18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

494 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Miller, et al. v. Lewis University, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69744 (N.D. Ill. April 11, 2021). Plaintiff, a university student, filed a class action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with moving classes to online instruction without providing reduced tuition in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s failure to provide an in-person education and on-campus services, while also retaining the full amount of her tuition and fees, constituted a breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff asserted the terms of this contract were set forth in various "marketing materials, advertisements, publications, and other documents . . . including but not limited to the Lewis University Course Schedule." Id. at *4. Plaintiff further argued that she paid tuition and fees "with the expressed understanding that such costs included the in-person classes, services, opportunities, and experiences that Defendant had previously marketed, promoted, or made available prior to COVID-19." Id. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was, in reality, an educational malpractice claim, which was not cognizable under Illinois law. The Court disagreed. It found that Plaintiff alleged a straightforward breach of contract claim, and that arguing that an online education did not have the same value as an in-person education did not mean that Plaintiff challenged the quality of the education she received. Id . at *6. Defendant also asserted that although the parties had an "inherently contractual" relationship, Plaintiff failed to sufficiently alleged that Defendant made a promise to provide in-person classes. Id . at *8. The Court agreed. The Court noted that Plaintiff’s evidence of a contract was Defendant’s promotional materials and reference to its strategic plan, and neither category of documents could be considered as a promise by Defendant to provide in person learning. Plaintiff also contended that the course catalogue created a promise for an in-person education because when students enrolled in classes, they were invited to select courses that used a specific instructional method, including traditional in person learning. Id . at *12. However, the Court determined that Defendant’s spring 2020 schedule contained a reservation clause stating that schedules were subject to change without notice. Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to establish a promise of in person education between the parties, and it dismissed the breach of contract claim. Plaintiff, in the alternative, alleged unjust enrichment. However, the Court explained that because Plaintiff alleged the existence of a contract and Defendant did not contest the existence of one, the claim for unjust enrichment must also fail. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Mitelberg, et al. v. Stevens Institute Of Technology, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98538 (D.N.J. May 25, 2021). Plaintiff, a university student, filed a class action alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion in connection with Defendant’s move to online instruction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s virtual instruction was "sub-par" because it deprived students of (i) collaborative and hands-on learning, (ii) in- person dialogue, feedback, critique, networking, and mentorship, (iii) access to materials and facilities such as laboratories, libraries, and study rooms, (iv) participation in extra-curricular activities, sports, and clubs, and (v) opportunities for social development and independence. Id . at *2. Although Defendant partially refunded students’ housing costs, it did not refund spring semester tuition or fees. The Court reasoned that in applying the applicable standard to the allegations here, it must consider whether Defendant’s transition to virtual instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic "was arbitrary, made in bad faith, or lacking in fair notice." Id . at *6. The Court found that that Defendant did not deviate from its responsibility to act in good faith and deal fairly with its students amidst the pandemic. The Court noted that Defendant switched to a virtual format to comply with local, state, and federal guidance aimed at combating the spread of COVID-19. Accordingly, the Court held that Defendant’s reasons for the in person closure, without any reasonable alternative, established that the closure was not only fair, but also carried out in good faith for the health and safety of Defendant’s students, faculty, and staff. Id . at *7. The Court further determined that even assuming Plaintiff alleged a valid contract that promised an in-person education, the breach of contract claim failed under the express reservation of rights provision contained in Defendant’s catalog, which stated that it "reserves the right to change the information, regulations, requirements, procedures and policies announced in the catalog including but not limited to requirements for admission; graduation or degrees; scheduling; credit or content of courses; fees; and calendars." Id . at *8. As a result, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim as it related to tuition reimbursement. The Court, however, denied Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim regarding fees. Under traditional breach of contract principles, the Court explained that Plaintiff plausibly alleged: (i) a valid contract for access to general student services and activities, (ii) Defendant breached its contractual obligations by failing to provide access to such services and activities, and (iii) a causal connection between Defendant’s breach and Plaintiff’s