Sara DelRusso Ray v. The University of Tulsa

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SARA DELRUSSO RAY, Plaintiff, Pro Se. vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA Defendant. Case No.: FEB 23 2026 CJ-2026-00801 PETITION I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Sara DelRusso Ray ("Plaintiff") is an individual and, at all relevant times, was enrolled in Defendant’s Nursing Academic Program. 2. Defendant The University of Tulsa ("Defendant") is an Oklahoma not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to Article VII, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution. 4. Venue is proper in Tulsa County District Court pursuant to 12 O.S.§131. Defendant’s principal place of business is located in Tulsa County, Plaintiff attended Defendant’s academic program in Tulsa County, and the events giving rise to this action occurred in Tulsa County. III. FACTS 5. Defendant published a Nursing Academic Program Handbook governing the academic program in which Plaintiff was enrolled. 6. The Handbook permitted unilateral decision-making by Program Director regarding dismissal and appeals. 7. At all relevant times, Nancy Sweet served as Program Director of the DNP Nurse Anesthesia Program. 8. Plaintiff was enrolled in Defendant’s DNP Nurse Anesthesia Academic Program. 9. Plaintiff was placed on academic probation in or about May 2025. 10. Plaintiff’s probation was overseen by the Program Director. 11. The Handbook provides that during probation, the RRNA will help develop the written plan for meeting clinical objectives, and that faculty will review evaluations with the RRNA noting specific areas requiring improvement. Plaintiff's probation plan was presented to Plaintiff rather than developed with Plaintiff’s participation as required by the Handbook. 12. The Handbook provides that during clinical probation, the RRNA will not rotate to other clinical sites. Plaintiff was moved to a different clinical site during the probationary period in violation of that provision. 13. Plaintiff completed probation on June 29th, 2025. 14. The June 29, 2025 completion notice specifically recognized Plaintiff's clinical growth, confirmed all probation expectations had been met, and noted that faculty was encouraged by Plaintiff's progress. 15. The dismissal communication issued four days later cited clinical competency concerns represented as existing for several months. 16. Plaintiff's clinical evaluations reflected passing performance by the standards applied by clinical faculty. 17. Plaintiff was encouraged to withdraw from the program in a meeting with the Program Director on July 3rd, 2025. 18. Plaintiff declined to withdraw and elected to continue in the program. 19. Notice of dismissal was communicated to Plaintiff via email on July 3rd, 2025. 20. Defendant's electronic records confirm that both Typhon entries for clinical performance evaluations dated June 27, 2025 and July 2, 2025, cited in the written dismissal recommendation, were first accessed by the Program Director after the dismissal meeting on July 3, 2025 and before the written dismissal recommendation was issued that evening. Neither entry had been reviewed prior to the meeting at which Plaintiff was instructed to withdraw. 21. The student contact record cited in the Program Director’s dismissal recommendation email dated July 3rd, 2025 was not made available to Plaintiff prior to this communication. 22. The dismissal communication containing “public protection” language was disclosed to the clinical site. The individual at the clinical site who received that communication is the same individual whose phone call to the Program Director was cited as a basis for dismissal. That communication has not been substantiated or reduced to writing. 23. Plaintiff timely submitted a written appeal of the dismissal. 24. The Handbook provision cited as authority for Plaintiff’s dismissal appears under the heading 'Clinical Reasons for a Recommendation for Dismissal' and states that dismissal following successful completion of probation requires a finding of failure to meet clinical objectives. 25. The Program Director issued written confirmation on June 29, 2025 that Plaintiff had met all clinical objectives outlined in the probation document. The predicate finding required to invoke that provision was directly contradicted by the Program Director's own written assessment issued four days prior to dismissal. 26. At the time Plaintiff submitted her appeal and internal review request, multiple faculty complaints regarding the Program Director existed. 27. During the same academic year, program attrition exceeded 20%. 28. In a meeting on July 14, 2025, the Dean of Students acknowledged that the contact record system provides no mechanism to verify when entries were made. 29. At a Town Hall on July 29, 2025, the Program Director acknowledged that contact records should have been shared with students and that she had not done so. 30. On July 31, 2025 at 4:28 PM, Plaintiff submitted a "Formal Appeal to DNP Nurse Anesthesia Program Dismissal" to Provost Jennifer Airey ("Provost"). 31. On July 31, 2025, Provost Jennifer Airey responded stating that she had received the appeal and would review the materials. 32. Plaintiff’s appeal expressly described bullying and the weaponization of academic probation by the Program Director. 33. Plaintiff’s appeal raised concerns regarding the Program Director’s conduct and decision-making practices. 34. Plaintiff’s written appeal expressly described concerns regarding bullying and the use of probationary status in a punitive manner. 35. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s appeal by deferring to the discretion of the Program Director. 36. The denial of Plaintiff’s appeal relied on the unilateral discretion of the Program Director. 37. In a Town Hall meeting, the Program Director acknowledged that she had not read the Nursing Academic Program Handbook prior to applying its provisions. 38. On August 5, 2025 at 1:04 PM, Provost Jennifer Airey issued a written decision denying appeal and upholding Plaintiff’s dismissal. 39. The August 5, 2025 decision stated that the Provost did not find that fundamental fairness was violated and upheld the dismissal from the Nurse Anesthesia DNP program. 40. Defendant relied on the Handbook’s discretionary language in denying Plaintiff’s appeal and upholding Plaintiff’s dismissal. 41. Plaintiff submitted a further appeal or request for reconsideration. 42. The Provost’s denial again relied on the discretion of the Program Director. 43. After Plaintiff’s appeal was denied, another student was placed on academic probation in September 2025. 44. The same Program Director initiated that student’s probation. Defendant removed the Program Director from supervising the student’s probation. 45. The student completed probation and remains enrolled in the program. 46. On October 21, 2025 at 12:58 PM, Plaintiff submitted a request for immediate internal review regarding CRNA Program Conduct and Oversight. 47. Plaintiff’s October 21, 2025 request for internal review raised concerns regarding the Program Director’s exercise of probationary authority and governance practices. 48. The October 21, 2025 communication stated that the request regarded conduct and oversight of the DNP-Nurse Anesthesia program by Dr. Nancy Sweet. 49. The October 21, 2025 communication stated that internal records suggested plans for dismissal were under discussion months before Plaintiff’s dismissal. 50. The October 21, 2025 communication referenced prior attempts to address concerns without redress or acknowledgment. 51. The October 21, 2025 communication referenced multiple good-faith requests, including a neutral reference request, that had gone unanswered. 52. On October 27, 2025 at 4:42 PM, Scott Holmstrom, Dean of Students (“Dean”) acknowledged receipt of the October 21, 2025 email and stated he would be in touch after review. 53. The Program Director whose discretion was relied upon in denying Plaintiff’s appeal was later placed on administrative leave. 54. The Program Director was subsequently suspended on or around November 8th, 2025. 55. Plaintiff’s November 21, 2025 follow-up referenced Dr. Sweet’s placement on administrative leave followed by suspension around November 8, 2025. 56. On November 21, 2025 at 4:30 PM, Plaintiff submitted a written request for notification upon conclusion of the investigation into Dr. Nancy Sweet. 57. On November 30, 2025 at 7:13 AM, the Dean responded stating that the investigation concerning issues raised in the October 21, 2025 email was ongoing and that Plaintiff would be contacted when it was complete. 58. On December 29, 2025 at 6:51 PM, Plaintiff sent a follow-up email checking on the status of the investigation. 59. On January 2, 2026 at 1:14 PM, the Dean responded stating that discussions were ongoing and that he aimed to provide an update by the middle of the following week. 60. On January 7, 2026 at 12:11 PM, the Dean wrote that he had concluded his investigation of Plaintiff’s formal complaint, including consultation with current program leadership, and had communicated his assessment to the Provost, who would provide the final decision. 61. On January 9, 2026, Provost issued a written response. 62. The January 9, 2026 communication referenced unidentified current program leadership statements as its evidentiary basis, applied no disclosed standard, and denied a reinstatement request Plaintiff had not submitted. 63. The January 9, 2026 communication did not include documentation supporting the referenced statements. 64. The January 9, 2026 communication did not address the investigation outcome that Plaintiff had previously requested and was told would be provided. 65. Plaintiff has not been provided documentation substantiating the statements attributed to current faculty members. 66. The Program Director is no longer employed by the University. 67. Plaintiff is not aware of any amendment to the Nursing Academic Program Handbook authorizing a post-removal review or substitute decision-making authority with respect to Plaintiff’s dismissal. 68. Defendant represented in writing that Plaintiff would be informed of the investigation's outcome. No findings, report, or outcome has been provided. 69. Plaintiff has not been provided any written explanation distinguishing the basis for the Program Director’s removal from the governance concerns previously raised in Plaintiff’s appeal and internal review request. 70. Plaintiff incurred financial harm, including tuition paid and student loan obligations, as a result of the dismissal. 71. Plaintiff suffered delay and loss of professional advancement as a result of the dismissal. 72. Plaintiff suffered reputational and educational harm as a result of Defendant’s actions. 73. Defendant has been placed on notice to preserve evidence related to Plaintiff’s dismissal, appeal, and investigation request. IV. CLAIMS COUNT I – Breach of Contract and Implied Covenant of Good Faith 74. Defendant published and administered a Nursing Academic Program Handbook governing dismissal and appeal procedures applicable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff invoked those procedures following dismissal. Defendant exercised discretionary authority under the Handbook and issued final determinations premised upon the discretion of the Program Director. The Program Director acknowledged in an official Town Hall meeting that she had not read the Nursing Academic Program Handbook prior to applying its provisions. 75. Defendant administered the Handbook's provisions as binding upon Plaintiff throughout the dismissal and appeal process. 76. The clinical evaluations cited in the written dismissal recommendation were first accessed by the Program Director after the dismissal meeting had concluded, establishing that the decision to dismiss preceded the review of the evidence cited to support it. 77. Defendant thereafter relied upon representations that an investigation would be conducted and that Plaintiff would be informed of the outcome. Defendant failed to administer and perform those processes consistently with its published framework and written representations. Defendant’s performance of its contractual discretion was inconsistent with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. COUNT II: Reliance on Discretion Later Repudiated 78. Defendant dismissed Plaintiff and denied appeals based upon the discretionary authority of the Program Director as recognized under the Handbook. The Provost’s final decision upheld the dismissal in reliance upon that discretionary authority. The Program Director was subsequently removed from her position following governance concerns. 79. Defendant continued to enforce Plaintiff’s dismissal without revisiting or re-evaluating the basis for reliance on that discretion. The discretionary judgment deferred to on appeal was exercised by a Program Director who had not reviewed the basis for dismissal prior to communicating the decision to Plaintiff. COUNT III: Dismissal Premised on Withheld and Unverified Records 80. Defendant maintained contact records documenting Plaintiff’s clinical performance prior to and during probation, but did not disclose those records to Plaintiff at any time during that period. Plaintiff completed probation on June 29, 2025. The contact record relied upon in recommending dismissal was first transmitted on July 3, 2025 in an email to the Dean, copied to Plaintiff. 81. The Program Director acknowledged in a recorded Town Hall that contact records were required to be shared with students and that she had not done so. The Dean of Students acknowledged in a recorded meeting that the contact record system contains no mechanism to verify when entries were made. Defendant upheld the dismissal without addressing the integrity or provenance of the records upon which it was premised. 82. Electronic records confirm the Program Director had not reviewed the June 27th, 2025 clinical performance evaluation prior to the dismissal meeting at which Plaintiff was informed of her dismissal. The entry was accessed between the dismissal meeting and the issuance of the written recommendation that cited it. COUNT IV: Failure to Act Upon Notice Within Governance Framework 83. Plaintiff’s written appeal placed the Provost on notice of concerns regarding the Program Director’s exercise of probationary authority prior to the August decision upholding dismissal. The dismissal was upheld without written findings addressing those concerns. The same Program Director later initiated probation against another student before being removed from supervising that probation. Defendant did not revisit Plaintiff’s dismissal in light of those developments. COUNT V: Inconsistent Administration of Discretionary Authority 84. Defendant relied upon the discretionary authority of the Program Director to uphold Plaintiff’s dismissal. Defendant affirmed Plaintiff’s dismissal in reliance on the Program Director’s discretionary judgment and subsequently removed that same Program Director from exercising probationary authority over other students, yet did not revisit or reassess Plaintiff’s dismissal. COUNT VI: Maintenance of Dismissal Based on Undisclosed Substitute Authority 85. Following the Program Director’s removal, Defendant issued a January 9, 2026 communication referencing statements from “current program leadership” as the basis for denying relief. The communication did not identify the sources of those statements, did not issue investigative findings, and denied a reinstatement request not submitted by Plaintiff. Defendant maintained Plaintiff’s dismissal based on authority not identified in the original dismissal or appeal framework. COUNT VII: Failure to Issue Investigative Determination 86. Defendant represented that Plaintiff would be informed of the outcome of an investigation into the Program Director. No investigative findings were disclosed. Instead, Defendant denied a reinstatement request not submitted by Plaintiff and referenced input from current program leadership. V. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief: 87. Restitution of Tuition and Fees An order requiring Defendant to refund all tuition, fees, and monies paid by or on behalf of Plaintiff in connection with the Nurse Anesthesia program. 88. Reinstatement and Correction of Academic Record An order reinstating Plaintiff to the Doctor of Nursing Practice Nurse Anesthesia Program under the academic status held immediately prior to dismissal and requiring Defendant to restore Plaintiff’s program standing and remove or correct references to the dismissal in Plaintiff’s academic record and related institutional files. 89. Declaratory Judgement A declaratory judgment that Plaintiff's dismissal was procedurally defective under the terms of the Nursing Academic Program Handbook and that the appeal determinations issued by Defendant did not constitute a valid final disposition of Plaintiff's dismissal under Defendant's own published framework. 90. Costs An award of Plaintiff's costs and allowable expenses incurred in this action. 91. Other Relief Such other and further legal or equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. VI. JURY DEMAND 92. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SARA DELRUSSO RAY Pro Se Plaintiff 7728 E 87th Pl Tulsa, OK 74133