37 F.4th 691
1st Cir.2022Background
- Damilare Sonoiki graduated Harvard College in 2013 but Harvard withheld his undergraduate degree after three students filed sexual‑misconduct complaints; the Ad Board later expelled him following its disciplinary process.
- Sonoiki sued Harvard for breach of contract, denial of basic fairness, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel/reliance; Harvard moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted dismissal of all counts, concluding Sonoiki failed to plausibly plead contractual breaches or denial of basic fairness.
- On appeal, the First Circuit accepted the complaint’s factual allegations and the attached student‑handbook documents, reviewed contract‑interpretation principles, and analyzed whether Sonoiki had plausibly alleged reasonable expectations the university breached.
- The court reversed in part: it held Sonoiki plausibly alleged a breach of contract claim based on an ambiguity in the Ad Board materials about when Harvard may withhold a degree (and certain reasonable expectations about his Board Representative and initial procedures), but affirmed dismissal of the denial‑of‑basic‑fairness claim, the implied‑covenant claim, and the estoppel/reliance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether handbook ambiguous about when Harvard may withhold a degree | Sonoiki: handbook inconsistently uses “case” vs. “charge”; he reasonably expected degree at commencement absent a charge | Harvard: handbook clearly permits withholding a degree once a disciplinary case (an allegation/report) is pending | Court: ambiguity exists as to when withholding is triggered; plausible breach alleged — reversal in part |
| Whether “sufficiently persuaded” evidentiary standard is vague/unenforceable | Sonoiki: term is undefined, fatally vague, not equivalent to preponderance | Harvard: term is a lay equivalent of preponderance; no contractual violation alleged | Court: term not fatally vague; Sonoiki did not plead that Harvard failed to apply its stated standard — dismissal affirmed on this point |
| Whether university denied “basic fairness” in disciplinary process | Sonoiki: multiple procedures (simultaneous investigations, subcommittee reuse, undisclosed witness identities, administrator conduct) deprived him of basic fairness | Harvard: followed its written procedures; courts defer to universities’ disciplinary process choices | Court: Sonoiki did not tie alleged defects to breach of the handbook’s fairness promises; claim not plausibly pleaded — dismissal affirmed |
| Whether implied covenant and promissory‑estoppel claims survive | Sonoiki: alternative theories of liability; covenant and estoppel should survive with breach claim | Harvard: existing contract governs; promissory estoppel unavailable where contract exists; implied covenant overlaps with basic fairness | Court: implied covenant claim duplicative of denied‑fairness theory — dismissed; promissory estoppel unavailable given an enforceable contract — dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Zell v. Ricci, 957 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (12(b)(6) review of pleadings and attachments)
- Lass v. Bank of Am., N.A., 695 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012) (contract ambiguity may survive motion to dismiss)
- Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, 892 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2018) (student contract interpretation; basic fairness context)
- Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, 942 F.3d 527 (1st Cir. 2019) (deference to academic disciplinary choices; basic fairness standards)
- Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 735 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. 2000) (reasonable expectations test in student‑university contracts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: disregard legal conclusions)
- Cloud v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 720 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1983) (reasonable expectations approach for student disciplinary claims)