Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595

Armstrong, a Clarkson College CRNA student, completed didactic work then began clinical rotations; after attending an AANA conference she was placed on clinical probation for unprofessional conduct and told UNMC might not take her back.
Clarkson attempted to reassign her; all primary and specialty clinical sites declined after Clarkson informed them she was on probation, and Clarkson administratively withdrew Armstrong when no site was available.
Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract claiming Clarkson failed to provide required clinical placement and training; a jury awarded $1 million.
At trial Clarkson moved for directed verdict, sought jury instructions on failure to exhaust the college grievance procedure (condition precedent), impossibility/impracticability of performance, and mitigation; the court denied those instructions and excluded evidence of a prior alleged plagiarism incident.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the exclusion of plagiarism evidence was not an abuse of discretion, upheld denial of impossibility and mitigation instructions, but found reversible error in refusing Clarkson’s instruction that Armstrong’s failure to exhaust Clarkson’s grievance procedure could be a condition precedent to her contract claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether directed verdict should have been granted	Armstrong argued Clarkson breached an ongoing duty to provide clinical placement; disputed facts for jury	Clarkson argued academic deference required and no arbitrary/capricious action, entitling it to judgment	Denial of directed verdict affirmed; jury could find Clarkson breached ongoing duty to secure a clinical site (no deference for that failure)
Admissibility of alleged prior plagiarism	Armstrong: evidence irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial	Clarkson: plagiarism part of res gestae of discipline and relevant to justification for withdrawal	Exclusion affirmed; probative value low and risk of unfair prejudice substantial
Impossibility/impracticability of performance defense	Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals made performance impossible	Armstrong: events were foreseeable and Clarkson could have taken other reasonable steps	Denial of instruction affirmed; events were not unexpected and Clarkson did not show reasonable efforts to overcome the obstacle
Failure to exhaust internal grievance (condition precedent)	Armstrong: exhaustion doctrine inapplicable to private college or not required here	Clarkson: grievance procedure was part of the contractual bargain and mandatory; failure to exhaust bars suit absent exception	Reversible error: court should have instructed jury on condition precedent; whether grievance was a contract term and any exceptions are factual issues for jury

Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557 (Neb. 2017) (directed verdict standards and appellate review)
Donut Holdings v. Risberg, 294 Neb. 861 (Neb. 2016) (law on jury instructions and appellate review)
Doe v. Bd. of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (Neb. 2012) (academic deference in university contract claims)
McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2000) (exhaustion of employer grievance procedures as prerequisite to suit)
Neiman v. Yale Univ., 270 Conn. 244 (Conn. 2004) (internal academic grievance procedures required to be exhausted before judicial review)
Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (employee handbook grievance exhaustion before breach of contract suit)
Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (standard for judicial review of academic decisions — deference unless decision shows lack of professional judgment)