Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
Neb.2017Background
- Armstrong was a student in Clarkson College’s CRNA (nurse anesthesia) program who completed didactic work and entered clinical rotations at UNMC and a specialty site.
- After attending an AANA conference, Armstrong engaged in behavior on a return bus that Clarkson deemed unprofessional; faculty placed her on clinical probation and informed clinical sites.
- UNMC and other affiliated clinical sites refused to accept Armstrong after probation; Clarkson attempted to find alternate sites but did not secure one, and Armstrong was administratively withdrawn.
- Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract; at trial a jury awarded her $1 million. Clarkson challenged the verdict, arguing among other things that Armstrong failed to exhaust Clarkson’s internal grievance procedure (a condition precedent) and that impossibility/mitigation defenses applied.
- The district court excluded evidence of a prior alleged plagiarism incident, denied Clarkson’s requested jury instructions (including on failure to fulfill a condition precedent), and denied Clarkson’s motions for directed verdict and new trial.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the court erred by refusing Clarkson’s requested instruction that Armstrong’s failure to exhaust the grievance procedure could bar enforcement of her contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict for Clarkson was required (academic deference) | Clarkson’s actions were arbitrary/capricious; Armstrong says deference inapplicable to failure to provide clinical site | Clarkson: academic judgments entitled to deference; no arbitrary/capricious conduct | Denial of directed verdict affirmed as jury could find Clarkson breached an ongoing duty to provide a clinical site; academic deference did not apply to that failure |
| Admissibility of prior plagiarism evidence | Armstrong: prior plagiarism irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial | Clarkson: plagiarism part of res gestae of withdrawal decision | Exclusion affirmed — probative value minimal and unfairly prejudicial under Neb. Evid. R. 403 |
| Impossibility/impracticability of performance defense | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals made providing a site impossible | Armstrong: refusals were foreseeable; Clarkson could have enforced agreements or mitigated | Instruction refusal affirmed — impracticability not warranted (event was foreseeable; Clarkson failed to reasonably attempt to overcome obstacles) |
| Failure to exhaust internal grievance (condition precedent) | Clarkson: Armstrong failed to use mandatory grievance procedure before suing | Armstrong: grievance doctrine inapplicable to private college / grievance optional / not a term of contract | Reversal — trial court erred in refusing condition precedent instruction; exhaustion may be required and was supported by evidence, so jury must decide whether policy was a contractual term or excused |
Key Cases Cited
- Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557, 894 N.W.2d 343 (Neb. 2017) (standard for directed verdict)
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303, 809 N.W.2d 263 (Neb. 2012) (academic deference in contract claims against educational institutions)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2000) (exhaustion of employer grievance procedure precludes contract claim when procedure is exclusive)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244, 851 A.2d 1165 (Conn. 2004) (exhaustion doctrine applies to private academic grievance procedures)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (employee must exhaust handbook grievance before suing)