547 F.Supp.3d 133
D. Mass.2021Background
- Suffolk University offered higher-priced in-person programs and lower-priced fully online programs; plaintiffs paid in-person tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester and attended on-campus before spring break.
- Mid-semester (March 2020) Suffolk closed campus and moved all classes online due to COVID-19 and announced no tuition refunds; plaintiffs did not allege any express written contract promising in-person instruction.
- Plaintiffs filed putative class actions asserting breach of implied-in-fact contract and unjust enrichment based on university publications, catalogs, handbooks, payment of tuition/fees, and registration/attendance.
- Suffolk moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs’ claims are barred as educational malpractice or by academic freedom, that no contractual promise was pled (and the catalog disclaimer renders any promise illusory), and that unjust enrichment is unavailable.
- The court denied Suffolk’s motions to dismiss, finding plaintiffs plausibly alleged an implied contract for an in-person experience (distinct from an educational-malpractice claim), the catalog disclaimer was not dispositive of all alleged promises (though it made any promise in the online catalog illusory), and unjust enrichment claims survived at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are barred as educational malpractice | Plaintiffs say they challenge non-delivery of promised in-person experience, not educational quality | Suffolk says claims amount to educational malpractice and would require courts to evaluate academic quality | Court: Not educational malpractice at pleading stage — the claim targets non-delivery, not quality; dismissal premature (damages determination may later raise academic-quality issues) |
| Academic freedom barrier | Plaintiffs seek enforcement of contractual promises, not judicial review of curricular judgments | Suffolk contends adjudication would infringe academic freedom if court must judge instructional methods or efficacy | Court: Academic freedom does not bar contract or quasi-contract review of promises to students; court may objectively determine whether promised services were provided |
| Existence of an implied-in-fact contract | Plaintiffs rely on university publications + payment of tuition/fees + registration/attendance to allege a reasonable expectation of in-person experience | Suffolk contends publications are vague/puffery and catalog disclaimer forecloses promises | Court: Allegations (publications + payments + attendance) sufficiently plead a plausible implied contract; catalog disclaimer made any promise in that catalog illusory but did not negate other plausible bases for contract |
| Unjust enrichment / availability of equitable relief | Plaintiffs plead unjust enrichment in the alternative to contract and allege retention of fees would be inequitable | Suffolk contends an adequate legal remedy (contract) bars unjust enrichment and pleads insufficient facts | Court: Alternative pleading is permitted; plaintiffs plausibly allege benefit conferred, knowledge, and inequitable retention; unjust enrichment claims survive pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ambrose v. N.E. Ass'n of Schs. & Colls., Inc., 252 F.3d 488 (1st Cir.) (courts routinely reject educational malpractice claims)
- Squeri v. Mount Ida Coll., 954 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.) (elements and standards for implied-in-fact contracts in student-college context)
- Walker v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 840 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.) (reasonable-expectation standard for university promises)
- Jackson v. Action for Boston Community Dev., Inc., 403 Mass. 8 (Mass.) (reservation-of-rights can render promises illusory)
- Pacella v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Dental Med., 66 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D. Mass.) (applies Jackson to disclaimers in academic materials)
- Tomasella v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 962 F.3d 60 (1st Cir.) (availability of legal remedy affects unjust enrichment but alternative pleading allowed)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Cotter, 464 Mass. 623 (Mass.) (unjustness turns on reasonable expectations)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (academic freedom principles)
- Ewing v. Board of Regents, 474 U.S. 214 (deference to academic judgments)
- Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir.) (contract claim is not educational malpractice when institution failed to provide promised service entirely)
- Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (courts disregard legal conclusions in pleading analysis)