Suit: Quinnipiac ‘deprived students of in-person learning’
HAMDEN — A portion of a federal lawsuit over the shift to remote learning at Quinnipiac University will be allowed to move forward, according to Judge Kari A. Dooley’s ruling on the school’s motion to dismiss the case.
A group of Quinnipiac students and parents filed the lawsuit against the university in June.
In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs argued that they had paid for and sought the chance to physically attend the university, and, because of the coronavirus-related closure of the campus in March 2020, been deprived of the full value of that experience, including the richness of in-person instruction, campus events, and the chance to build relationships with other students.
The school, the students and parents alleged in the amended complaint, had not offered tuition refunds or reimbursement for the shift online, thus breaching their implied agreement.
The cost of tuition at Quinnipiac for 2021-22 is $48,680, according to the university website. Enrollees are also charged $1,840 in student fees and $750 in technology fees.
“The remote, online learning classes offered to Spring 2020 students since March deprived students of in-person learning
from their peers and school faculty. The move to these remote classes also deprived students of access to the facilities, materials, and opportunities only offered on Quinnipiac’s physical campus,” attorney Craig Raabe wrote in the amended complaint. “The online classes Plaintiffs and their peers have been provided are not equivalent to the in-person, campus experience that Plaintiffs and other Quinnipiac students chose for their university education.”
The amended complaint also alleges that the university had
unjustly enriched itself by taking fees for events and services not provided during the pandemic, and that it had improperly taken ownership of their tuition fees.
However, attorney Edward J. Heath, representing Quinnipiac, argued in a motion to dismiss the case that the plaintiffs’ claims “hinge on the allegation that (they) ... received an education that was worth less than what they paid because of the transition to online learning.”
The court’s ability to judge that idea, he wrote in the motion, “is precluded under wellestablished law, which bars judicial interference in disputes over educational decisions or the quality or effectiveness of an institution’s instruction.”
“An analysis by this Court or a jury of any of the Plaintiffs’ claims would constitute an impermissible intrusion on Quinnipiac’s educational autonomy to determine, among other things, how its students are best taught,” Heath wrote.
Among other points, Heath also argued that the university had not exclusively promised to provide in-person instruction; that tuition refunds were only promised in certain circumstances that do not include a change in the manner of instruction; and that Quinnipiac had not acted in bad faith — the students and parents acknowledge that the closure was warranted in their complaint.
In a subsequent motion to dismiss, Heath also argued that the parents did not have standing to bring the suit.
Last week, as first reported by the Connecticut Law Tribune, Judge Kari A. Dooley ruled on both motions to dismiss.
Dooley agreed that the parents do not have standing, as any potential contract with the university would be between students and the school, not parents, but said that the university had potentially promised to offer in-person instruction in its description of campus offerings ahead of the pandemic.
Dooley allowed the plaintiffs’ claim regarding breach of contract to move forward, however, saying that “the promise alleged to have been breached is not a promise to provide an effective or adequate education but instead to provide an in-person education,” taking it out of the realm of judging quality of education.
“The Court therefore disagrees with the Defendant that the fact finder would necessarily be called upon to assess such questions as whether a lecture delivered by Zoom is less valuable than one offered in person, whether students’ virtual interactions with faculty members are less educationally meaningful than in-person interactions, or whether remote library and other related services failed to provide an appropriate level of support following the closure of on-campus facilities,” Dooley wrote in her ruling.
Dooley also allowed the claim of unjust enrichment to move forward, saying the possibility was logical enough not to be resolved through a motion to dismiss, but dismissed the conversion claim, saying the specific tuition fees paid by the plaintiffs were no longer their property, and thus they had relinquished the right to those specific funds.