Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Armstrong was a Clarkson College CRNA student who completed didactic work and began clinical rotations at UNMC and a specialty site; after attending an AANA conference she was accused of unprofessional conduct on a bus ride.
- Clarkson placed Armstrong on clinical probation (citing the CRNA handbook and the AANA Code of Ethics), informed clinical sites, and UNMC and other sites refused to accept her back.
- Clarkson administratively withdrew Armstrong when it could not place her at another clinical site; Armstrong sued for breach of contract and sought damages for lost future earnings.
- At trial the jury awarded Armstrong $1,000,000. Clarkson moved for directed verdict and requested jury instructions on (a) failure to exhaust the internal grievance procedure (condition precedent), (b) impossibility/impracticability of performance, and (c) mitigation; the court denied those instructions and excluded evidence of a prior alleged plagiarism incident.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that Armstrong’s failure to exhaust Clarkson’s mandatory grievance procedure could be a condition precedent to her contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict should have been granted (academic deference) | Armstrong argued Clarkson breached its contractual duty to provide ongoing clinical placement and failed to reasonably attempt to secure an alternative site. | Clarkson argued its disciplinary/placement decisions were academic judgments entitled to deference and no arbitrary/capricious action occurred. | Court: No directed verdict; jury could find Clarkson breached an ongoing duty to provide a clinical site and academic deference did not apply to Clarkson’s failure to provide placement. |
| Exclusion of evidence of alleged plagiarism | Armstrong: prior plagiarism allegation was prejudicial and minimally probative. | Clarkson: plagiarism was part of the res gestae explaining its decisions. | Court: No abuse of discretion excluding the evidence under Neb. Evid. R. 403; probative value low and unfairly prejudicial. |
| Impossibility/impracticability instruction | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals and Armstrong’s conduct made performance impossible. | Armstrong: placing her on probation was wrongful or Clarkson could have enforced affiliation agreements or found alternatives. | Court: Instruction was legally correct but not warranted—event was foreseeable and Clarkson failed to show reasonable efforts to overcome obstacles. Instruction properly refused. |
| Mitigation instruction | Clarkson: Armstrong could have mitigated by reapplying to Clarkson or enrolling elsewhere. | Armstrong: reapplying would require restarting a 30-month program, incur unaffordable costs and likely relocation; credits nontransferable. | Court: Instruction correct in law but not warranted—evidence showed mitigation would be unreasonable/unaffordable, so instruction properly refused. |
| Failure to exhaust internal grievance (condition precedent) | Armstrong: exhaustion doctrine not applicable to private college or was inapplicable here. | Clarkson: grievance procedure was a mandatory contractual condition precedent and Armstrong failed to pursue it. | Court: Reversible error to refuse instruction. Exhaustion of mandatory grievance procedures can be a contract condition precedent for private institutions; jury must decide if policy was part of contract and if exhaustion was excused. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557 (standard for directed verdict and admissions from motion) (discussing evidence standard on directed verdict)
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (Neb. 2012) (academic judgments entitled to deference in some university-contract contexts)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2000) (employee handbook grievance procedure held exclusive; failure to exhaust bars breach claim)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (Conn. 2004) (internal academic grievance procedures for private university are subject to exhaustion and may be mandatory)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (employee handbook grievance exhaustion required before contract claims against employer)