Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Armstrong, a Clarkson College CRNA student, completed didactic coursework and began clinical rotations; after attending an AANA conference she was placed on clinical probation for unprofessional conduct and told she could not return to her specialty site.
- UNMC, her primary clinical site, refused to allow her to return; Clarkson emailed other affiliated clinical sites but none accepted her.
- Under the CRNA handbook, Clarkson would "make a reasonable attempt" to reassign a student and the handbook included a student grievance procedure; Clarkson administratively withdrew Armstrong after she exhausted allowed absences.
- Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract; a jury awarded her $1,000,000. Clarkson appealed, asserting errors including denial of directed verdict and refusal to give jury instructions on impossibility, mitigation, and failure to exhaust the grievance procedure (condition precedent).
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that Armstrong’s failure to exhaust Clarkson’s mandatory grievance procedure could be a condition precedent to her claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict should have been granted (academic deference/arbitrary & capricious standard) | Armstrong said Clarkson breached by failing to provide a clinical site and handbook terms created enforceable obligations | Clarkson said its academic/disciplinary decisions are entitled to deference and no evidence showed arbitrary or capricious action | Denial of directed verdict affirmed: 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 allegation | Armstrong argued the plagiarism evidence was unfairly prejudicial and minimally probative | Clarkson argued plagiarism was part of res gestae and relevant to discipline | Exclusion affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion under Rule 403 due to high prejudicial effect and low probative value |
| Impossibility/impracticability of performance defense | Clarkson argued clinical sites’ refusals made performance impossible | Armstrong argued the difficulty was foreseeable and Clarkson failed to use its contractual remedies | Refusal to instruct on impracticability affirmed: event was foreseeable and Clarkson did not reasonably attempt to overcome site refusals |
| Failure to exhaust internal grievance (condition precedent) | Armstrong argued exhaustion doctrine does not apply to private colleges or grievance was inapplicable | Clarkson argued its grievance procedure was a mandatory contractual condition precedent and Armstrong failed to use it | Reversal: trial court erred in refusing instruction; exhaustion of a mandatory grievance procedure can be a contractual condition precedent and jury must decide if policy was a term and whether exhaustion was excused |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (Neb. 2012) (academic judgments receive substantial deference in contract claims)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2000) (employee must ordinarily exhaust employer's internal grievance process before suing)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (Conn. 2004) (internal academic grievance procedures are subject to exhaustion requirement even for private institutions)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (employee handbook grievance procedures must be exhausted before breach claims)
- Fast Ball Sports v. Metropolitan Entertainment, 21 Neb. App. 1 (Neb. Ct. App. 2013) (reservation/amendment clauses in handbooks can prevent handbook provisions from creating enforceable contractual terms)