400 F.Supp.3d 360
M.D.N.C.2019Background
- Samuel Shaw, an Elon University student, was involved in an October 20, 2017 physical altercation after he tackled and struck another student (Spencer Schar) whom he believed to be a threat; Elon’s police allegedly found Shaw acted in self-defense.
- Elon’s Student Handbook sets out a Code of Conduct and Formal Conduct Procedures describing investigatory steps, timelines (e.g., preliminary inquiry typically 1–7 business days; most hearings within 30 days), and that decisions are made by preponderance of the evidence; the Handbook also states procedures are flexible and may be updated.
- Elon’s Director of Student Conduct investigated, held a student conduct conference and a telephone formal hearing; a case resolution form recorded Shaw as “Responsible,” and Shaw was suspended (timeline alleged longer than Handbook “typical” timeframes); Shaw appealed and the Appeal Board upheld the suspension.
- Shaw filed a breach of contract claim in state court alleging Elon breached promises in the Student Handbook (failure to follow timelines, consider all credible evidence, apply procedures consistently, and adhere to fairness); defendant removed to federal court and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The court treated the Handbook as integral to the complaint but concluded the Handbook’s language is aspirational, unilateral, and reserving modification rights; Shaw did not allege a separate, signed contract incorporating the Handbook terms.
- The court granted Elon’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Shaw’s amended complaint, holding the Handbook did not plausibly establish an enforceable contract under North Carolina law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Student Handbook created an enforceable contract | Shaw: Handbook promises (timelines, procedures, fairness, preponderance standard) are contractual obligations supporting breach claim | Elon: Handbook is unilateral, aspirational, not incorporated into any signed contract; no meeting of the minds or definite terms | Court: No enforceable contract pleaded; Handbook language is aspirational and reserved to be changed, so dismissal warranted |
| Whether Shaw alleged sufficient facts that Elon breached any contractual promise | Shaw: Alleged deviations from Handbook timelines, missing witness statements, unequal punishment for Schar | Elon: Even if deviations occurred, Handbook is not a contract and factual allegations are conclusory | Court: Allegations do not plausibly show a contractual promise or that decision lacked preponderance basis; speculative/incomplete facts insufficient |
| Whether a limited procedural-only breach claim could survive absent a signed incorporation | Shaw: Relies on cases allowing procedural contract claims based on handbook promises | Elon: Precedent requires an explicit, identifiable contractual promise or incorporation into a contract | Court: North Carolina precedent requires explicit incorporation; analogies to McFadyen/other district decisions not persuasive here without a signed contract |
| Whether reservation/modify language in Handbook defeats contract formation | Shaw: Handbook terms nonetheless constituted consideration tied to fees paid | Elon: Reservation to update Handbook and open-ended terms negate intent to be bound | Court: Reservation and indefinite language undermine manifestation of intent; no enforceable obligation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for pleading plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requiring plausibility)
- Black v. W. Carolina Univ., 109 N.C. App. 209 (handbook/code not part of employment contract absent incorporation)
- Montessori Children’s House of Durham v. Blizzard, 244 N.C. App. 633 (webpage/advertising statements not enforceable absent incorporation)
- Supplee v. Miller-Motte Bus. Coll., Inc., 239 N.C. App. 208 (catalog incorporated into enrollment agreements supports contract claim)
- McFadyen v. Duke Univ., 786 F. Supp. 2d 887 (permitting limited procedural breach theory against university under certain allegations)
- Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (noting student–university legal relationship may be contractual)