Armstrong v. Clarkson College
297 Neb. 595
Neb.2017Background
- Kelly Armstrong was a CRNA student at Clarkson College who completed didactic coursework and began clinical rotations at UNMC and a rural specialty site. After attending an AANA conference she was placed on clinical probation for unprofessional conduct and subsequently administratively withdrawn when no clinical site would accept her.
- Clarkson’s program handbooks contained disclaimers that some materials were not contractual and reserved the right to amend policies; the grievance procedure was provided to Armstrong when placed on probation.
- Clarkson attempted to reassign Armstrong to other clinical sites by email and calls; all declined after learning she was on probation, and Clarkson did not enforce its clinical affiliation agreement with UNMC to demand placement.
- Armstrong sued for breach of contract; at trial the jury awarded her $1 million. Clarkson challenged directed verdict denial, several excluded/proffered jury instructions (impossibility, mitigation, and failure to exhaust grievance), and exclusion of alleged prior plagiarism evidence.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed that (1) jury could find Clarkson breached an ongoing duty to provide clinical placement (so directed verdict properly denied as to that theory), (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 court erred in refusing Clarkson’s instruction that Armstrong’s failure to exhaust the mandatory grievance procedure (condition precedent) could bar her claim; that error required reversal and remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict / academic deference | Armstrong argued Clarkson breached its contract by failing to provide ongoing clinical placement; academic deference inapplicable to failure to provide site. | Clarkson argued academic-judgment deference applied and no arbitrary/capricious act occurred, entitling it to directed verdict. | Denied directed verdict. Jury could find Clarkson breached an ongoing duty to secure a clinical site; refusal to give deference on that failure was proper. |
| Exclusion of plagiarism evidence | Armstrong argued the plagiarism allegation was prejudicial and minimally probative. | Clarkson argued plagiarism was part of the res gestae and relevant to discipline decision. | Evidence properly excluded under Neb. Evid. R. 403; potential unfair prejudice outweighed probative value. |
| Impossibility (impracticability) instruction | Armstrong: performance wasn't impossible; Clarkson could have advocated, opened new sites, or allowed temporary placement. | Clarkson: clinical sites’ refusals and Armstrong’s conduct made provision of a site impossible. | Instruction not warranted. Event (probation/site refusal) was not unexpected; Clarkson failed to show reasonable efforts to overcome obstruction or to invoke contractual remedies. |
| Mitigation instruction | Armstrong: reapplying or attending another CRNA program was unreasonable or unaffordable. | Clarkson: Armstrong could have mitigated by reapplying at Clarkson or other programs. | Instruction not warranted. Evidence showed mitigation would have required restarting lengthy, costly training beyond Armstrong’s means. |
| Failure to exhaust grievance (condition precedent) instruction | Armstrong: grievance exhaustion doctrine inapplicable to private college or was inapplicable here. | Clarkson: mandatory grievance procedure was a contractual condition precedent—failure to exhaust bars suit. | Reversible error: the instruction was correct, warranted by evidence, and its omission prejudiced Clarkson. Remand for new trial to decide whether grievance was a contract term or any exhaustion exception applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winder v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 296 Neb. 557 (standards for directed verdict review)
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303 (academic-judgment deference in university contractual disputes)
- McGuire v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir.) (exhaustion of employer grievance procedures required before suit)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (grievance exhaustion applies to private academic institutions)
- Lucero v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 278 P.3d 1043 (N.M. Ct. App.) (failure to exhaust internal grievance bars breach claim)