Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Ph.D. Student’s Breach of Contract Claim Against Grand Canyon University

In Young v. Grand Canyon University, Inc. Plaintiff Donrich Young enrolled in a Ph.D. program at Grand Canyon University (GCU).  He was told that he would need to complete 60 hours of course work and was promised faculty support so that he could complete his dissertation.  He alleges that GCU made it impossible for him to complete his coursework, requiring him to take and pay for additional courses.  He sued alleging breach of contract and other claims, but the District Court dismissed his claims.  

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of his claim that GCU promised a Ph.D. after the completion of 60 course hours, it reinstated  Mr. Young’s claims about GCU’s failure of provide faculty to support.  Arizona law applies to Mr. Young’s claims.  Mr. Young’s case began as a proposed class action, but for reasons the case does not make clear, he is now proceeding individually.  Given the outcome of the case, there are probably other frustrated Ph.D. candidates out there who may have claims against GCU.  Commonality might be a challenge, but this is the ContractsProf Blog, not the ComplexLitigationProfs Blog.  In the alternative, perhaps this is something the Department of Education ought to look into.  Are federal loans going to universities that are taking students’ money based on promises on which they cannot deliver?

The availability of breach of contracts claims by students against their universities varies from state to state, but Arizona law permits such claims.  However, contrary to the allegations of the complaint, the Eleventh Circuit found that GCU never represented that students could earn a Ph.D. by completing 60 hours of courses.  On the contrary, 60 hours is the minimum.

Things went better for Mr. Young on his lack of faculty support claim.  The Eleventh Circuit found that GCU had promised to provide such support and failed to do so in the ways specified in the materials it promulgated which, taken together, constituted contractual promises, at least for the purposes of surviving at 12(b)(6) motion. 

Mr. Young’s claim on the breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing also survived in connection with the promised provision of faculty support.  His claim arising under Arizona’s consumer fraud statute failed because he did not meet the heightened pleading standard associated with fraud claims.  

The opinion nowhere states what sort of dissertation Mr. Young was seeking.  As a holder of Ph.D. from an esteemed university, I frequently come upon students who aspire to be addressed as “Doctor.”  Many good things came from my seven years of dissertating.  I traveled, I made friends for life, I met my wife.  Those things are counterbalanced by the fact that I delayed my launch into full-time gainful employment by nearly a decade.  To those considering a post-graduate degree, caveat emptor sums up my advice.