496 P.3d 105
Utah2021Background
- Christina Rossi was admitted to the University of Utah Neuroscience Ph.D. program and received program materials (catalog/Student Code, Program Policy Statement, AAMC Compact, Research Misconduct Policy, Remediation Plan).
- Rossi’s mentor changed to Dr. Dudek, who had a disclosed ownership interest in the Epoch device used in her research; disputes arose about research results and alleged conflicts of interest.
- The dissertation Committee found Rossi’s work deficient, offered a Remediation Plan and a second defense opportunity, Rossi filed a grievance proposing different terms, repeatedly missed deadlines, and the Committee ultimately dismissed her in January 2014.
- Rossi exhausted the University’s internal appeals; she sued the University for breach of contract (relying on multiple university documents), breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the University; the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) enforceability depends on contract principles (a bargained‑for promise), (2) Rossi failed to show any university document formed such a bargained‑for promise, (3) the covenant claim failed, and (4) no general tort/fiduciary duty was imposed on educators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether university policies/catalog create enforceable contracts | Rossi: University policies and manuals created contractual promises enforceable against the University | Univ: No blanket rule; enforceability requires a bargained‑for promise and mutual assent | Court: Adopted general contract law — enforceability requires a promise exchanged for student performance; rejected blanket university‑specific rule |
| Student Code / General Catalog (Policy 6‑400) | Rossi: Catalog rights (due process, support, respectful treatment) were contractual promises | Univ: Catalog expressly disclaims being a contract | Court: Dismissed — disclaimer precludes formation of a contract |
| Program documents, Faculty Code, Research Misconduct Policy, AAMC Compact, Remediation Plan | Rossi: Those documents set enforceable standards/promises the University breached | Univ: Many documents are internal operating rules or aimed at faculty, not promises in exchange for student performance; Remediation Plan was effectively rejected by Rossi’s grievance | Court: Dismissed — no evidence of bargained‑for exchange or assent; Remediation Plan was an offer that Rossi countered, so no acceptance |
| Covenant of good faith & negligence (fiduciary/special duty) | Rossi: University breached implied covenant and had tort duty to provide adequate educational process and to restore reputation | Univ: Covenant cannot create new rights inconsistent with express terms; no general fiduciary/special tort duty exists | Court: Dismissed covenant claim (no link to specific contract fruits or course of dealings); rejected recognizing a general fiduciary/educational tort duty (allowed narrow duties re: physical harm but not a broad academic standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109 (Utah 2006) (recognized policy context but did not create blanket contractual status for university policies)
- Young Living Essential Oils, LC v. Marin, 266 P.3d 814 (Utah 2011) (limits scope of covenant of good faith and fair dealing)
- Cope v. Utah Valley State Coll., 342 P.3d 243 (Utah 2014) (permitting narrow tort duty to avoid unreasonable physical harm in a university context)
- Aquagen Int’l, Inc. v. Calrae Tr., 972 P.2d 411 (Utah 1998) (contract formation requires a bargain with mutual assent and consideration)
- Johnson v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., 818 P.2d 997 (Utah 1991) (clear handbook or manual disclaimers prevent contract formation)
- Oakwood Vill. LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 104 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2004) (covenant cannot create obligations inconsistent with express contract terms)
- Cal Wadsworth Constr. v. City of St. George, 898 P.2d 1372 (Utah 1995) (counteroffer defeats formation by acceptance)
- Slaughter v. Brigham Young Univ., 514 F.2d 622 (10th Cir. 1975) (noting university‑setting nuances in applying contract principles)