Mark Shaffer v. George Washington University
27f4th754
| D.C. Cir. | 2022Background
- Two consolidated appeals (Shaffer v. GW and Qureshi v. American) challenge universities’ refusals to refund tuition/fees after mid-March 2020 COVID-19 campus closures and transition to online instruction for spring 2020.
- Plaintiffs (students/parents) alleged breach of express and implied-in-fact contracts, unjust enrichment; Qureshi plaintiffs also alleged conversion and violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA).
- District Courts granted motions to dismiss, concluding no enforceable promise of in-person instruction and rejecting unjust enrichment, conversion, and CPPA claims in relevant parts.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal of express-contract claims but reversed dismissal of implied-in-fact breach claims as to tuition and certain fees (GW: additional course fees; American: sports center fee).
- The court also reversed dismissal of unjust enrichment claims (allowed as alternative pleadings), affirmed dismissal of conversion, and reversed/directed reconsideration of the CPPA claim against American.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether universities made an express contractual promise to provide in-person instruction | Plaintiffs: catalog/bulletin statements and pricing promised in-person education for on-campus tuition | Universities: no explicit promise; reservation-of-rights preserved ability to change modes | Court: Express-contract claims fail — no clear explicit promise supporting enforceable term |
| Whether an implied-in-fact contract existed to provide in-person instruction in exchange for on-campus tuition | Plaintiffs: historical practice, marketing of on-campus benefits, and price differentials created an implied promise | Universities: reservation clauses and academic-judgment principles defeat implied promise | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged implied-in-fact contracts re: tuition; claim survives dismissal |
| Whether specific fees created contractual promises to provide on-campus services (course fees, student assoc., sports center, activity, tech, Metro U‑Pass) | Plaintiffs: fees were charged for services/benefits that were then curtailed or denied | Universities: fee descriptions do not tie payment to continued in-person access; some fees serve campus-wide or offsite services | Court: Claims survive for GW additional course fees and American sports center fee; other fee claims dismissed (student association, activity, technology, Metro U‑Pass) |
| Whether unjust enrichment claims are barred when contract claims exist | Plaintiffs: unjust enrichment pleaded in the alternative if no binding contract or contract is ineffective | Universities: contract governs and precludes restitution | Court: Unjust enrichment claims may proceed as alternatives because contracts may not cover or may be invalid re: these specific issues |
| Whether conversion was adequately pleaded (right to specific, identifiable fund) | Plaintiffs: universities wrongfully retained tuition/fees | Universities: no specific possessory interest in identifiable fund | Court: Conversion claim dismissed for failing to allege an identifiable, specific fund |
| Whether CPPA claim pleaded with sufficient basis | Plaintiffs: misleading/untrue promises about campus services and tuition value violated CPPA | American: no actionable misrepresentation; possibly not a "merchant" for CPPA purposes | Court: Reversed dismissal — trial court misstated contract-pleading premise; remanded to consider CPPA defenses including statutory exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Basch v. George Washington Univ., 370 A.2d 1364 (D.C. 1977) (university bulletin language can become part of student–university contract; contract interpreted from reasonable person perspective)
- Pride v. Howard Univ., 384 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1978) (university publications may be incorporated into contractual obligations)
- Greene v. Howard Univ., 412 F.2d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (contracts read in light of norms and expectations in academic community)
- Mawakana v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of D.C., 926 F.3d 859 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (elements required to state a breach of contract claim)
- Camara v. Mastro’s Rests. LLC, 952 F.3d 372 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (definition and standards for implied-in-fact contracts under D.C. law)
- In re APA Assessment Fee Litig., 766 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (unjust enrichment unavailable where valid contract governs; exceptions when contract is invalid or doesn’t cover dispute)
- Allworth v. Howard Univ., 890 A.2d 194 (D.C. 2006) (courts generally defer on academic-judgment and quality-of-education disputes)
- Island Dev. Corp. v. District of Columbia, 933 A.2d 340 (D.C. 2007) (doctrine of impossibility/impracticability for contract discharge)
- Papageorge v. Zucker, 169 A.3d 861 (D.C. 2017) (conversion requires a possessory interest in a specific, identifiable fund)
- Falconi-Sachs v. LPF Senate Square, LLC, 142 A.3d 550 (D.C. 2016) (legitimacy/enforceability of contractual provision affects unjust enrichment viability)