Danckaert v. Cuyahoga Community College Found.
2017 Ohio 1159
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Emily Danckaert, a Tri-C dental hygiene student, received an "Incomplete" in POHS II (DENT 1400) and was placed on academic probation per the program handbook.
- In POHS III, instructors Quint and Jones corrected a 0 on a Professional Development session to 60% and calculated that Danckaert could pass the component if she scored 100% in seven of the remaining 11 sessions.
- Danckaert scored 100% in nine of those sessions and passed other course components, but was nonetheless given a final Professional Development average of 83.6% and failed POHS III.
- Program manager Gerosky determined Danckaert could not remediate after the term because of the prior Incomplete; faculty voted by consensus to dismiss her; administrative appeals and a campus president review affirmed dismissal.
- Danckaert sued for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, procedural due process, negligence, and unjust enrichment; the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants. The appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract / implied modification | Quint and Jones’ recalculation and communication modified the syllabus/handbook terms and created an enforceable promise to pass if Danckaert met the recalculated targets. | No modification occurred; faculty calculations were internal guidance, not a change to written course requirements. | Genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the contract was modified and whether Tri-C breached that modification; summary judgment improper. |
| Promissory estoppel | Danckaert relied to her detriment on faculty representations about what was needed to pass. | Tri-C argues promissory estoppel does not apply because provision of higher education is a governmental function and estoppel cannot be asserted against the state/its agencies. | Promissory estoppel claim barred against a public institution exercising a governmental function; summary judgment for defendants affirmed on this claim. |
| Procedural due process / arbitrary dismissal | Dismissal and denial of readmission were arbitrary and capricious because Tri-C relied on a discretionary "may be dismissed" handbook provision without showing situational consideration; Gerosky did not explain why grade ultimately failed. | Tri-C contends dismissal followed handbook policy (successive Incompletes) and was reviewed through the institution’s administrative process. | Genuine issues of material fact exist whether dismissal/readmission denial were arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith; summary judgment improper on due process claim. |
| Remedy / summary judgment standard | N/A (procedural posture) | Tri-C maintained no genuine issue of material fact justified summary judgment. | The appellate court applied de novo review and found triable issues on breach and due process claims; reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (Civ.R. 56 summary judgment criteria)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment principles)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (party moving for summary judgment bears burden)
- Bleicher v. Univ. of Cincinnati Coll. of Med., 78 Ohio App.3d 302 (student-school relationship as contractual)
- Fabrotta v. Meridia Huron Hosp. Sch. of Nursing, 102 Ohio App.3d 653 (judicial restraint in academic dismissals)
- Morin v. Cleveland Metro. Gen. Hosp. Sch. of Nursing, 34 Ohio App.3d 19 (arbitrary and capricious standard for student dismissal)
- Duncan v. Cuyahoga Cmty. Coll., 29 N.E.3d 289 (distinguishable—no written or other evidence of contract modification)