Class Action Suit

[G Costanza]

I consider myself a reasonable person. I think I'm smart and I work very hard in school. I have yet to apply for internship but I know when the time comes, I have about a 50% chance of matching to an APA site. That's ridiculous.

If I don't match my first year, I'll be angry, upset, and probably want to quit. If I don't match the second time around, I'll be livid. The hoops that we have to jump through to become a licensed psychologist are unreasonable at best. With stringent APA site qualifications and an increasing student pool, we are headed to the point of collapse. This should have been fixed long ago and now 1,000's of students are left without a voice and a diploma.

I am not familiar with the details of the law, but I wonder if we are headed towards a class action lawsuit. APA has been "hearing" our concerns but doing nothing. They continue to allow a broken system claim the careers of our peers. We spend tens of thousands of dollars with an expectation to graduate yet are unable to do so because APA, APPIC, and our programs are taking in money hand over fist and refuses to do anything about it. If you think it won't happen to you than you haven't popped your head out of the sand. How long will we just cross our fingers hoping to match rather than standing up for our right to graduate. We work hard, play by their rules, and they tell us, "Sorry, you didn't match. Try again next year." I'm fed up with a system that invites us into their home, charges rent, and then won't let us leave. This isn't the Hotel California.

Who can help us have a voice? Is a class action suit a possibility? Who knows a class action lawyer?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

Someone posted about this in the APPIC thread and said that there isn't really a good case. Dunno their credentials, but they sounded like they knew their stuff.

You could always sue your university for failing to give you a degree when you've completed the requirements and they cannot provide you with the last requirement that you need. Or so people have said.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I consider myself a reasonable person. I think I'm smart and I work very hard in school. I have yet to apply for internship but I know when the time comes, I have about a 50% chance of matching to an APA site. That's ridiculous.

If I don't match my first year, I'll be angry, upset, and probably want to quit. If I don't match the second time around, I'll be livid. The hoops that we have to jump through to become a licensed psychologist are unreasonable at best. With stringent APA site qualifications and an increasing student pool, we are headed to the point of collapse. This should have been fixed long ago and now 1,000's of students are left without a voice and a diploma.

I am not familiar with the details of the law, but I wonder if we are headed towards a class action lawsuit. APA has been "hearing" our concerns but doing nothing. They continue to allow a broken system claim the careers of our peers. We spend tens of thousands of dollars with an expectation to graduate yet are unable to do so because APA, APPIC, and our programs are taking in money hand over fist and refuses to do anything about it. If you think it won't happen to you than you haven't popped your head out of the sand. How long will we just cross our fingers hoping to match rather than standing up for our right to graduate. We work hard, play by their rules, and they tell us, "Sorry, you didn't match. Try again next year." I'm fed up with a system that invites us into their home, charges rent, and then won't let us leave. This isn't the Hotel California.

Who can help us have a voice? Is a class action suit a possibility? Who knows a class action lawyer?

IANAL, but I'm almost certain that there is no case against APA and most definitely not against APPIC.

APA is basically a guild with voluntary membership. APA has no obligation to you in regards to your education and training. The only case I could see against them would if, in their role as an accrediting body, they knowingly accredited a training program that didn't actually meet the published standards, and you enrolled in the program and suffered damages as a result of the "false-pretext" accreditation.

APPIC runs the match- their obligations to you, as a paying participant, start and end with assuring that your applications are distributed and rank lists are evaluated according to their policies. I think anger directed at them is, as pointed out in other threads, misdirected.

You may have an ethical, though I doubt legal, case against your training program, but only if they failed to deliver on their end of the contract. If they have promised an internship or in any way mislead students about what it takes to actually complete the program, their might be some impetus for action. Ultimately, if students have access to the information about the internship process, program match-rates, info on APA accreditation, etc., it could likely be argued (legally-not ethically) that they should have known what they were getting into. Basically, your contract with the training program is usually something along the lines of "if you complete the requirements, pay your tuition, follow the rules/standard, we'll give you a degree." Somewhere in the not so fine print I'm sure that it says that completing a department approved external pre-doc internship is part of the requirements.

 

[psychgeek]

Let me preface this by saying that I do not know the first thing about class actions or mass torts except that they are really complicated and the federal court system frowns upon them. Also, I am not a lawyer, so you should probably talk to an actual lawyer if you want something that amounts to more than an informed layman's opinion.

That said, I am having a hard time seeing why anything anyone has done here opens them up to legal liability. There is a difference between doing something that is wrong and doing something that makes you legally liable. What the APA has done is wrong. They have failed to take steps to ensure that the number of internship positions grows at a rate equal to the number of applicants. Although wrong, I don't see how the APA is legally responsible for the independent decisions of either doctoral programs (who have increased enrollment) or training sites (who have declined to continue or start training programs). I don't think the APA (or anyone else) has misrepresented match data or made promises about applicants' ability to get an internship. There probably isn't any sort of collusion between APA and the sites to prevent people from matching. It is hard to say that the APA acted in an obviously unreasonable way to cause the internship imbalance. The fact that they have done a horrible job of addressing a problem created by the decisions of others doesn't automatically mean that they can be sued. Incompetence is still legal.


I don't intend my skepticism about a legal remedy to discourage a different sort of response or to invalidate peoples' anger. This system is horribly broken, and people have every right to be angry. I just don't think that the legal route is the one most likely to effect change.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

You can sue for anything...whether there is a case....that is up to the judge. Much like the financial crisis, there are multiple players involved in the process, and there is enough difuse accountability that it is hard to make anything stick.

I'd love to see a lawsuit come out, as I think that would provide some clarity to the situation. Of course the 'result' may not be in the student's favor, as a ruling could establish precedence for the limits to what a program, APA, APPIC, and associated bodies can be held accountable for in the eyes of the court system.

 

[G Costanza]

So that's it then? No one that can fix the problem is willing and those that are willing are unable to fix it.

What's the breaking point? A match rate of 40%...30% before people stop applying to programs?

We need someone to come forward with a plan. We need a leader that can unite our cause so we can move from complaining to action.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

So that's it then? No one that can fix the problem is willing and those that are willing are unable to fix it.

What's the breaking point? A match rate of 40%...30% before people stop applying to programs?

We need someone to come forward with a plan. We need a leader that can unite our cause so we can move from complaining to action.

There's a petition thread in this very forum that is broaching many of the problems related to the internship situation. In that thread, there's mention of a facebook group, attempts to get the information re-tweeted by the NY Times, and attempts to setup a respectful/nonviolent protest at the upcoming APA conference.

 

[psychgeek]

You can sue for anything.

Actually, you can't. You have to have some statute, contract, property claim, or common law tort allowing suit.

...whether there is a case....that is up to the judge. .

Actually, it isn't. A judge can exercise limited discretion regarding sufficiency of claims when it is kind of a borderline call, but most matters regarding the sufficiency of a claim are settled matters of law in which a judge can exercise almost no discretion.

I'd love to see a lawsuit come out, as I think that would provide some clarity to the situation. Of course the 'result' may not be in the student's favor, as a ruling could establish precedence for the limits to what a program, APA, APPIC, and associated bodies can be held accountable for in the eyes of the court system.

Unless there is a claim upon which relief may be granted, none of this would happen. The case would be dismissed on procedural grounds.

I know people want this to be equivalent to the law school cases, but it isn't. In the law school cases there is evidence that the schools intentionally manipulated data to inflate employment statistics. Here there is no misrepresentation. The effect is the same (unemployed professionals), but the way it would be looked at by the courts is different.

Here are the relevant parts of the claim against the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. If anyone can figure out how to make the internship imbalance equivalent, please let me know. I don't see it.

First cause of action - Violation of the CA Unfair Competition Law

75. The Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits “unfair competition,” which is
defined by Business and Professions Code section 17200 as including “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. . . .“ The UCL also provides for injunctive relief and restitution for violations.

76. The material misrepresentations and acts of concealment by TJSL are unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices prohibited by the UCL.

Second cause of action - Violation of the CA False Advertising Act

83. The False Advertising Act makes it is unlawful to “make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the public [a statement] which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading” with the intent to “induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto.” Such statements include statements made through “any advertising device,” including “over the Internet.”

84. Under Business & Professions Code section 17500 et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to enjoin TJSL’s wrongful practices and to obtain restitution for the monies paid to TJSL by reason of TJSL’ s unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive acts and practices.

85. TJSL violated Business & Professions Code section 17500 et seq. by making or disseminating or causing to be made or disseminated false and misleading statements in U.S. News & World Report’s “Best Graduate Schools” publication, on its website, and in its marketing brochures.

86. These misleading statements concerned post-graduation employment statistics, among others. These false and misleading statements were made with the intent to induce the general public, including Plaintiff and the Class, to enroll at TJSL.

Third cause of action - Fraud

91. As part of its fraudulent marketing program, TJSL engaged in a pattern and practice of knowingly and intentionally making numerous false representations of material fact, and material omissions, with the intent to deceive and/or induce reliance by Plaintiff and the Class.

Fourth cause of action - Violation of the CA Consumer Legal Remedies Act

106. Under California Civil Code section 1750 et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to enjoin TJSL’s wrongful practices by reason of TJSL’s unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive acts and practices.

107. The Consumer Legal Remedies Act prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale of goods and services.

108. TJSL violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act by misrepresenting to Plaintiff and members of the Class TJSL’s post-graduation employment rates.

Fifth cause of action - Negligent Misrepresentation

114. TJSL made uniform and identical material written representations regarding students’ post-graduation employment rates. TJSL also omitted to disclose the material facts alleged herein. When TJSL made these representations and omissions, TJSL had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true.

115. Plaintiff and each member of the Class relied on these negligent representations before enrolling at TJSL and relied on these misrepresentations in deciding to so enroll.

 

[cara susanna]

Ah, psychgeek, there you are. I think you were the one I was referring to in my post.

 

[G Costanza]

Let me preface this by saying that I do not know the first thing about class actions or mass torts except that they are really complicated and the federal court system frowns upon them. Also, I am not a lawyer, so you should probably talk to an actual lawyer if you want something that amounts to more than an informed layman's opinion.

That said, I am having a hard time seeing why anything anyone has done here opens them up to legal liability. There is a difference between doing something that is wrong and doing something that makes you legally liable. What the APA has done is wrong. They have failed to take steps to ensure that the number of internship positions grows at a rate equal to the number of applicants. Although wrong, I don't see how the APA is legally responsible for the independent decisions of either doctoral programs (who have increased enrollment) or training sites (who have declined to continue or start training programs). I don’t think the APA (or anyone else) has misrepresented match data or made promises about applicants' ability to get an internship. There probably isn't any sort of collusion between APA and the sites to prevent people from matching. It is hard to say that the APA acted in an obviously unreasonable way to cause the internship imbalance. The fact that they have done a horrible job of addressing a problem created by the decisions of others doesn't automatically mean that they can be sued. Incompetence is still legal.


I don't intend my skepticism about a legal remedy to discourage a different sort of response or to invalidate peoples' anger. This system is horribly broken, and people have every right to be angry. I just don't think that the legal route is the one most likely to effect change.

Doesn't APA have a responsibility to only accredit programs that allow all of the students an opportunity to go on internship? Shouldn't that be part of thier approval process...that students can indeed graduate? If an APA program is allowed to accept 120 students a year and APA is not accrediting enough sites to match that output, APA has created a system that knowingly and unreasonably makes graduation impossible.

APA is putting their stamp of approval programs that dump 100+ students into a market that can only support 10. If banks were reckless in loaning people money for home loans, APA is guilty of reckless accreditation.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Actually, you can't. You have to have some statute, contract, property claim, or common law tort allowing suit.

I was being facetious. I'm not a lawyer, but I had to learn quite a bit of contract law in my prior career...so I'll take a stab at this.

I'd posit there is grounds for breach of contract. All of the tenets of a contract are present: Offer (by the program), Acceptance (by the student), Considerations (student met their obligations of course work, TA'ing, RA'ing, tuition, etc. However, the university failed to uphold their side of the agreement because they are unable/unwilling to provide a degree to the student). Both parties would be competent, able to consent, and the agreement is not violating any existing laws/statutes/etc.

Actually, it isn't. A judge can exercise limited discretion regarding sufficiency of claims when it is kind of a borderline call, but most matters regarding the sufficiency of a claim are settled matters of law in which a judge can exercise almost no discretion.

, again. Yes...judges frequently toss out claims, and for a myriad of reasons, including procedural misteps. However, in instances where there may be a case, then they will hear further arguments. There have been cases that have been heard with far less merit.

I know people want this to be equivalent to the law school cases, but it isn't. In the law school cases there is evidence that the schools intentionally manipulated data to inflate employment statistics. Here there is no misrepresentation. The effect is the same (unemployed professionals), but the way it would be looked at by the courts is different.

There has been documented inconsistancies in disclosure of university Educational Outcome data. I don't have the citation in front of me, but I have it on my home network somewhere. In addition to some law schools, there are also some for-profit 'schools' (not necessarily within Psychology) that have been cited for manipulation of data to inflate their status via bogus job placement rates. Career Education Corp. is a pretty recent example. It wouldn't be a huge leap to try and make a case for 'intentional manipulation' of outcome data....including internship data, since that is a requirement for graduation and eventual employment. There have been multiple lawsuits against a number of 'schools' for misleading advertising and coersive practices. I haven't kept up with them, but I'm sure someone can dig up a couple of examples.

I have to finish up my reports, but I'll check back later/tomorrow.

 

[deliciousgoose]

I wouldn't expect you to be able to sue your university if they have had consistent match rates. For example if they have a match rate of 75%, then odds are you will get a match after two rounds, but there is certainly no statistical guarantee.

The only way you could sue your program is if you could prove that the reason you didn't match was because of some intentional or avoidable failure on the part of the program.

IMO the internship crisis is really due to two factors. The first is for-profit professional psychology schools taking lots of money from students but not preparing them adequately enough to match. This is a big problem in the USA at the undergraduate and graduate level, and is not specific to psychology. The second is the deflation in the value of education. Increasingly senior degrees are becoming decreasingly useful. Psychology is especially plagued by this problem as it is interesting and arguably more accessible than other sciences and even social sciences. When the majority of individuals have an undergraduate degree (at least in my province) and a disproportionate number of degrees are in psychology, and when an undergraduate degree is becoming increasingly useless in the job market, it is not surprising that many individuals are looking to pursue graduate studies in the field of the undergraduate major.

The only thing, then to sue, is the cultural stigma surrounding trade training which has lead to the deflation in the value of a university education.

Essentially from a job and graduate perspective: Supply = Demand.

 

[psychgeek]

I'd posit there is grounds for breach of contract. All of the tenets of a contract are present: Offer (by the program), Acceptance (by the student), Considerations (student met their obligations of course work, TA'ing, RA'ing, tuition, etc. However, the university failed to uphold their side of the agreement because they are unable/unwilling to provide a degree to the student). Both parties would be competent, able to consent, and the agreement is not violating any existing laws/statutes/etc..

I think contract would be the least likely avenue for recovery. There are a TON of problems with claiming that a student has entered into a contract with their graduate school to provide them with an internship. Most notable among them is that it simply isn't true. No reasonable student believes that their program will give them an internship if they fulfill their duties as a student.

Even if we set that aside arguendo, there is no offer of an internship. The offer of acceptance into graduate school is expressed rather than implied. There is an actual offer in writing that is signed and returned. Nothing in that offer says anything about providing you with an internship. Nothing in that offer says anything about providing you with a degree. In all likelihood, nothing in that offer says anything about providing you with an opportunity for a degree. The offer likely gave you a position in the class and nothing more. In exchange, you likely agreed to pay money. You did pay money (or your TA position provided them with money), and you did recieve the position in the class. Thus, there is no breach.

, again. Yes...judges frequently toss out claims, and for a myriad of reasons, including procedural misteps. However, in instances where there may be a case, then they will hear further arguments. There have been cases that have been heard with far less merit...

So far there isn't a cause of action, and without fail judges throw out claims that fail to specify one for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As for your second point, it depends upon what you mean by "merit." Less deserving plaintiffs have won court cases, but nobody has yet gotten to trial without mentioning a legally cognizable claim. If you were able to do so, it would be the least meritorious claim to ever reach trial.

There has been documented inconsistancies in disclosure of university Educational Outcome data. I don't have the citation in front of me, but I have it on my home network somewhere. In addition to some law schools, there are also some for-profit 'schools' (not necessarily within Psychology) that have been cited for manipulation of data to inflate their status via bogus job placement rates. Career Education Corp. is a pretty recent example. It wouldn't be a huge leap to try and make a case for 'intentional manipulation' of outcome data....including internship data, since that is a requirement for graduation and eventual employment. There have been multiple lawsuits against a number of 'schools' for misleading advertising and coersive practices. I haven't kept up with them, but I'm sure someone can dig up a couple of examples.

I have to finish up my reports, but I'll check back later/tomorrow.

CEC is accused of misrepresenting employment data. The law schools who have been sued are accused of doing the same. If there is any evidence of misrepresentation of match statistics, then there would me a much better basis for a suit. You say that it "wouldn't be a huge leap to try and make a case for intentional manipulation of outcome data including internship data." Actually, that is a huge leap. So far nobody has suggested either manipulation or intent. Why are either one of these implied by a program's failure to place students through the match when they accurately report this failure in all of the ways required by their accrediting body? All that has been alleged is that schools and the APA have done a bad job of managing the internship imbalance.

 

[DrSchizoid]

To add insult to injury, once you end up doing an internship that is not accredited by APA or APPIC, hardly anyone will hire you because you are not meeting their standards.

I think we should sue APA.