226 N.C. App. 514
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Samost and Shaughnessy, seniors at Duke, faced university disciplinary proceedings based on off-campus parties and noise complaints.
- The Duke Bulletin, The Duke Community Standard in Practice, governs undergraduate disciplinary procedures and is treated as a contract by Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs were found responsible for certain violations; Appellate Board remanded for a new hearing due to new information and procedural concerns.
- The Appellate Board withheld diplomas and transcripts pending resolution of all charges; the Board allowed commencement participation.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on May 13, 2011 alleging breach of contract and requesting injunctive relief; Duke agreed to graduate them and terminate proceedings during TRO hearing.
- Trial court granted Duke’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the complaint with prejudice; Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bulletin creates an enforceable contract. | Bulletin expresses enforceable contractual promises. | Handbooks aren’t contracts unless expressly incorporated. | Assumed enforceable contract exists; breach not shown. |
| Whether Plaintiffs adequately alleged breach of the Bulletin. | Bulletin promises were breached during hearings and appeals. | Breach requires a completed disciplinary process. | No breach alleged under the uncompleted disciplinary process. |
| Whether a breach can occur before final disciplinary resolution. | Breach can occur for failure to follow procedures, even before final decision. | Breach only upon final, upheld decision. | Majority holds breach requires final decision; process incomplete. |
| Whether the complaint could be viable despite not having final completion due to injunctive relief. | Injunctive relief sought prior to final resolution. | Relief depends on eventual completion of procedures. | Injunctive relief not sufficient to show breach under current pleadings. |
| Whether the trial court should have allowed breach claim to proceed in light of internal appellate review. | Internal procedures are contractual and enforceable. | Internal review precludes civil breach claims until final outcome. | Affirmed judgment on pleadings; complaint not enough to state breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130 (N.C. 1974) (judgment on pleadings standard; baseless claims disposed of on pleadings)
- Poor v. Hill, 138 N.C. App. 19 (N.C. App. 2000) (elements of breach of contract; valid contract and breach)
- Thompson-Arthur Paving Co. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 97 N.C. App. 92 (N.C. App. 1990) (contract interpretation; harmonize provisions, give effect to all)
- Singleton v. Haywood Elec. Membership Corp., 357 N.C. 623 (N.C. 2003) (contractual interpretation; give effect to contract terms)
- Cone Mills Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 N.C. App. 684 (N.C. App. 1994) (when language clear, enforce the agreement as written)
- Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (student handbook contracts; identifiable contractual promises)