Capella University Lawsuits

In yet another brazen act of complete stupidity, Capella University has filed a lawsuit against their own insurance company, Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company (ERSIC). Apparently ERSIC has refused to pay for Capella's sleazy and groundless legal actions against the student who is suing Capella. Details will be posted at:

Capella University vs. Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Co.

All available court records pertaining to this matter may be found at:

Capella University vs. Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Co. Court Dockets

Posted by Truth at 06:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to court materials just published on the Internet a few moments ago, the Plaintiff who filed the discrimination lawsuit against Capella University, has now filed a document with the court alleging the “defendant’s noncompliance with local [court] rules.” As has already been noted, Capella’s defense attorney’s were threatened, a few weeks ago, with sanctions for their failure to submit required documents to the court. That story currently appears at:

Capella Needs Extra Time & Still Can't Get it Right!

We have also just reported that one of their attorneys, Stella Fey Epling, appears to have committed perjury – now this?! We wonder what it could be?

In the event that Capella’s attorneys have violated the courts rules again, we can only hope that the judge will subject Capella University to the harshest sanctions possible – after all, they’re only had to submit two sets of documents to the court and an initial hearing hasn’t even been held!

We’ll certainly keep readers apprised of this breaking story!

Continue reading "Has Capella University’s Defense Violated Court Rules Again?" »

Posted by Truth at 05:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It appears as if Stella Fey Epling, an attorney with the law firm of Drinker Biddle that is representing Capella University in the current discrimination lawsuit that has been filed against them, has committed an act of perjury!

To date, Epling and her partner in the case, H. Christian L’Orange, have filed just two sets of documents with the United States District Court, California Central District, pertaining to the lawsuit. Because the first set of documents failed to comply with the local rules of the court, Epling and L’Orange were threatened with sanctions - now, we believe, Epling has intentionally lied to the court!

Specifically, Epling stated in a personal declaration she made to the court on October 31, 2005, that:

"I am familiar with Plaintiff’s websites [sic] – www.capellauniversity.org and www.capellanazis.com. In or around July 2005 I first visited those sites and reviewed disparaging statements about Capella. Shortly thereafter, my access and the access of all computers, nationwide, at my law firm was revoked. After attaching documents to the counterclaim which were printed from another remote computer I used to access the sites, I was no longer able to access the sites from that IP address. I have observed that plaintiff appears to update his websites [sic] continuously.

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 31st day of October 2005, in San Francisco, California."

The fact of the matter is that one of those sites, http://www.capellanazis.com did not, and could not have existed until on or after October 8, 2005 when the domain was purchased. Epling, on the other hand, states that she first visited it in or around July 2005. Of course, that would have been impossible for her to do.

Additional information about this breaking story may be found at: Stella Fey Epling: Perjurer? Hypocrite? Cry Baby?

Posted by Truth at 04:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We believe he has! In fact, in a declaration to the United States District Court, California Central District, dated October 31, 2005, regarding the current discrimination lawsuit against Capella University, Michael Offerman specifically stated that,

“I do not participate, nor have I ever [sic] in discrimination. I have never been involved in any lawsuit regarding a faculty member or instructional staff.”

The fact is, Offerman was a key figure in a lawsuit that went before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Markel v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. While details of that case may be found on the Internet at FindLaw.com, we would like to note the following excerpt:

“. . .Markel's supervisors were Michael Offerman, the Dean and Director of UWLI, and Philip LaForge, Marketing Manager.

“In April 1999, Offerman and LaForge were informed that Markel, Richard Schafer, and Jeffery Sledge were involved with a competing company, called Learning W@rks, and were trying to recruit UWLI employees to staff it. A meeting occurred at a restaurant among the employees, supposedly to recruit John Ashley and discuss business strategy. Offerman, together with LaForge and Holly Breitkreutz, Associate Dean & Director of UWLI, went to the restaurant and saw four employees there, seated together. After the meeting, when Ashley returned to the office, Offerman confronted him. Ashley told Offerman the business plan and gave him some documents from the new business.

“It seems that the employees intended to take advantage of Schafer's connection, through his wife, to an existing enterprise called Leadership Online, which performed services similar to that of UWLI. They also planned to use Sledge's involvement with a nonprofit company called Learning Works Group. Learning Works Group, because of its connections to former University regents, appeared to be affiliated with the University. Apparently, Leadership Online was supposed to take over Learning Works Group and use some of its' name recognition and inferred associations with the University to attract business.

“In May 1999, armed with this information, Offerman and Breitkreutz confronted Markel. They asked Markel about her involvement with Learning W@rks, and gave her written notice of the charges of dismissal and a chance to respond. Offerman told her that in order to avoid dismissal she needed to either write out and sign a statement outlining what she knew about the new business or resign. Markel refused to sign a statement and said she would need to consult with an attorney before answering Offerman's questions. The meeting ended, and Markel was forced to cease work immediately and return all UWLI property.”

While the case was eventually dismissed because Markel's contract had expired, we believe that the facts speak for themselves. For Offerman to claim that he has “never been involved in any lawsuit regarding a faculty member or instructional staff” is an outright lie.

Posted by Truth at 05:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The amount of naivety and ignorance regarding the rights of those with disabilities is extremely disturbing. Take, for example, a recent post that appeared at DigitalStakeholders.org.

"As I read it I had to laugh. The student who is filing the lawsuit wants to get a degree in Information Technology Systems Design! If the student can not figure out WebCT how is he going to make it in the real world?"

The individual who posted the comment is, obviously, completely oblivious to the facts surrounding the case as well as the needs of real "Digital Stakeholders" to be provided with fully accessible web applications. One can only feel sorry for the individual making these remarks as he/she is completely clueless. Let's set the facts straight:

1. The student who filed the lawsuit was just three (3) courses away from completing a second master's degree in system design and programming.
2. The student had earned a 4.0 (e.g., "straight A's") in all courses being applied to that degree up until the time that WebCT was implemented at Capella.
3. The lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with "figuring out WebCT" - it has to do with the incompetent design of WebCT that makes it inaccessible to those with disabilities. There is a vast distinction between the two.
4. The question "If the student can not figure out WebCT how is he going to make it in the real world?" is completely moot. It certainly makes one question the competence of someone who claims to represent "digital stakeholders." The fact is that large numbers of students, including other graduate students in Capella's Information Technology programs where also pointing out the incompetence of Capella's implementation of WebCT, along with its horrendous design flaws, is significant. So is the that fact that many of the instructors were also complaining.

Most of remaining portion of the DigitalStakeHolders post discusses whether or not college is a "right or a privilege."  Again, that's a moot issue pertaining the Capella lawsuit. As noted in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the student already holds one master's degree (from a real university). Accessibility issues have, in the most literal sense, nothing to do with any student's intelligence and/or ability to do well in an academic program, assuming adequate accommodations are provided. Of course, nothing is mentioned about the quality of programs, like those at Capella, either.

Interestingly, the Chronicle article failed to mention several other facts pertaining to the case. Some of these include, but are not limited to:

• The "instructor" at the center of the lawsuit is Diane Stottlemyer - who is a complete charlatan. To date, very few are commenting on the fact that Stottlemyer literally purchased her "graduate degrees" from a diploma mill, Lacrosse University. She has claimed that she holds master's and doctorate degrees in "Computer Science." Furthermore, Stottlemyer acted with callous disregard to her ethical and contractual obligations as an instructor - she literally refused to communicate to the student.
• Diane Stottlemyer's lack of competence is also demonstrated by those commenting on her book, "Automated Web Testing Tool Kit" on Amazon.com, as well as on a very recent (October 22, 2005) post at RateMyProfessors.com. Assuming that post is true (which we have every reason to believe it is), it now looks like Stottlemyer continues to retaliate against students who complain about her incompetence. The only difference between her actions against the student who filed the lawsuit and those who continue to complain about her is that she now changes their grades from "F's" to "A's." Previously, she merely had students thrown out of Capella.
• Capella University refused, in the most literal sense of the term, to provide that student with any due process rights. Interestingly, Capella has an army of cronies who actively scour the Internet to post otherwise. Some of these include: Shawn Ambrose, an individual who has been relentless in his attacks (his posts may be found all over the Internet, most of them using the nickname of "CapellaRocks"); Robert Evans, who committed defamation against the plaintiff by contacting the plaintiff's part-time employer to "warn them"; and Corrie Bergeron, an individual who apparently worked (maybe still does) for Capella University and has stated that "Capella followed their policies to the letter. . ." The plain and simple fact of the matter is that  these people are all liars - the student was literally denied all due process rights. Capella University refused to follow any of their written policies.
• Even now, more than a full year after Capella University locked the student out of all of his classes, Capella University has refused to turn over all that student's records as required under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). In fact, Capella University refused to turn over ANY of their records pertaining to their retaliatory actions against the student until just a few months ago when they were forced to by the United States Department of Education. Of course, they again refused to turn over everything as required under FERPA and they are still under investigation for that matter.

These are just a few issues that will be examined, in much greater detail, during the trial against Capella University. Of course, there are many, many more matters that have not been discussed here. It's really sad to think that there are those who claim to be interested in "Digital Stakeholders" can twist the facts, based upon mere speculation, and change the focus from the rights of those with disabilities to whether or not their participation in education is a "right or a privilege." Sad, really sad.

Posted by Truth at 09:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)