Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Armstrong, a CRNA student at Clarkson College, completed didactic coursework but was placed on clinical probation after an incident at an AANA conference and a fundraiser boat cruise; her primary clinical site (UNMC) refused to allow her to return.
- Clarkson’s CRNA handbook referenced the AANA Code of Ethics, contained probation/withdrawal and grievance procedures, and included disclaimers in some handbooks that they were not contracts; Clarkson administratively withdrew Armstrong when no clinical site would accept her.
- Armstrong sued for breach of contract seeking lost future earnings; a jury awarded $1 million. Clarkson appealed, arguing directed verdict should have been granted and contesting several excluded instructions and evidence rulings.
- The district court excluded evidence of a prior alleged plagiarism incident and refused Clarkson’s requested jury instructions on (1) failure to exhaust the internal grievance procedure (condition precedent), (2) impossibility/impracticability of performance, and (3) mitigation. The court denied Clarkson’s posttrial motions.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the record and reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on Armstrong’s alleged failure to fulfill a condition precedent (exhaustion of Clarkson’s grievance procedure).
Issues
| Issue | Armstrong's Argument | Clarkson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clarkson was entitled to directed verdict based on academic deference | Clarkson’s academic decisions not arbitrary; deference should preclude breach | Clarkson argued its actions were subject to academic deference and thus not actionable unless arbitrary or capricious | Denied: jury could find Clarkson breached an ongoing duty to provide clinical placement; decision to not provide a site was not an academic judgment entitled to deference |
| Admissibility of prior alleged plagiarism | Irrelevant and prejudicial; properly excluded under Neb. Evid. R. 403 | Relevant to rationale for probation/withdrawal (res gestae) | Affirmed exclusion: minimal probative value and high risk of unfair prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| Impossibility/impracticability of performance defense (instruction) | Performance impossible due to clinical sites’ refusals and Armstrong’s conduct | Could not claim impracticability: event not unforeseen and Clarkson failed to reasonably enforce contractual rights | Instruction refusal affirmed: doctrine not warranted because risk was foreseeable and Clarkson did not reasonably attempt to overcome site refusals |
| Failure to exhaust internal grievance procedure as condition precedent (instruction) | Not applicable; exhaustion doctrine inapplicable to private college or grievance not mandatory | Grievance procedure was part of the contractual bargain and mandatory; Armstrong failed to exhaust, so jury should decide | Reversed: trial court erred in refusing instruction; issue was supported by evidence and prejudicial error occurred—remand for new trial to allow jury to determine whether grievance was term of the contract and whether exhaustion was excused |
Key Cases Cited
- Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557 (appellate standard on directed verdict)
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (deference to academic judgments in contract claims)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir.) (private employer grievance-exhaustion requirement)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (grievance-exhaustion applies to academic institutions; permissive wording may still be mandatory)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App.) (employee must exhaust handbook grievance before suing)