Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kelly Armstrong enrolled in Clarkson College’s CRNA (nurse anesthesia) program, completed the didactic year, and began clinical rotations at UNMC and a specialty site.
- After attending an AANA conference, Armstrong engaged in conduct on a return bus ride that Clarkson considered unprofessional; CRNA program leadership placed her on clinical probation under the program handbook and AANA ethics rules.
- UNMC (her primary clinical site) refused to allow her to return; Clarkson emailed other affiliated clinical sites seeking placement but all declined; Clarkson then administratively withdrew Armstrong when no site could be found and she exhausted allowed absences.
- Armstrong sued for breach of contract claiming Clarkson failed to provide required clinical placement/training; a jury awarded $1 million. Clarkson appealed multiple rulings by the trial court.
- The trial court excluded evidence of an earlier alleged plagiarism incident, denied Clarkson’s requests for jury instructions on (a) failure to exhaust the college grievance procedure (condition precedent), (b) impossibility/impracticability of performance, and (c) mitigation of damages, and denied Clarkson’s directed verdict and new-trial motions.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the court erred by refusing Clarkson’s requested jury instruction that Armstrong’s failure to exhaust Clarkson’s internal grievance procedure was a condition precedent to suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict was required / whether academic deference bars liability | Armstrong argued Clarkson breached an implied contract by failing to secure clinical placement; academic deference should not apply to failing to provide a placement | Clarkson argued its academic/disciplinary decisions entitled to deference and no arbitrary or capricious action occurred | Court: Denial of directed verdict proper — jury could find Clarkson breached an ongoing duty to provide clinical placement; academic deference does not apply to failure to provide a clinical site under these facts |
| Admissibility of prior alleged plagiarism evidence | Armstrong: prior plagiarism is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Neb. Evid. R. 403 | Clarkson: plagiarism was part of the res gestae and relevant to discipline decision | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding plagiarism; probative value minimal and unfairly prejudicial |
| Whether exhaustion of Clarkson’s grievance procedure was a condition precedent | Armstrong: grievance exhaustion need not apply / grievance may not have been available post-withdrawal; Damewood’s comments may excuse exhaustion | Clarkson: grievance policy was provided, intended mandatory, and a condition precedent to court suit; failure to exhaust bars suit | Court: Trial court erred refusing instruction; exhaustion of mandatory internal grievance is a condition precedent where warranted by evidence; remand for jury to decide applicability and exceptions (futility, estoppel, prevention) |
| Impossibility/impracticability of performance (defense) | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusal and Armstrong’s conduct made performance impossible | Armstrong: difficulty was foreseeable; Clarkson could have pursued enforcement or alternatives | Court: Instruction not warranted — event (probation/placement refusal) was foreseeable and Clarkson did not show reasonable efforts to enforce affiliation agreements; impracticability defense rejected |
| Mitigation of damages | Clarkson: Armstrong could have mitigated by reapplying at Clarkson or enrolling elsewhere | Armstrong: reapplying would require restarting lengthy nontransferable program; she lacked funds and relocation was impractical | Court: Instruction not warranted — evidence showed mitigation would be unreasonable/impracticable for Armstrong; trial court correctly refused instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (Neb. 2012) (academic judgments entitled to deference in contract claims but not every decision is reviewable)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2000) (employee must ordinarily exhaust employer’s internal grievance process before suing)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (Conn. 2004) (exhaustion of internal academic grievance procedures applies to private universities; permissive language can nonetheless make process mandatory)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (employee must exhaust handbook grievance procedures before bringing breach claims)