Kaplan University

{{COI|talk=WP:NPOV on lawsuits|date=December 2023|section}}

{{COI|talk=WP:NPOV on lawsuits|date=December 2023|section}}

{{Update|section|date=December 2023}}

{{Update|section|date=December 2023}}

On August 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a series of rulings in three related cases based on the federal False Claims Act. The cases included three separate complaints by three former Kaplan University employees, Messrs. Wilcox, Gillespie, and Diaz. The court dismissed the claims brought by Wilcox in their entirety. (''Diaz v. Kaplan Univ.'', No. 09–20756–civ, 2011 WL 3627285, (S.D.Fla. Aug. 17, 2011)).{{Cite web |url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756-2.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2017-03-28 |archive-date=2017-03-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170329050011/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756-2.pdf |url-status=live}} Wilcox was later, and separately, convicted for making threats against Kaplan employees. (''U.S. v. Wilcox'', 1:08-cr-00256, U.S. District Court, Northern Division of Illinois (Chicago)).{{cite web|url=http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20101210/business/101219944/|title=Ex-Kaplan dean convicted of e-mail, web threats|first=Bloomberg|last=News|date=10 December 2010 |access-date=29 August 2017|archive-date=18 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170518102226/http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20101210/business/101219944/|url-status=live}} The court also dismissed in part Gillespie's complaint, and, on July 16, 2013, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the company on all remaining claims in the Gillespie complaint. (''Diaz v. Kaplan Univ.'', No. 09–20756–civ, 2011 WL 3627285, (S.D.Fla. July 16, 2013)).{{Cite web|url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756-6.pdf|title=Title|access-date=2017-03-28|archive-date=2017-03-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170329051621/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756-6.pdf|url-status=live}} Gillespie appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and, on March 11, 2015, the appellate court issued a decision affirming the lower court’s dismissal of all of Gillespie's claims. (''Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University'', No. 13-13672 (11th Cir. 2015)).{{Cite web |url=http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201313672.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2017-03-28 |archive-date=2016-12-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229160546/http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201313672.pdf |url-status=live}}

On August 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a series of rulings in three related cases based on the federal False Claims Act. The cases included three separate complaints by three former Kaplan University employees, Messrs. Wilcox, Gillespie, and Diaz. The court dismissed the claims brought by Wilcox in their entirety. (''Diaz v. Kaplan Univ.'', No. 09–20756–civ, 2011 WL 3627285, (S.D.Fla. Aug. 17, 2011)).{{Cite web |url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756-2.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2017-03-28 |archive-date=2017-03-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170329050011/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756-2.pdf |url-status=live}} Wilcox was later, and separately, convicted for making threats against Kaplan employees. (''U.S. v. Wilcox'', 1:08-cr-00256, U.S. District Court, Northern Division of Illinois (Chicago)).{{cite web|url=http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20101210/business/101219944/|title=Ex-Kaplan dean convicted of e-mail, web threats|date=10 December 2010 |access-date=29 August 2017|archive-date=18 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170518102226/http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20101210/business/101219944/|url-status=live}} The court also dismissed in part Gillespie's complaint, and, on July 16, 2013, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the company on all remaining claims in the Gillespie complaint. (''Diaz v. Kaplan Univ.'', No. 09–20756–civ, 2011 WL 3627285, (S.D.Fla. July 16, 2013)).{{Cite web|url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756-6.pdf|title=Title|access-date=2017-03-28|archive-date=2017-03-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170329051621/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_09-cv-20756-6.pdf|url-status=live}} Gillespie appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and, on March 11, 2015, the appellate court issued a decision affirming the lower court’s dismissal of all of Gillespie's claims. (''Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University'', No. 13-13672 (11th Cir. 2015)).{{Cite web |url=http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201313672.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2017-03-28 |archive-date=2016-12-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229160546/http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201313672.pdf |url-status=live}}

On Diaz's compliant, the court dismissed the entire False Claims Act claim and on October 31, 2012, the court entered summary judgment in favor of Kaplan as to the sole remaining employment claim in the Diaz complaint. Kaplan also received a judgment for costs against Diaz based on his frivolous employment claims. (''Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University'' (1:11-cv-23394)).{{cite web|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4233959/urquilla-diaz-v-kaplan-university/|title=Docket for Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University - CourtListener.com|website=CourtListener|access-date=29 August 2017|archive-date=14 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211014214325/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4233959/urquilla-diaz-v-kaplan-university/|url-status=live}} However, Diaz appealed and, on March 11, 2015, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of three of the four Diaz claims, but reversed and remanded on the claim that incentive compensation for admissions representatives was improperly based on enrollment counts. (''Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University'', No. 13-13672 (11th Cir. 2015)).{{cite web|url=http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/13-13672/13-13672-2015-03-11.html|title=Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University, No. 13-13672 (11th Cir. 2015)|access-date=29 August 2017|archive-date=2017-08-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830013830/http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/13-13672/13-13672-2015-03-11.html|url-status=live}} Kaplan filed an answer to Diaz's amended complaint, and a summary judgment briefing schedule has been set.

On Diaz's compliant, the court dismissed the entire False Claims Act claim and on October 31, 2012, the court entered summary judgment in favor of Kaplan as to the sole remaining employment claim in the Diaz complaint. Kaplan also received a judgment for costs against Diaz based on his frivolous employment claims. (''Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University'' (1:11-cv-23394)).{{cite web|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4233959/urquilla-diaz-v-kaplan-university/|title=Docket for Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University - CourtListener.com|website=CourtListener|access-date=29 August 2017|archive-date=14 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211014214325/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4233959/urquilla-diaz-v-kaplan-university/|url-status=live}} However, Diaz appealed and, on March 11, 2015, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of three of the four Diaz claims, but reversed and remanded on the claim that incentive compensation for admissions representatives was improperly based on enrollment counts. (''Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University'', No. 13-13672 (11th Cir. 2015)).{{cite web|url=http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/13-13672/13-13672-2015-03-11.html|title=Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University, No. 13-13672 (11th Cir. 2015)|access-date=29 August 2017|archive-date=2017-08-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830013830/http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/13-13672/13-13672-2015-03-11.html|url-status=live}} Kaplan filed an answer to Diaz's amended complaint, and a summary judgment briefing schedule has been set.