Shaffer v. George Washington University

27 F.4th 754 (March 8, 2022)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps paid all tuition and fees required for enrollment in on-campus instruction and experiences for the spring 2020 semester at Ds. In March 2020, college dormitories, classrooms, research laboratories, libraries, and arenas risked spreading the Wuhan Flu, allegedly endangering students, faculty, staff, and surrounding communities. To safeguard public health and to comply with shelter-in-place orders, colleges physically closed campuses in large part, while searching for and inventing solutions to allow them to continue to serve their students in unpredictable and unprecedented times. Colleges immediately substituted virtual platforms so students could at least complete their spring semesters. University (D) thought their response was commendable and deserving of praise and laurels. Shaffer (Ps) thought differently. Students paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to get an in-person educational experience, including all of the services, opportunities, and activities that come therewith. There are many online learning institutions available at a far cheaper cost than what Ps paid for. Ps began demanding refunds and Ds essentially told them to pound sand. In two separate actions, Ps filed complaints (class actions) in the District Court claiming that Ds violated contractual commitments to their students when they transitioned to online educational activities and declined to refund any portion of their students' tuition payments and fees. In the alternative, they claimed that the transitions to online learning unjustly enriched Ds. The complaints include claims for breach of express or implied contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Ps sought 'disgorgement and monetary damages in the amount of prorated, unused amounts of tuition and fees. Ds moved to dismiss the actions for failure to state a claim. The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that 'no plausible reading of the university materials gives rise to an enforceable contractual promise for in-person instruction.' It then held that Ps' unjust enrichment claim was inappropriate because it required the court to displace the terms of the alleged contract and that the conversion claim was insufficiently distinct from the contract claims. Ps appealed.