Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kelly Armstrong enrolled in Clarkson College's CRNA (nurse anesthesia) program, completed didactic work, and began clinical rotations at UNMC and a specialty site.
- At an AANA conference Armstrong made crude jokes and used a fake moustache on a bus; faculty and others reported the conduct as unprofessional.
- Clarkson placed Armstrong on clinical probation for violating the CRNA handbook/AANA ethics, told her UNMC might not allow her back, and said it would attempt to reassign her; Clarkson provided a copy of its grievance procedure.
- All primary clinical sites declined to accept Armstrong after UNMC refused; Clarkson administratively withdrew her when she exhausted allowed absences and no site was found; Armstrong sued for breach of contract and won a $1 million jury verdict.
- At trial Clarkson sought instructions on (1) exhaustion of the internal grievance as a condition precedent, (2) impossibility/impracticability of performance, and (3) mitigation of damages; the court refused the instructions and excluded evidence of an earlier alleged plagiarism incident.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred by refusing Clarkson’s requested instruction that Armstrong’s failure to exhaust the college grievance procedure was a condition precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clarkson was entitled to directed verdict because its actions were academic judgments entitled to deference | Armstrong: jury could find Clarkson breached implied contractual duties (e.g., to provide a clinical site); academic deference not applicable to failure to provide a site | Clarkson: academic deference applies to its disciplinary/academic decisions; no arbitrary or capricious conduct shown | Denied directed verdict; jury could reasonably find Clarkson breached an ongoing duty to provide a clinical site and its failure was not an academic judgment entitled to deference |
| Admissibility of evidence about prior alleged plagiarism | Armstrong: prior plagiarism irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Neb. Evid. R. 403 | Clarkson: plagiarism was part of res gestae and bore on the decision to discipline/withdraw Armstrong | Exclusion affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion because plagiarism had low probative value and high prejudicial risk |
| Whether plaintiff had to exhaust Clarkson's internal grievance procedure as a condition precedent | Armstrong: exhaustion doctrine inapplicable or excused; grievance may not have applied and may have been unavailable after withdrawal | Clarkson: grievance procedure was a mandatory internal remedy and a condition precedent to suing; Armstrong received the policy and form | Reversed: trial court erred in refusing to instruct that failure to exhaust a mandatory grievance can be a condition precedent; instruction was correct, supported by evidence, and its absence prejudiced Clarkson |
| Whether Clarkson was entitled to instruction on impossibility/impracticability or mitigation of damages | Armstrong: Clarkson could have enforced affiliation agreements, sought other remedies, and Armstrong could not reasonably mitigate by reapplying elsewhere | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals (and Armstrong’s conduct) made performance impossible; Armstrong could have mitigated by reapplying | Impracticability instruction properly refused (events were foreseeable and Clarkson did not reasonably try to overcome obstacles); mitigation instruction properly refused (Armstrong showed inability/undue burden to mitigate) |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (Neb. 2012) (academic judgments entitled to deference in some contract claims)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2000) (employee must exhaust employer's internal grievance procedure before suing)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (Conn. 2004) (exhaustion doctrine applies to university internal grievance processes; permissive language can still produce mandatory exhaustion)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (employee must exhaust handbook grievance before suing for breach)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (courts should defer to academic judgments unless they are a substantial departure from accepted academic norms)