Plagiarism episode ends badly for chemistry grad student at UNLV
From the unpublished CA9 opinion [ 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6371 ]
Gamage argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants because she raised genuine issues of material fact about whether she plagiarized a draft of her dissertation. We disagree. Gamage admitted that she failed to conform to the University of Nevada - Las Vegas's plagiarism policy in parts of her dissertation and that she made "mistakes." She received more process than was due. See, e.g., Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581, 95 S. Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1975) (holding that procedural due process requires that a student suspended for disciplinary reasons "be given oral or written notice of the charges against [her] and, if [she] denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present [her] side of the story.").1
The underlying case [ 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184162 ]
had named a chemistry professor:
In 42 U.S.C. §1983 actions, qualified immunity protects a government official sued in his personal capacity from civil liability when performing discretionary acts, so long as those acts do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982).
See also KAASS LAW, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, 799 F.3d 1290; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15127