Delta Zeta Reportedly Sues DePauw

[ΑΓΔSquirrelGirl]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

As I understand it, DePauw did not have an official policy regarding releasing GLO members from their housing until AFTER the DZ incident. While no one condones the members being forced out on short notice, it should be noted that this was not against any University policy at the time it happened. Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is possible to do something which is WRONG, but not, for lack of a better term, illegal. DePauw also has a procedure in place to deal with both students and organizations which are in violation of university policies, and to the best of my knowledge they did not follow this in their handling of DZ.
No one looks good in this mess, but we need to distinguish between actions which we disapprove of and actions which may be illegal or in violation of established policies. The legal battle will be decided on a different criteria than the PR battle.
I think an important issue is whether or not an organization has the right to be boneheaded about handling their membership selection. As we've seen in the PR war, it carries its own penalty, without the University lifting a finger.
I imagine the next DZ convention will be far more interesting than most.

But what obligation legally is the university under to extend an invitation to a sorority to be recognized and then keep that no matter what? I just fail to see how DePauw or anyway school is obligated to recognize an organization, especially when they have brought continuous bad publicity and have been stubborn and obnoxious towards their host.

It isn't about membership selection. The only thing DePauw has done that is remotely related to membership selection is to make a rule that organizations can't dump those that they promised to treat as family out on their butts in the middle of a school year, unless there is a dangerous/legal issue involved (I would assume this means drugs, bodily harm, etc.). I fail to see how this is unfair. Maybe forcing organizations to plan far in advance when dealing with a situation such as the Delta chapter had will promote a more gentle and sisterly/brotherly attitude and force those in charge to have time to think about what they are doing.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by ΑΓΔSquirrelGirl

But what obligation legally is the university under to extend an invitation to a sorority to be recognized and then keep that no matter what? I just fail to see how DePauw or anyway school is obligated to recognize an organization, especially when they have brought continuous bad publicity and have been stubborn and obnoxious towards their host.

It isn't about membership selection. The only thing DePauw has done that is remotely related to membership selection is to make a rule that organizations can't dump those that they promised to treat as family out on their butts in the middle of a school year, unless there is a dangerous/legal issue involved (I would assume this means drugs, bodily harm, etc.). I fail to see how this is unfair. Maybe forcing organizations to plan far in advance when dealing with a situation such as the Delta chapter had will promote a more gentle and sisterly/brotherly attitude and force those in charge to have time to think about what they are doing.

Having recognized Delta Zeta, (a voluntary action on the part of DePauw) the school is bound by its own rules to treat it exactly as it said it would - through the University's self-written policies. That's why the policies are there in the first place - to ensure that all students and organization are treated equitably. Would any GLO want to go on at a college or university where they were subject to the whims of administrators? If so, those institutions which are anti-Greek (Cornell springs to mind) could just kick off the whole system without regard to the rights of the students and organizations. The students and organizations have obligations they must meet, as does the host institution. Again, I have yet to be presented with anything that shows that Delta Zeta received due process.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in DePauw kicking off DZ without due process because they "kicked out" (I know, I know) members without due process?
The policy - instituted AFTER the DZ debacle - that GLOs can't throw anyone out of the house mid-year is a good one. But it was not in place at the time Delta Zeta did so, and so Depauw can hardly say DZ did not meet their obligations. They can be upset, they can change the policy, but to throw out the chapter without going through the procedure THEY outline for transgressions by student organizations is to basically declare that the University is a dictatorship, not an institution built on a rule of law.
And whether or not a member is an active or an alumnae is indeed a membership issue. I married during college, and so became an alumna. Does the university have the right to say, no, she can remain active because we say so? I'd argue no - that is a membership issue for the GLO to decide.

[SWTXBelle]

Upon reading my previous post, I fear that I come off as too "pro-DZ" headquarters. That is not my intention. But I think it is dangerous to allow host institutions to throw out their own rule books when deciding how to deal with GLOs whose actions they do not approve of.
My earnest hope and prayer is that somehow this can be resolved before it goes to court. I don't see anyone really benefitting from a court battle. 'Cept the lawyers, of course.

[Kevin]

From a non-legal standpoint, I think Delta Zeta appears to be on its face hypocritical.

On the one hand, they had no problem giving their own members the boot without any sort of process which made sense to anyone.

On the other hand, they're complaining when Depauw, a private school seems to have done exactly the same thing to Delta Zeta.

Legally, I know I'd be misstating the theory, but it seems to me that some species of equitable estoppel might operate as a strong defense for the University.

That aside, also legally, I don't believe that (absent a contractual duty) Depauw has any obligation to follow its own policies with regard to any matter. Those policies may provide some sort of intra-organization decision-making framework, but policies of private organizations generally do not operate as contractual obligations to the outside world.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Having recognized Delta Zeta, (a voluntary action on the part of DePauw) the school is bound by its own rules to treat it exactly as it said it would - through the University's self-written policies. That's why the policies are there in the first place - to ensure that all students and organization are treated equitably. . . . The policy - instituted AFTER the DZ debacle - that GLOs can't throw anyone out of the house mid-year is a good one. But it was not in place at the time Delta Zeta did so, and so Depauw can hardly say DZ did not meet their obligations. They can be upset, they can change the policy, but to throw out the chapter without going through the procedure THEY outline for transgressions by student organizations is to basically declare that the University is a dictatorship, not an institution built on a rule of law.

As IvySpice said just a few posts ago, Delta Zeta really can't have a cause of action based on DePauw's failing to follow its internal policies.

Originally Posted by TSteven

If this case moves forward, do you - or any other legal folk - anticipate any legal repercussions that might affect other fraternal organizations? More to the point, could this case set some sort of negative precedent?

That's very hard to say without actually reading the complaint that has been filed and DePauw's motion to dismiss or answer, that will be filed. At this point, we are all only speculating as to what the allegations and actual claims are, and what DePauw's defenses (and counter-claims, if any) will be, since they are what lay out the issues that will be decided in this case.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That's very hard to say without actually reading the complaint that has been filed and DePauw's motion to dismiss or answer, that will be filed. At this point, we are all only speculating as to what the allegations and actual claims are, and what DePauw's defenses (and counter-claims, if any) will be, since they are what lay out the issues that will be decided in this case.

Thank you counselor. A few follow up questions if I may.

In your opinion, is this the type of case that might be tried before a jury? Or do you feel it will more likely be tried before a judge. Also, based on the merits as presented (real and perceived), what is your opinion on the case being outright dismissed?

[sherbertlemons]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Legally, I know I'd be misstating the theory, but it seems to me that some species of equitable estoppel might operate as a strong defense for the University.

That aside, also legally, I don't believe that (absent a contractual duty) Depauw has any obligation to follow its own policies with regard to any matter. Those policies may provide some sort of intra-organization decision-making framework, but policies of private organizations generally do not operate as contractual obligations to the outside world.

Okay, I'm curious. Can anyone with a legal background explain exactly what equitable estoppel is? I'm assuming it's something along the lines of it's unfair to hold people to standards you aren't willing to abide by yourself, but I know next to nothing about law.

Does anybody know what exactly happens when a new Greek org comes on campus? I know how expansion works, but are there any documents signed by the group, the school, and/or the local PHC? I just wonder if there is anything there that could become part of the case.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by sherbertlemons

Okay, I'm curious. Can anyone with a legal background explain exactly what equitable estoppel is? I'm assuming it's something along the lines of it's unfair to hold people to standards you aren't willing to abide by yourself, but I know next to nothing about law.

estoppel

equitable estoppel

A type of estoppel that bars a person from adopting a position in court that contradicts his or her past statements or actions when that contradictory stance would be unfair to another person who relied on the original position. For example, if a landlord agrees to allow a tenant to pay the rent ten days late for six months, it would be unfair to allow the landlord to bring a court action in the fourth month to evict the tenant for being a week late with the rent. The landlord would be estopped from asserting his right to evict the tenant for late payment of rent. Also known as estoppel in pais.

Originally Posted by sherbertlemons

Does anybody know what exactly happens when a new Greek org comes on campus? I know how expansion works, but are there any documents signed by the group, the school, and/or the local PHC? I just wonder if there is anything there that could become part of the case.

I would guess it depends on the school and what services they - the school - might provide. Housing as an example. I'm sure there are other areas covered like risk management etc.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by TSteven

Thank you counselor. A few follow up questions if I may.

In your opinion, is this the type of case that might be tried before a jury? Or do you feel it will more likely be tried before a judge. Also, based on the merits as presented (real and perceived), what is your opinion on the case being outright dismissed?

Whether or not the case would be tried before a jury would depend generally on (1) whether either party requests a jury and (2) whether the case presents questions of fact (which a jury or a judge, if there is no jury, can consider) or only questions of law (which are for a judge to decide). Even if there are questions of fact, if nobody requests a jury, it will be a bench trial.

And with no more knowledge than I have, it would be baseless to speculate on likelihood of dismissal.

Originally Posted by TSteven

estoppel

equitable estoppel . . . .

Very good job! And I think Kevin is right -- I'm not seeing how it could be applicable here.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Very good job! And I think Kevin is right -- I'm not seeing how it could be applicable here.

I was trying to frame a legal theory for "What comes around goes around." We'd have to call it "equitable estoppal as to third parties."

It sounds like it should exist, but it doesn't.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sherbertlemons

Okay, I'm curious. Can anyone with a legal background explain exactly what equitable estoppel is? I'm assuming it's something along the lines of it's unfair to hold people to standards you aren't willing to abide by yourself, but I know next to nothing about law.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply. I researched some cases. I couldn't really find anything where equitable estoppal to third parties was something that ever worked.

Move on, nothing to see here