669 F.Supp.3d 1061
E.D. Wash.2023Background:
- Four students (Contreras, Kroneck, Olson, Rodman) enrolled in Heritage University’s Physician Assistant (PA) program (Cohort 6) in summer 2020; graduation from an ARC‑PA‑accredited program is required for PANCE/licensure.
- Heritage’s PA program was on ARC‑PA probationary accreditation status at enrollment; ARC‑PA withdrew accreditation on October 23, 2020 and limited “teach‑out” approval to students graduating May 2021.
- Heritage publicly disclosed the probationary status in its website and 2020–2021 Student Handbook; each plaintiff signed the handbook acknowledging the risk of lost accreditation.
- Plaintiffs allege misrepresentations and promises that probation would not affect their ability to graduate and that Heritage would assist transfers; Heritage attempted reimbursements and placement efforts for some students.
- Plaintiffs sued under Washington CPA, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, negligence (including negligent hiring/supervision), and Contreras asserted WLAD, Section 504 (Rehab Act), and ADA claims.
- The court granted Heritage’s motion for summary judgment on all claims and entered judgment for the defendant.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Washington CPA | Heritage misled students about effects of probation and promised transfer assistance, harming students | No unfair or deceptive practice affecting the public; probation was disclosed and plaintiffs accepted the risk | SJ for Heritage — plaintiffs failed to show the public‑interest element of a CPA claim |
| Breach of Contract | Handbook and brochure plus oral assurances created contractual promises to provide accredited graduation or placement assistance | Handbook expressly warned probation could lead to loss of accreditation; no contractual guarantee to remain accredited or to secure placement elsewhere | SJ for Heritage — no breach; plaintiffs accepted handbook terms and no binding placement obligation existed |
| Breach of Covenant of Good Faith | Heritage breached implied covenant by making promises and then not assisting students | Covenant attaches only to performance of a specific contractual obligation; plaintiffs point to no specific term breached | SJ for Heritage — plaintiffs failed to identify an express contract obligation wrongfully performed |
| Fraudulent & Negligent Misrepresentation | Heritage made false statements about graduation prospects and teach‑out ability | Alleged statements were promises about future performance, not statements of existing fact | SJ for Heritage — misrepresentation claims fail because they concern future promises, not present facts |
| Unjust Enrichment / Promissory Estoppel | Plaintiffs paid for education they did not receive and relied to their detriment on Heritage's promises | A valid express contract governs; equitable claims cannot supplant an enforceable contract | SJ for Heritage — equitable claims barred by existence/validity of contract and failed misrepresentation theory |
| Negligence / Educational Malpractice | Heritage negligently failed to teach out or place students and mishandled accreditation decisions | Courts should reject educational malpractice claims; plaintiffs seek review of academic/administrative judgments rather than total failure of service | SJ for Heritage — negligence claim precluded as educational malpractice; court will not second‑guess academic decisions |
| Negligent Hiring & Supervision | Heritage failed to train/supervise staff and thus is liable | No evidence employees were incompetent or acting outside scope of employment; vicarious liability applies if within scope | SJ for Heritage — plaintiffs offered no evidence to create a triable issue |
| Disability Claims (WLAD, Rehab Act, ADA) — Contreras | Heritage discriminated by not providing transfer assistance/letter of recommendation after her disability‑related deceleration | Contreras received testing accommodation, voluntarily withdrew/decelerated, and offers of assistance do not show discriminatory animus | SJ for Heritage — no evidence actions were because of disability; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (view facts and inferences in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986) (public‑interest element of Washington CPA)
- Klem v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 176 Wn.2d 771 (2013) (elements and analysis of CPA claims)
- Glacier Nw., Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Loc. Union No. 174, 198 Wash. 2d 768 (2021) (misrepresentation claims require existing fact, not future promises)
- Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (educational malpractice doctrine and policy reasons to reject such claims)
- Anderson v. Soap Lake Sch. Dist., 191 Wash. 2d 343 (2018) (negligent hiring/supervision standards under Washington law)
- Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000) (WLAD as Washington analogue to Title III)