Students’ COVID-Based Against Rensselaer Polytechnic Can Proceed

Last month, Judge David Hurd denied a motion to dismiss brought by defendant Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in a suit brought by some of its students.  The plaintiffs allege that RPI committed breach of contract and various torts by providing a lower-quality education, due to restrictions dictated by RPI’s response to the pandemic, than plaintiffs had been promised.    The students seek as damages the difference between the value of on-campus education and the online program in which they have participated.  

RPI defended against the breach of contract claim by pointing to case law indicating that “courts have a restricted role in reviewing controversies involving colleges and universities.”  In addition, RPI alleged that plaintiffs could point to no contractual promise that RPI had made to them.  The court held that plaintiffs’ first argument, that the university made an implied promise of on-campus education, was “esoteric” and did not withstand scrutiny.  But the court was more sympathetic to plaintiffs’ second argument, that RPI’s catalogues and circulars describe a mandatory on-campus learning experience as integral to its program.  The court was unpersuaded by RPI’s argument that the documents in question were aspirational, pointing to the documents’ repeated use of the word “will.”  RPI seems to be a victim of its own good marketing.  As the court noted, RPI made “some bold claims . .  . about its in-person programming and hammered repeatedly on the benefits of those programs.”  

The court also rejected RPI’s attempt to characterize plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim as an impermissible educational malpractice claim in disguise.  New York permits no such claims, but plaintiffs are not denying that they were being educated.  They are claiming that they did not get full value for their tuition payments, and tuition covers more than the right to take classes. Plaintiffs are not alleging that they received inferior instruction, nor do they question whether RPI made the right decision in moving to online education.  Even if RPI did everything right, that still does not mean that it delivered on its contractual promises.  RPI’s arguments that it too has suffered economically from the pandemic and did not profit from its decision to move classes online were thus unavailing.

The court also permitted plaintiffs’ alternative claims of unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel to survive.  It is not clear to me, given that plaintiffs do not allege an inferior education or that RPI somehow saved money by offering online education during the pandemic, how the plaintiffs intend to show compensable harm based on either breach of contract or unjust enrichment.  I’m also not sure how a class, as plaintiffs seek class certification, could show detrimental reliance.   Commonality issues would abound.  But those are  questions for another day.

All educators should watch this cases (and like cases) carefully.  University marketing departments might have to move from clear promises to puffery if they want to avoid exposure to similar claims going forward.