Federal District Court on OPT error

On July 3, 2019, the District Court in Pennsylvania ruled on Dalgic v. Misericordia University (M.D. Pa. July 3, 2019), denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff, a Turkish-born former student in Misericordia University's (MU) Doctor of Physical Therapy Degree Program who was on an F-1 visa, alleged negligence and negligent interference with prospective contractual relations.

Plaintiff sought to remain in the United States after completing the Program for post-completion Optional Practical Training (OPT), which required a recommendation from MU under federal law. Once submitted, Plaintiff had to submit his OPT application within 30 days of the date the Designated School Official (DSO) entered the recommendation, the earliest time being 120 days before his graduation.

Plaintiff's OPT application was denied because MU's DSO prematurely submitted the OPT recommendation more than 120 days before Plaintiff's graduation. The court found that the undisputed material facts showed that MU's negligence in prematurely filing the recommendation without properly curing the early filing caused the denial of the OPT application, which entitled Plaintiff to summary judgment on both claims.

MU also was not entitled to summary judgment on the negligent interference claim because a special relationship existed between MU and Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiably trusted MU and the DSO to guide him through OPT, which was one of the DSO's job responsibilities, and this trust is consistent with obligations imposed on MU under federal law to employ a DSO and the Department of Homeland Security's characterization of DSOs as the "biggest resource" for an M or F visa student. MU was also aware of Plaintiff's prospective contract for post-OPT employment and did not dispute that it acted negligently in handling his OPT application.

This case highlights the important role the DSO plays for both the student and the school.