18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

498 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant was unjustly enriched because of reduced maintenance and staffing costs resulting from the closure of campus. Plaintiffs sought recovery of the difference in value between the online learning provided and the in-person instruction for which they allegedly contracted, as well as a refund of the fees they paid for access to University facilities and services. Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), on the basis that Plaintiffs’ implied contract theory was precluded by the Student Financial Responsibility Agreement (“Agreement”), which was an express contract governing the payment of tuition and fees. Since the Agreement provided no promise of in-person instruction and access to campus under any circumstances, Defendant maintained that Plaintiffs could not plausibly allege that Defendant violated a contractual duty, thereby defeating their claims for breach of contract. Similarly, Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims failed due to the existence of an express agreement between the parties. The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Court found that the payment of tuition and fees was subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement that was an express contract between Defendant and its students. The Court found that the Agreement was a fully integrated, binding contract that set forth the material terms and conditions concerning the payment of tuition and all applicable fees prior to class registration. As contemplated in the Agreement, Plaintiffs paid all required tuition and fees and, in exchange, Defendant allowed Plaintiffs to register for classes and provided uninterrupted coursework for the entire Spring semester. The Court looked to the terms of the Agreement that plainly stated that students agreed to pay all assessed fees resulting from their registration. Failure to do so could result in denial of class registration and other University services. Thus, the Court held that the plain terms of the Agreement contemplated payment of the University services fee as a condition of enrollment and use of campus facilities, as opposed to a guarantee of in-person instruction or unfettered access to campus under any circumstances. Further, the Agreement contained no specific and identifiable promise of exclusively in-person instruction or unqualified access to campus facilities. As such, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ implied contract theory was precluded by the existence of this express contract governing the payment of tuition and fees. In sum, the Court ruled that the complaint therefore did not plausibly allege that Defendant breached an implied or express contractual duty to provide in-person classes under any and all circumstances. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety. Shaffer, et al. v. George Washington University, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56005 (D.D.C. March 24, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of parents of current and former university students, filed a class action alleging claims for breach of express and implied contracts, unjust enrichment, and conversion in connection with Defendant’s move to online education in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the Court granted. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to plead an enforceable contractual obligation; failed to allege any breach of the terms of Defendant’s contract with its students; and that D.C. law disfavored judicial intervention in discretionary educational decisions. Id . at *5. Plaintiffs asserted that they contracted, and paid tuition for, on-campus university experiences that included benefits impossible to replicate online. Id . at *6. Plaintiffs further contended that this promise was demonstrated throughout university documents, online publications, the university bulletin, and university bills. Accordingly, Plaintiff argued that Defendant failed to provide students with benefits contractually promised to them. The Court held that no plausible reading of the university materials gave rise to an enforceable contractual promise for in- person instruction. Id . The Court opined that the general descriptions and distinctions included in the materials did not create enforceable obligations on Defendant. The Court thus determined that Plaintiffs failed to identify any language in the documents or any other evidence that indicated that Defendant was bound to provide in- person instruction. Further, the Court explained that Defendant’s bulletin expressly provided that Defendant reserved “the right to change courses, programs, fees, and the academic calendar, or to make other changes deemed necessary or desirable, giving advance notice of change when possible," and that the University reserved “the right to make changes in programs without notice whenever circumstances warrant such changes." Id . at *7-8. The Court thus dismissed Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims. The Court also explained that there could be no unjust enrichment without an express contract between the parties, and therefore, it dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as well. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Wnorowski, et al. v. University Of New Haven, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144741 (D. Conn. Aug. 3, 2021). Plaintiff, a university student, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s move to online instruction in the wake