 58-59]. Choi met with Gronke.
[Id. at ¶ 61]. When complaining about Daby,
Choi did not tell Rejali, Gronke, or anyone else about their
sexual relationship. [63-1 at pp. 101:14-25, 103:16]. Neither
Nicholson nor Gronke responded to Choi's fall 2013
complaints about Daby. [49 at ¶¶ 60, 62].
delivered a final draft of his thesis by the December 10,
2013, due date. [49. at ¶ 70]. Daby signed off
on the draft. Choi was scheduled to defend his thesis in an
oral exam on December 12, 2019. [Id. at ¶ 71].
Choi, however, did not attend his oral exam due to a severe
nosebleed, which he described as a “medical
emergency” related to his hemorrhagic telangiectasia,
another disabling condition from which Choi suffered.
[Id. at ¶¶ 72, 76, 78]. Daby did not
reschedule Choi's oral examination. [Id. at
¶ 77]. Instead, she sent him an email revoking her sign
off on his thesis, telling him he would not be able to
graduate because he did not defend his thesis, and urging him
to think of this as “an opportunity to improve his
thesis.” [Id. at ¶ 83].
Choi received conflicting information about the deadline for
submitting the second draft of his thesis. Daby told him
January 22, 2014, and Marc Fowler, Reed's thesis advisor,
told him January 27, 2014. [49 at ¶¶ 91-92]. When
Choi attempted to turn in his thesis on January 27, 2014,
Reed's Registrar Nora McLaughlin
(“McLaughlin”) told him that she could not accept
his draft because he had missed the deadline. [Id.
at ¶¶94, 95]. McLaughlin told him he had failed his
thesis and would not graduate. [Id.]. On the same
day, Gronke rejected a paper for his “PS 333
class” that Gronke had given Choi an extension to
complete because the paper was “a couple hours
late.” [Id. at ¶ 98].
continued to communicate with various employees and
administrators at Reed to request accommodations for his
thesis and PS 333 class well into 2014. In April 2014,
Choi's father emailed administrators at Reed about the
lack of response to Choi's requests, “regardless of
. . . Andrew not being a student at this time.” [49 at
¶ 105]. Reed did not open any investigation in response
to Choi's father's email. [Id. at ¶
106]. In an early April 2014 email Rajali told Choi that the
faculty code indicated Choi could complete his degree by
returning to Reed for one semester and submitting another
thesis on a new topic. [Id. at ¶ 110]. Choi
choose not to return to Reed in 2014 to submit another
thesis. [Id.at ¶ 113].
judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). The initial burden for a motion for summary judgment
is on the moving party to identify the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once that burden is satisfied, the
burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate, through
the production of evidence, that there remains a
“genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477
U.S. at 324. The non-moving party may not rely upon the
pleading allegations, Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint
Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P 56(e)), or “unsupported conjecture or
conclusory statements, ” Hernandez v. Spacelabs
Med. Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003). All
reasonable doubts and inferences to be drawn from the facts
are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
Oregon, “[t]o state a breach of contract claim, [a]
plaintiff must allege the existence of a contract, ‘its
relevant terms, plaintiff's full performance and lack of
breach, and defendant's breach resulting in damage to
plaintiff.'” Slover v. Oregon State Bd. of
Clinical Social Workers, 144 Or.App. 565, 570-71 (1996)
(citing Fleming v. Kids and Kin Head Start, 71
Or.App. 718, 721 (1985). Unjust enrichment is an equitable
remedy. Comcast of Or. II, Inc. v. City of Eugene,
346 Or. 238, 253, 209 P.3d 800, (2009). The “generally
accepted test which determines whether a ...