Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595

Background

Clarkson College operated a graduate CRNA program; Armstrong completed didactic work and entered clinical rotations at UNMC and a specialty site.
At an AANA conference Armstrong engaged in conduct on a return bus ride that Clarkson deemed unprofessional; program officials placed her on clinical probation and told her she could not return to specialty sites while on probation.
UNMC’s CRNA education committee refused to allow Armstrong to return; Clarkson attempted to reassign her but all clinical sites declined, and Clarkson administratively withdrew Armstrong when no site was available.
Armstrong sued Clarkson for breach of contract; at trial a jury awarded her $1 million. Clarkson sought directed verdict and submitted several proposed jury instructions (impossibility, mitigation, failure-to-exhaust grievance) which the district court refused; the court also excluded evidence of a prior alleged plagiarism incident.
On appeal, 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 internal grievance procedure could be a condition precedent to her contractual claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether directed verdict should have been granted (academic deference)	Armstrong: jury could find Clarkson breached by failing to provide ongoing clinical placement	Clarkson: academic-deference standard applies; actions were academic and not arbitrary or capricious	Denied directed verdict; court held failure to provide a clinical site was not an academic judgment entitled to deference and raised factual issues for jury
Admissibility of prior alleged plagiarism	Armstrong: prior incident irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial	Clarkson: plagiarism was part of res gestae of discipline decision	Court did not abuse discretion excluding the plagiarism evidence under Neb. Evid. R. 403 (probative value outweighed by prejudice)
Impossibility/impracticability of performance instruction	Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals made performance impossible	Armstrong: difficulty foreseeable; Clarkson could have taken other steps	Instruction not warranted — event was foreseeable and Clarkson did not reasonably attempt to enforce affiliation obligations; refusal not error
Mitigation of damages instruction	Clarkson: Armstrong could have mitigated by reapplying to Clarkson or other programs	Armstrong: reapplying would require restarting lengthy, costly program she could not afford; relocation impractical	Instruction not warranted — evidence showed mitigation would require unreasonable expense/time; refusal not error
Failure to exhaust internal grievance (condition precedent) instruction	Clarkson: Armstrong failed to use mandatory grievance procedure, so contract remedies were barred	Armstrong: exhaustion doctrine inapplicable to private college or grievance not a contractual condition	Error to refuse instruction — exhaustion of a mandatory internal grievance can be a condition precedent; jury must decide whether policy was part of contract or excused

Key Cases Cited

Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557 (directed verdict standard and evidence treatment)
Donut Holdings v. Risberg, 294 Neb. 861 (jury instructions and standard of review)
Doe v. Bd. of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (academic deference to institutional academic judgments)
McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (internal grievance exhaustion in private employer context)
Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (exhaustion doctrine applies to university grievance procedures)
Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (grievance exhaustion required before suing private institution)
Borley Storage & Transfer Co. v. Whitted, 271 Neb. 84 (mitigation instruction precedent)
Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (standard for judicial review of academic decisions)