Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kelly Armstrong was a CRNA student at Clarkson College; after attending an AANA conference she was placed on clinical probation and then administratively withdrawn when her primary clinical site (UNMC) refused to take her back.
- Clarkson’s student and CRNA program handbooks contained both professionalism rules (incorporating the AANA Code of Ethics) and various disclaimers reserving the college’s right to change policies; Clarkson provided Armstrong a copy of the grievance procedure when placing her on probation.
- Clarkson attempted to reassign Armstrong to other affiliated clinical sites by email/phone, but all declined; Clarkson administratively withdrew Armstrong rather than dismiss her formally.
- Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract; a jury awarded her $1 million. Clarkson appealed, arguing, inter alia, that (1) academic deference entitled it to judgment as a matter of law; (2) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of alleged plagiarism; and (3) the court should have instructed the jury on (a) failure to exhaust the internal grievance (condition precedent), (b) impossibility/impracticability, and (c) mitigation.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court erred by refusing Clarkson’s requested instruction that Armstrong’s failure to exhaust Clarkson’s grievance procedure could be a condition precedent to suit; it affirmed the exclusion of plagiarism evidence and the refusals to instruct on impossibility and mitigation, and it reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Armstrong) | Defendant's Argument (Clarkson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clarkson was entitled to directed verdict based on academic deference | Deference in academic judgment applies only in some contexts and does not bar a breach claim here; jurors could find Clarkson arbitrary | Clarkson argued academic deference requires that its academic decisions not be overturned unless arbitrary and capricious, entitling it to judgment as a matter of law | Denied: jury could find breach based on Clarkson’s failure to provide an ongoing duty to secure a clinical site; no deference for failure to provide a site it claimed it did not decide to deny |
| Admissibility of prior plagiarism evidence | Excluding plagiarism unfairly hid context of discipline | Evidence was prejudicial and minimally probative under Neb. Evid. R. 403 | Affirmed exclusion: probation/withdrawal evidence showed plagiarism played little role and risked unfair prejudice |
| Whether exhaustion of Clarkson’s grievance procedure was a condition precedent (failure to give instruction) | Grievance requirement did not apply or was excused; the jury had instruction on substantial performance | Clarkson argued grievance procedure was a mandatory contractual condition precedent that Armstrong failed to exhaust | Reversed: trial court erred by not instructing jury on failure to fulfill condition precedent; jury must decide whether grievance was a contract term and whether exhaustion was excused |
| Whether Clarkson was entitled to jury instructions on impossibility and mitigation | Impracticability applied because clinical sites refused to accept Armstrong; Armstrong failed to mitigate by not reapplying | Impossibility not warranted because refusals were foreseeable and Clarkson didn’t reasonably enforce contractual rights; mitigation not warranted because reapplying would be unreasonable/financially impossible | Affirmed refusal on both: impracticability not supported (event foreseeable; Clarkson failed to use reasonable efforts), mitigation instruction not warranted (Armstrong showed reapplication unreasonable/financially impracticable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557 (standards for directed verdict review)
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (academic deference in university disciplinary/contract claims)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (internal grievance exhaustion as prerequisite in private employer context)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (grievance exhaustion applies to private academic institutions and can be mandatory)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App.) (employee must exhaust handbook grievance before suing)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (deference standard: courts should not override academic decisions unless a substantial departure from accepted academic norms)