Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kelly Armstrong enrolled in Clarkson College’s CRNA (nurse anesthesia) program, completed the didactic portion, and began clinical rotations at UNMC and a specialty site.
- After attending an AANA conference, Armstrong behaved in a way some attendees described as unprofessional on a bus ride; Clarkson placed her on clinical probation for violating the CRNA handbook/AANA Code of Ethics.
- UNMC refused to allow Armstrong to return; Clarkson attempted but failed to reassign her to other clinical sites, and administratively withdrew her when clinical placement and allowable absences ran out.
- Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract; at trial a jury awarded her $1 million. Clarkson appealed, challenging denial of directed verdict, exclusion of plagiarism evidence, and refusal to give jury instructions (impossibility, mitigation, and failure to exhaust grievance procedure as a condition precedent).
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed that (1) the jury could find Clarkson breached an implied ongoing duty to provide a clinical site, (2) exclusion of plagiarism evidence was not an abuse of discretion, (3) impossibility and mitigation instructions were not warranted by the evidence, but (4) the trial court erred by refusing Clarkson’s instruction that Armstrong’s failure to exhaust the college’s grievance procedure could be a condition precedent to her contract claim; case reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clarkson was entitled to directed verdict (academic deference) | Armstrong: jury could find breach of implied contract (Clarkson had ongoing duty to provide clinical site) | Clarkson: academic decisions entitled to deference; no arbitrary/capricious action, so judgment as a matter of law | Directed verdict properly denied; jury could find breach based on failure to provide clinical site (no deference for that failure) |
| Admissibility of prior alleged plagiarism | Armstrong: plagiarism evidence irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Neb. Evid. R. 403 | Clarkson: plagiarism was part of res gestae explaining discipline/withdrawal | Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion: little probative value and high risk of unfair prejudice |
| Impossibility (impracticability) of performance defense | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals made performance impossible/unforeseeable | Armstrong: discipline was wrongful or Clarkson could have enforced agreements/placed her elsewhere | Instruction not warranted: events were foreseeable and Clarkson failed to reasonably attempt to enforce clinical agreements |
| Failure to mitigate damages | Clarkson: Armstrong could have mitigated by reapplying at Clarkson or another CRNA program | Armstrong: reapplying was futile or unaffordable; credits nontransferable | Instruction not warranted: evidence showed mitigation would have required unreasonable expense/time relocation, so failure to mitigate not established |
| Failure to exhaust internal grievance (condition precedent) | Clarkson: grievance procedure was mandatory and a condition precedent to suit; Armstrong failed to use it | Armstrong: exhaustion doctrine inapplicable to private college or grievance not mandatory/applicable | Trial court erred in refusing instruction; exhaustion can apply to private institutions and jury must decide whether grievance was a contract term and whether exceptions apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (Neb. 2012) (academic judgments entitled to deference in some contract contexts)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2000) (employee must generally exhaust employer’s internal grievance process before judicial relief)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (Conn. 2004) (exhaustion doctrine applies to university internal grievance procedures; permissive language can be construed as mandatory)
- 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)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (courts should defer to academic decisions unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or a substantial departure from norms)