Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Armstrong was a student in Clarkson College’s CRNA (nurse anesthesia) program who completed didactic work, then began clinical rotations at UNMC and a specialty site.
- After an incident at an AANA conference and subsequent reports by others, Clarkson placed Armstrong on clinical probation for alleged ethical/professional misconduct under the CRNA handbook and AANA Code of Ethics.
- UNMC’s clinical coordinators refused to allow Armstrong to return; Clarkson attempted to place her elsewhere but all clinical sites declined; Clarkson administratively withdrew Armstrong when no site could be secured.
- Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract seeking lost future income; a jury awarded $1 million. Clarkson appealed multiple rulings at trial.
- Key procedural/contractual facts: many Clarkson handbooks disclaim contractual effect or reserve right to amend; Clarkson provided Armstrong a written grievance procedure when placing her on probation.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred by refusing Clarkson’s requested jury instruction that Armstrong must exhaust Clarkson’s internal grievance procedure (condition precedent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict was required / whether Clarkson’s actions are entitled to academic deference | Armstrong: jury could find Clarkson breached an implied contract by failing to provide ongoing clinical placement | Clarkson: academic decisions entitled to deference; no arbitrary or capricious action shown | Court: denied directed verdict properly; no deference for failure to provide a clinical site and jury could find breach based on ongoing placement duty |
| Admissibility of evidence of prior alleged plagiarism | Armstrong: allegation irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Neb. Evid. R. 403 | Clarkson: plagiarism was part of res gestae of discipline decision | Court: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; plagiarism had low probative value and high unfair prejudice |
| Failure to give instruction that plaintiff must exhaust internal grievance procedure (condition precedent) | Armstrong: exhaustion doctrine doesn't apply to private entities; instruction unnecessary | Clarkson: grievance procedure is mandatory/part of contractual bargain and Armstrong was given policy but did not use it | Court: trial court erred by refusing instruction; exhaustion can apply to private academic grievance procedures and jury must decide whether policy was a contract term and whether exceptions apply |
| Refusal to give instructions on impossibility (impracticability) and mitigation of damages | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals and Armstrong’s conduct made performance impossible; Armstrong could have mitigated by reapplying | Armstrong: events were foreseeable; Clarkson failed to pursue remedies; mitigation (reapplying/starting over) was unreasonable and unaffordable | Court: refused impossibility instruction (doctrine inapplicable here because events were foreseeable and Clarkson didn’t use contractual remedies); refused mitigation instruction (Armstrong had no reasonable, affordable mitigation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557 (standard for directed verdict and treating evidence in reviewing such motions)
- Donut Holdings v. Risberg, 294 Neb. 861 (standards for jury instructions and reviewing legal questions)
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (academic deference in university disciplinary/contract claims)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (grievance/exhaustion requirement against private employer handbook)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (internal academic grievance procedures as prerequisite to suit)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (employee handbook grievance exhaustion before breach claim)
- Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (deference to academic judgment standard)