(CN) - After dismissing claims that Kaplan University defrauded the government, a federal judge expedited briefing for Kaplan's accuser to abate that final judgment.
In recent years, the for-profit school has faced a string of lawsuits from former employees accusing it of violating a program-participation agreement with the Department of Education by failing to comply with the Higher Education Act.
Kaplan University, one of the largest for-profit colleges in the country, offers more than 200 on-campus and online degrees and programs. The university and its parent company, Kaplan Higher Education Corp., are accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. To receive federal grants and loans from the U.S. Department of Education, the university must certify to the government that it complies with the Higher Education Act and other DOE regulations.
Kaplan, which is owned by the Washington Post Corp. and has a large administrative presence in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., is one of several for-profit schools being investigated by Florida's attorney general for alleged misrepresentations in areas such as recruiting, enrollment and financial aid, the Sun-Sentinel reported.
U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz in Miami previously dismissed claims that Kaplan maximized its federal funding by illegally recruiting unqualified students, misrepresenting students' academic progress, manipulating job-placement statistics and paying recruiters bonuses based on how many students they enrolled.
Seitz nevertheless allowed whistle-blower Jude Gillespie, a former course developer and associate professor, to pursue claims that Kaplan defrauded the government by falsely certifying that it complied with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Gillespie, who worked for Kaplan from April 2004 until April 2005, filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), alleging that Kaplan had engaged in discrimination and retaliation based on his disability, and that it lacked an adequate "institutional grievance process."
Kaplan employed Gillespie, who was admitted to practice law in Florida in 1992, as a course developer and academic department chair for its College of Legal Studies and as an associate professor of paralegal studies.
In a 2011 ruling, Seitz noted that the OCR had concluded in 2007 that Kaplan was in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, and directed the school to correct specific violations. Among other things, the OCR found that the university lacked procedures to address discrimination separately from harassment, as well as a detailed process by which employees could seek resolutions to their concerns, according to the ruling.
Seitz said Gillespie could pursue alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act only until the moment when Kaplan corrected the violations, as acknowledged by the DOE's Office of Civil Rights.
Kaplan moved for summary judgment, claiming that Gillespie could not prove its intent to defraud the government, or its noncompliance with the Rehabilitation Act.
On July 16, Seitz found that Gillespie could not establish scienter, the intent to do wrong, as required to support false certification claims.
The False Claims Act, on the other hand, does not require proof of specific intent to defraud. It merely requires proof that the defrauding party acted with deliberate ignorance or "in reckless disregard of the truth," according to the ruling.