18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

484 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition its on-campus facilities and resources due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Id . at *2. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted. Defendant contended that the language contained in its employee handbook, which Plaintiffs confirmed the receipt of through its online portal, included a waiver of liability for the change from in-person instruction due to the pandemic. Plaintiffs did not dispute that they clicked the “Accept” button on Defendant’s portal screen prior to the start of the Spring semester of 2020, and the website was clear that, in doing so, they "acknowledged" having "been notified of the availability of the Student Handbook, Northeastern’s Code of Student Conduct, and the Academic Integrity Policy," having "read them," and having "underst[ood] their meaning." Id . at *12. Plaintiffs, however, contended that they did not read the handbooks. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ argument was wholly without merit, as a person who signs an acknowledgement that he or she has read and understands the provisions of a document must be held to that consent. Id . at *13. The Court reasoned that if the rule were otherwise, the value of an acknowledgement would mean nothing. The Court determined that the language contained in the delivery of services provision was unambiguous, and clearly reserved the right to "make changes of any nature in its programs . . . and academic schedule" – "including, without limitation, changes in course content and class schedule, the cancellation of scheduled classes and other academic activities, and the substitution of alternatives for scheduled classes and other academic activities" – "whenever necessary or desirable." Id . at *13-14. The language also disclaimed liability for any "delay or failure to provide educational or other services or facilities due to causes beyond its reasonable control." Id . The Court ruled that no reasonable student could have expected that registering for in-person classes and executing the Student Financial Responsibility Agreement would give him or her a contractual right to receive in-person instruction and/or unrestricted access to on-campus facilities and resources. Id . Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Durbeck, et al. v. Suffolk University, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117344 (D. Mass. June 23, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of university students, filed a class action alleging bring breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Defendant based on its decision to close its campus and transition to online learning in the wake of COVID-19. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court denied the motion. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant offers two types of degree programs, including "in-person, hands-on programs" and "fully online distance-learning programs." Id . at *2-3. Plaintiff further asserted that the in-person option was more expensive than for the online option because the in-person option involved more than the "basic academic instruction" such as benefits and services unique to the in-person option, as well as corporeal interactions with faculty, peers, academic and athletic facilities, affinity and extracurricular groups, and hands-on experiential opportunities. Id . at *3. Plaintiffs were enrolled in the in-person option and therefore paid the more expensive fees for the semester. Instead, the Plaintiffs alleged that the terms of this contract were as implied or set forth by Defendant “through its website, academic catalogs, student handbooks, marketing materials and other circulars, bulletins, and publications." Id . at *5. Following the closure of the on-campus facilities and activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the move to online instruction, Defendant informed students that “because students will be receiving academic credit and grades for virtual classes and will have access to support and guidance from both faculty and staff, no refunds of tuition will be made." Id . at *6. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract because they had not identified the basis for the alleged contractual right to an in-person experience for the entire spring 2020 semester. Id . at *21-22. Defendant further asserted that its Undergraduate Academic Catalog expressly contemplated and permitted “the very actions Suffolk took." Id . at *22. Plaintiffs argued that their contractual right to an in-person experience for the entire spring 2020 semester derived from representations in Defendant’s publications, Plaintiffs’ payment of fees and tuition, and their registration for and attendance at on-campus classes prior to the campus closure. Id . Plaintiffs also contended that Defendant’s Undergraduate Academic Catalog did not bar their claims. The Court found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged a breach of contract claim. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs need only allege that Defendant should have reasonably foreseen, based upon the "conduct and relations of the parties," that Plaintiffs would rely on Defendant either to continue providing the promised in- person experience or to cease providing the promised in-person experience but refund the fees and tuition paid for that experience. Id . at *25-26. The Court also determined that since Defendant denied the existence of any kind of contract, as Plaintiffs pled the unjust enrichment claim in the alternative, they were not barred as matter of law. The Court held that Plaintiffs’ claim that based on their payment of fees and tuition, it was reasonable to expect an in-person experience for the entire spring 2020 semester, was sufficient to allege a claim for unjust enrichment. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss.