CHICAGO — A federal judge has dismissed a class action from Northwestern University students who sought a tuition refund because they were only able to attend online classes after the school closed down in-person classes in the spring of 2020 in response to COVID-19.
Four current and former students alleged the decision to move to exclusively online classes constituted either a breach of contract or unjust enrichment. In an opinion issued Sept. 15, Judge Harry Leinenweber granted NU’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
According to court documents, Northwestern canceled all classes from March 31 through April 3, 2020, then moved the spring quarter to remote learning. On June 15, 2020, the school announced a “significant portion” of fall 2020 classes also would be online. The students said under NU’s pre-pandemic tuition pricing structure, the cost for online education was about $21 less per credit hour than what a full-time student paid.
John Soumilas
| consumerlawfirm.com
Beyond the cost of class, the students noted online education is different because some of the lectures are prerecorded, there is no classroom interaction, collaborative learning or in-person dialogue. They said study skills development suffers, and they took issue with the institution of pass-fail grades. The students further noted libraries, computer labs and study rooms were inaccessible.
Leinenweber rejected NU’s request to have the claims shifted to educational malpractice, saying the complaint ultimately challenged the quality of the education. He said he was only required to evaluate contractual obligations, not educational efforts, and examined the students’ evidence that the school defaulted on its promises, including what they said were express terms spelled out in their acceptance letters.
“The closest the letters reach to any reference of in-person instruction are in portions that extol the benefits of entering into a contract with the university in broad terms and are not concrete enough to be actionable,” Leinenweber wrote. Referencing one undergraduate admission letter, which read in part that “Northwestern will immerse you in an environment with limitless possibilities to learn, make a difference and define your path for future success,” Leinenweber said the school “cannot be required to present a literal environment of ‘limitless possibility’ as the university is anchored, as we all are, by temporal reality.”
The students said a promise of the chance to “see clients in the Family Institute’s own Bette D. Harris Family and Child Clinic” could only be honored with entrance to a physical building, but Leinenweber said the existence of clinical program does not “guarantee a physical location for either the in-person instruction or the meeting of patients.”
Leinenweber also rejected the alternative argument that the communications NU sent students created an implied contract that classes could be attended in person. Although he said the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said school-student agreements generally are implied contracts, neither the school website, course catalog or faculty handbook indicate “a specific contractual promise was created to provide in-person instruction.”
Just because the school describes something on its website, or promotes activities via photo or video, does not guarantee a future student would have an identical experience, Leinenweber said, adding that the course catalogs specifically say NU reserves the right to change things without notice. The faculty handbook, he said, cannot be used to sustain any argument about contracts with students.
Leinenweber also rejected the unjust enrichment claim, saying Illinois law doesn’t allow such claims when a contract is in place. The students used the same evidence as they did to allege breach of contract, thus negating their own legal theory. And because he “already held that comparison in value is a noncognizable educational malpractice claim,” Leinenweber said he couldn’t grant relief on that ground either.
The students have 30 days to amend their complaint or Leinenweber will enter judgment in favor of the university.
The students are represented in the action by attorneys Yvette Golan, of The Golan Firm, of Washington, D.C., and James Francis, John Soumilas, David Searles and Edward Skipton, of the firm of Francis Mailman Soumilas, of Philadelphia.
Northwestern has been represented by attorneys Craig C. Martin, Brienne M. Letourneau and Chloe Holt, of the fimr of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, of Chicago.