Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kelly Armstrong, a student in Clarkson College’s CRNA (nurse anesthesia) program, completed didactic training and entered clinical rotations at UNMC and a specialty site. After attending an AANA conference in April 2013, Clarkson placed her on clinical probation for alleged unprofessional conduct and cited the CRNA handbook and AANA Code of Ethics.
- UNMC’s CRNA education committee declined to allow Armstrong to return; Clarkson attempted to place her elsewhere by emailing other affiliated clinical sites, but none accepted her.
- Because Armstrong ran out of permitted clinical absences and no alternate site was secured, Clarkson administratively withdrew her from the program.
- Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract; a jury awarded $1 million. Clarkson appealed, raising directed-verdict, evidentiary, and jury-instruction errors (including failure-to-exhaust/grievance, impossibility/impracticability, and mitigation instructions).
- The district court excluded evidence of a prior alleged plagiarism incident and refused Clarkson’s requested jury instructions on (1) failure to fulfill a condition precedent (exhaustion of Clarkson’s grievance procedure), (2) impossibility of performance, and (3) mitigation of damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict for Clarkson was required because Clarkson’s academic decisions are entitled to deference | Armstrong contended jury could find Clarkson breached an ongoing duty (to provide clinical placement) and that academic deference did not bar recovery on that theory | Clarkson argued its academic/disciplinary decisions are owed deference and, absent arbitrary and capricious action, no breach occurred | Denied as to directed verdict: jury could find Clarkson breached an ongoing duty to secure a clinical site; failure to provide a site was not an academic judgment entitled to deference on these facts |
| Admissibility of prior alleged plagiarism evidence | Armstrong sought exclusion as unfairly prejudicial and minimally probative | Clarkson argued the plagiarism was part of the res gestae of discipline | Court did not abuse discretion excluding the plagiarism evidence (Rule 403) because its probative value was minimal and prejudice substantial |
| Whether failure to exhaust Clarkson’s internal grievance procedure was a condition precedent that required a jury instruction | Armstrong argued exhaustion doctrine does not apply or was inapplicable here (e.g., grievance did not cover Code of Conduct issue; she lacked access after withdrawal) | Clarkson argued its grievance procedure was a mandatory contractual remedy that Armstrong did not invoke before suing | Reversed: trial court erred by refusing to give Clarkson’s condition-precedent (exhaustion) instruction; issue warranted jury consideration and omission was prejudicial |
| Whether Clarkson was entitled to instructions on impossibility (impracticability) and mitigation of damages | Armstrong: impracticability inapplicable because the events were foreseeable and Clarkson failed to use its contractual remedies; mitigation instruction unnecessary because reapplication/starting over would be unreasonable and unaffordable | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals and Armstrong’s conduct made providing a site impossible; Armstrong could have mitigated by reapplying or attending another program | Court affirmed denial of impossibility and mitigation instructions: impracticability not supported (events not unexpected; Clarkson did not reasonably attempt to enforce agreements) and mitigation instruction unwarranted (Armstrong would have had to restart lengthy program and lacked means) |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (Neb. 2012) (academic judgments entitled to substantial deference in university disciplinary/contract disputes)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2000) (private employer’s internal grievance process may be exclusive remedy; exhaustion required)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (Conn. 2004) (exhaustion doctrine applies to university internal grievance procedures; permissive language can still be mandatory in effect)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (employee must exhaust handbook grievance procedures before suing for breach of contract)