A court has approved a class action lawsuit against the University of Delaware (UD) after it closed its campus in Newark during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Spring 2020. Students who were given online classes during the coronavirus pandemic are seeking partial tuition reimbursements. More than 17,000 undergraduates were enrolled at the University of Delaware in spring 2020, and the university collected more than $160 million in tuition. Now, they can seek partial refunds under to a March 31 ruling by Judge Stephanos Bibas.
The lead plaintiffs say that, before COVID, the school treated in-person and online classes as separate offerings and charged more for some in-person programs than they did for similar online classes. They also noted that the university charged them fees for the gym, student centers, and the health center, sometimes at higher rates than those paid by online students, and that the school kept those fees while denying them the services.
Plaintiffs assert that paying full tuition for online classes at UD–where students paid less for online classes before the pandemic–constituted unjust enrichment and a breach of contract. “If U. Delaware got a greater benefit than the students, then it was probably unjust for the school to keep the students’ money, as that enrichment has no basis in a valid agreement,” Judge Bibas wrote in finding that a class action could proceed on the claim of unjust enrichment. “But if an online education in spring 2020 was worth full tuition, then there was no net enrichment.”
The students and former students suing UD also assert that the university’s contract with students comes with an implied obligation to offer in-person classes.
“To decide whether holding classes in person was part of the parties’ bargain, I anticipate looking at evidence of how U. Delaware advertised itself and whether students were attending classes in person before the pandemic,” Bibas said.
Early last year, at least six dozen universities faced similar lawsuits from students demanding reimbursement after paying full tuition.
Two Iowa colleges recently settled lawsuits alleging unjust enrichment and breach of contract. The students who brought the lawsuits made their case by pointing out “that the colleges marketed themselves with promises about the on-campus experience,” reported the Des Moines Register. They also argued that not all students could move their curricula online, with students studying music missing out on “ensembles, performances, or one-on-one lessons with faculty.”
The students suing the University of Delaware are seeking partial refunds of their spring 2020 tuition, having earlier agreed to dismiss their claims arising from student fees.
The university claimed that none of the named plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit paid tuition.
“That is false,” Judge Bibas said. “The named plaintiffs paid tuition, through either loans or cash from their parents.”
Whether students were part-time or full-time might affect the damages to which they are entitled but does not affect the University’s liability, the judge said.
Bibas had earlier ruled that the students had plausibly claimed that the University implicitly promised them in-person classes, activities and services. “I anticipate looking at evidence of how U. Delaware advertised itself and whether students were attending classes in person before the pandemic,” he said.
In 2021, a judge in Massachusetts ruled that a lawsuit against Stonehill College for a partial refund could go forward after it shut down in-person learning due to the coronavirus, because online teaching isn’t worth as much as being taught in class.
Judges have reached different conclusions about whether students can sue for a partial refund, depending on what their college has said to them about its educational processes and benefits, and depending on the judges’ own willingness to treat college handbooks and promotional materials as binding contracts or not.
In Moran v. Stonehill College, a Massachusetts state judge allowed a college to be sued for a partial refund. She reasoned, “[As to the] university’s … argument that any breach resulting from the transition to online teaching was de minimis because the student still earned credits toward a diploma: ‘This is kind of like purchasing a Cadillac at full price and receiving an Oldsmobile. Although both are fine vehicles, surely it is no consolation to the Cadillac buyer that the ‘Olds’ can also go from Point A to Point B.’”
In Chong v. Northeastern University, C.A. No. 1:20-10844-RGS (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2020), a federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiff students’ breach of contract claim seeking partial reimbursement of tuition to compensate for the inferiority of online instruction, holding that the “plaintiffs fail to state a claim because they have not plausibly established that the parties’ agreement included a right to in-person instruction.” The judge also allowed dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim related to a student activity fee, student center fee, and undergraduate student fee because those fees were imposed to “support” (rather than to gain access to) certain facilities during terms for which students are enrolled in classes, but refused to dismiss the breach of contract claim related to a campus recreation fee because payment of that fee gave students the option to gain admission to home athletic events and use fitness facilities.
A federal judge reached a different result in In re Boston University COVID-19 Refund Litigation, denying Boston University’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff students’ breach of contract claims premised on the failure to provide in-person instruction and the closure of on-campus facilities and resources. He rejected the argument that the plaintiffs failed to articulate any legal basis for a contractual right to in-person instruction, pointing to the plaintiffs’ allegation that representations in the defendant’s course registration materials implied that they would receive traditional, in-person instruction at physical locations on campus.
The judge said he could not conclude, as a matter of law, “that no student could have reasonably expected that paying the tuition charged for the Spring semester of 2020 and registering for on-campus courses would entitle them to in-person instruction,” and noted that he “need[ed] the benefit of further factual development of the contractual claims to resolve the issue on the merits.” The judge reached the same result with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims for reimbursement of fees, explaining, “the court cannot say, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs could not have reasonably expected that their payment of mandatory fees would grant them access to at least some of the on-campus facilities and resources shut down by BU on March 22, 2020.” See also Salerno v. Florida S. College (2020) (denying motion to dismiss breach of contract claim based on defendant’s closure of campus and transition to online classes due to pandemic where defendant’s publications clearly implied in-person instruction and touted its many on-campus resources and facilities); Milanov v. University of Michigan (2020) (denying motion for summary disposition on plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims seeking reimbursement of pro rata portion of amounts paid for in-person instruction, housing, meals, and student activities following closure of campus and transition to allegedly inferior online instruction due to pandemic).
When colleges have historically provided both online and in-person instruction, and charged less for online instruction, students who signed up for in-person instruction have tended to win partial refunds when they were relegated to online instruction due to the coronavirus. See, e.g., Rosado v. Barry University (2020) (denying motion to dismiss breach of contract claim based on defendant’s closure of campus and transition to online classes due to pandemic where defendant charged more for on-campus instruction than online instruction, and defendant’s publications clearly implied in-person instruction and touted its many on-campus resources and facilities).
