Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kelly Armstrong completed the didactic phase of Clarkson College’s CRNA (nurse anesthesia) program, then attended a national AANA conference where she allegedly engaged in unprofessional conduct on a return bus ride. Clark- son faculty were notified and Armstrong was placed on clinical probation.
- Armstrong’s primary clinical site (UNMC) unanimously decided not to allow her to return; Clarkson told Armstrong it would attempt to reassign her to another clinical site and informed her of the college grievance procedure; Clarkson later administratively withdrew her when no site could be secured and she exhausted allowed absences.
- Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract; at trial a jury awarded her $1,000,000. Clarkson moved for directed verdict and requested jury instructions on (inter alia) impossibility of performance, mitigation, and that Armstrong failed to fulfill a condition precedent (exhaustion of Clarkson’s grievance procedure); the district court denied those requests and excluded evidence of an earlier alleged plagiarism incident.
- Clarkson appealed, arguing among other things that (1) academic-deference/arbitrary-and-capricious standard entitled it to judgment as a matter of law, (2) the plagiarism evidence was improperly excluded, (3) the court erred by refusing its requested jury instructions (impossibility, mitigation, and failure to exhaust), and (4) the verdict should be set aside or a new trial ordered.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court found reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that exhaustion of Clarkson’s mandatory grievance procedure could be a condition precedent to Armstrong’s contractual claim; it held the other evidentiary and instruction rulings were either correct or not dispositive, 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/arbitrary-and-capricious standard | Armstrong: academic-deference is inapplicable to failure to provide a clinical site; her breach theory survives | Clarkson: its academic/disciplinary decisions deserve deference; no evidence of arbitrary and capricious conduct | Court: academic deference does not apply to Clarkson’s failure to provide a clinical site; factual disputes (duty to find a new site/reasonableness of efforts) precluded directed verdict. |
| Admissibility of evidence of prior alleged plagiarism | Armstrong: plagiarism evidence would be unfairly prejudicial and minimally probative | Clarkson: plagiarism was part of res gestae and relevant to discipline/withdrawal decision | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion excluding the plagiarism evidence under Neb. Evid. R. 403—probative value minimal, prejudice high. |
| Validity of impossibility/impracticability defense | Armstrong: Clarkson’s duties were not impossible to perform; could have better advocated or allowed temporary placement | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals and Armstrong’s conduct made performance impossible | Court: instruction correct as law but not warranted by evidence—events (probation, site refusals) were foreseeable and Clarkson failed to reasonably enforce affiliation agreements, so impracticability defense was unavailable. |
| Whether failure to exhaust Clarkson’s internal grievance procedure was a condition precedent that required a jury instruction | Armstrong: exhaustion doctrine inapplicable or grievance inapplicable; substantial performance instruction sufficed | Clarkson: the grievance procedure is a mandatory internal remedy and exhaustion is a contractual condition precedent to suing | Court: Clarkson’s proposed instruction correctly stated the law, was warranted by evidence that Armstrong received the grievance policy, and its omission was prejudicial; trial court erred—reversal and new trial required so a jury can decide if the grievance was a contractual term or excused. |
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-judgment/deference in contract claims)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir.) (exhaustion of employer grievance procedures before suing)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (internal academic grievance procedures at private universities must be exhausted)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App.) (employee must exhaust handbook grievance before contract claim)