187 F. Supp. 3d 554
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- Andrea David, an African American woman, enrolled in Neumann University’s DPT program and failed a practicum transfer section on May 3, 2014; she received an F and was dismissed around May 16, 2014.
- David alleged her exam was made harder by Drs. Albaugh and Biely, that they deviated from handbook procedures in her evaluation, and that they repeatedly used terms like “slaves” and “slave masters” in class, creating a racist environment.
- Original complaint asserted breach of contract, unjust enrichment, Title VI/Title VII/§ 1981 claims; after a first dismissal David filed an Amended Complaint alleging breach of contract, Title VI, and § 1981 claims (she later withdrew § 1981 claims).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim; the Court evaluated whether specific contractual promises were alleged and whether Title VI intentional discrimination was plausibly pleaded.
- The Court found David failed to identify any specific, enforceable contractual promise (grading rubric, Biely’s report, and general harassment policy were insufficient), and failed to plead facts showing discriminatory animus or deliberate indifference under Title VI.
- The Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend as futile, concluding prior deficiencies were not cured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract: did University violate an enforceable contract with David? | David contends handbook, grading rubric, and Biely’s report created contractual duties (including assistance before a 0% and faculty review of dismissal). | University argues no specific, enforceable contractual promises were pleaded; rubric and Biely’s report don’t create preexisting contractual obligations; handbook language is aspirational. | Court: dismissed — plaintiff failed to identify specific, definite contractual terms or breach. |
| Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing | David alleges breach of fundamental fairness/due process and implied covenant tied to contract duties. | University: implied covenant cannot stand separate from an identified contractual duty. | Court: dismissed — no underlying contractual duty identified, so implied covenant claim fails. |
| Title VI: did the University subject David to race discrimination actionable under Title VI? | David alleges faculty’s repeated “slave/slave master” references created a racist environment and were per se discriminatory; University knew or should have known. | University: statements alone do not show discriminatory animus or deliberate indifference by the University; plaintiff did not allege she notified the University and it failed to act. | Court: dismissed — allegations do not plausibly show intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference by the University. |
| Leave to amend | David had previously been given leave to amend and repleaded; seeks further amendment. | Defendants argue amendment would be futile. | Court: denied further leave — amendment would be futile given repeated failure to cure deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swartley v. Hoffner, 734 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (student–university relationship is contractual based on written guidelines and policies)
- McShea v. City of Philadelphia, 995 A.2d 334 (Pa. 2010) (elements required to state a breach of contract claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: factual allegations must raise a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to presumption of truth in pleadings)
- Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2014) (private plaintiffs under Title VI must show intentional discrimination; deliberate indifference standard)
- Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 777 A.2d 418 (Pa. 2001) (duty of good faith tied to express contractual duties)
- Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2000) (amendment is futile where amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss)
- Arthur v. Maersk, 434 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2006) (leave to amend standards)
- Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2007) (district courts must ordinarily offer amendment in civil rights cases unless inequitable or futile)