Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595

Background

Armstrong, a Clarkson College CRNA student, completed didactic coursework but was placed on clinical probation after an incident at an AANA conference and then administratively withdrawn when Clarkson could not secure an alternate clinical site.
Clarkson’s CRNA handbooks included disclaimers that some materials were noncontractual and reserved Clarkson’s right to change policies; other handbooks did not contain such disclaimers.
Clarkson informed other primary clinical sites that Armstrong was on probation; all declined to accept her. Clarkson administratively withdrew Armstrong rather than formally dismissing her.
Armstrong sued for breach of contract; a jury awarded $1 million. At trial Clarkson sought instructions on (1) failure to exhaust the college grievance procedure (condition precedent), (2) impossibility/impracticability of performance, and (3) mitigation; the court refused all three. Clarkson also moved to admit evidence of a prior plagiarism matter, which was excluded.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court held the trial court erred by refusing Clarkson’s jury instruction that Armstrong had to exhaust the internal grievance procedure as a condition precedent, and reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court upheld exclusion of plagiarism evidence and refused Clarkson’s impossibility and mitigation instructions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clarkson was entitled to directed verdict because academic-deference insulated its actions from breach	Armstrong argued academic deference should not apply to failure to provide a clinical site and jury could find breach	Clarkson argued academic judgments entitled to deference and no arbitrary/capricious conduct shown	Denied directed verdict; failure to provide a clinical site was not an academic judgment entitled to deference and jury questions existed
Whether evidence of prior alleged plagiarism should have been admitted	Armstrong argued plagiarism evidence was prejudicial and minimally probative	Clarkson argued plagiarism was part of res gestae and relevant to discipline decision	Exclusion affirmed as not an abuse of discretion under Neb. Evid. R. 403
Whether jury should have been instructed that exhaustion of Clarkson’s grievance procedure was a condition precedent	Armstrong argued exhaustion doctrine inapplicable or excused	Clarkson argued grievance procedure was mandatory part of contractual scheme and failure to exhaust bars suit	Instruction should have been given; failure to instruct was prejudicial — reversal and remand for new trial
Whether Clarkson was entitled to an instruction on impossibility/impracticability and on mitigation of damages	Armstrong argued impracticability inapplicable and mitigation evidence insufficient	Clarkson argued clinical sites’ refusals made performance impossible and Armstrong failed to mitigate by not reapplying	Impracticability instruction properly refused (events not unexpected; Clarkson did not reasonably try to enforce agreements). Mitigation instruction properly refused because evidence showed mitigation (restarting another 30-month program) would be unreasonable/unaffordable for Armstrong

Key Cases Cited

Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557 (general standard for reviewing directed verdicts and evidence inference)
Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (academic-judgment deference in university contract/dismissal disputes)
McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (exhaustion of internal grievance procedures as prerequisite to suit against private employer)
Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (exhaustion doctrine applies to private academic grievance procedures)
Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (grievance-exhaustion requirement in private university/employee handbook context)