Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Armstrong enrolled in Clarkson College’s CRNA (nurse‑anesthesia) program, completed didactic portion, and began clinical rotations at UNMC and a specialty site.
- At an AANA conference Armstrong behaved in a way others called unprofessional; Clarkson placed her on clinical probation for violating the CRNA handbook/AANA Code of Ethics.
- UNMC refused to allow Armstrong to return; Clarkson attempted to reassign her but all clinical sites declined, and Clarkson administratively withdrew Armstrong when she ran out of allowable absences.
- Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract, claiming Clarkson failed to provide required clinical placement/training; a jury awarded $1 million.
- Clarkson moved for directed verdict, sought jury instructions on (1) failure to exhaust the college grievance procedure (condition precedent), (2) impossibility/impracticability of performance, and (3) mitigation; the district court denied these requests and excluded evidence of prior alleged plagiarism; Clarkson appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the court prejudicially refused Clarkson’s requested instruction that Armstrong must have exhausted the college’s grievance procedure as a condition precedent (jury must decide whether the grievance rule was part of the contract or excused).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clarkson was entitled to directed verdict based on academic deference | Armstrong: Clarkson breached by failing to provide clinical site; jury can find implied contract terms | Clarkson: academic judgments entitled to deference; no arbitrary/capricious action | Denied directed verdict; jury could find Clarkson breached ongoing duty to provide clinical placement (no deference for that failure) |
| Admissibility of alleged prior plagiarism evidence | Armstrong: highly prejudicial, little probative value | Clarkson: plagiarism part of res gestae of discipline/withdrawal | Evidence exclusion affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion under Neb. Evid. R. 403 |
| Impossibility/impracticability of performance defense | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals made providing placement impossible | Armstrong: difficulty foreseeable; Clarkson could have enforced agreements or found alternatives | Instruction properly refused; impracticability not warranted because event was foreseeable and Clarkson failed to reasonably attempt to overcome it |
| Failure to mitigate damages instruction | Clarkson: Armstrong should have reapplied or attended another CRNA program | Armstrong: credits nontransferable, costly to restart, could not afford/reapply | Instruction properly refused; evidence showed mitigation would be unreasonable or impossible for Armstrong |
| Failure to exhaust grievance procedure (condition precedent) | Armstrong: exhaustion doctrine inapplicable to private college or was unnecessary | Clarkson: grievance is mandatory part of internal remedies; failure to exhaust is condition precedent to suing | Error to refuse instruction; jury must decide whether grievance policy was contractual and whether exhaustion was required or excused — reversal and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557 (standard for directed verdict and treating evidence in reviewing motion)
- Doe v. Bd. of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (academic deference to institutional judgments in breach‑of‑contract context)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir.) (private employer grievance exhaustion required before suit)
- Neiman v. Yale Univ., 270 Conn. 244 (Conn. 2004) (internal academic grievance procedures must be exhausted; permissive language can be mandatory)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App.) (exhaustion of handbook grievance required before suit)