Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Class Action newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (April 28, 2021, 5:38 PM EDT ) The University of Pittsburgh made no promise to provide in-person learning to students who launched a proposed class action last May seeking tuition refunds after the school moved its classes online due to the coronavirus pandemic, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV granted Pitt's bid to dismiss the class claims brought by students Claire Hickey, Akira Kirkpatrick, Valeri Natoli, Candace N. Graham, Nicholas Bowes and Carly Swartz, saying the students haven't shown the university broke any promise related to in-person instruction or tuition.
In their suit filed May 8, the undergraduate students said Pitt collected tens of thousands of dollars in tuition, housing and meal costs, but closed the campus, canceled in-person classes and switched to an allegedly inferior online instruction model for the spring 2020 semester in order to quell the spread of COVID-19.
"Plaintiffs and the members of the class have paid for tuition for a first-rate education and educational experience, with all the appurtenant benefits offered by a first-rate university, and were provided a materially deficient and insufficient alternative," the complaint stated. "Plaintiffs and the class have paid fees for services and facilities which are simply not being provided; this failure also constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by plaintiffs and the class with the university."
In his order Tuesday, Judge Stickman found that the university didn't make any promises to provide in-person classes and on-campus experiences, despite its website and promotional materials reflecting the "myriad of opportunities students can take advantage of in ordinary times through their on-campus experience."
The students received those services and experiences until the university was required to comply with Pennsylvania state mandates to stop the spread of COVID-19, the judge said. But there was no contract that required the university to provide in-person classes no matter what extraordinary circumstances might befall the school, according to the order.
The students were still given the chance to complete the semester and earn college credits, the judge said, meaning the school lived up to its end of the bargain.
Judge Stickman dismissed the students' suit, saying the circumstances related to the pandemic were unforeseen but Pitt's hands were tied as it was required to abide by state lockdown rules.
"The court is sympathetic to these students and understands that students faced a drastically different college experience than anticipated," the judge said. "Indeed, the university, no less than its students, had no reason to anticipate that the pandemic would cause such a drastic disruption to the ordinary flow of student life."
"Nonetheless, not every unfortunate situation is actionable," he added.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
Pitt isn't the only higher education institution to escape such tuition refund claims amid the pandemic.
Temple University last week escaped a similar lawsuit, while the University of Pennsylvania partially beat claims that it had breached contracts by continuing to charge full tuition and fees even though students were kept off campus to avoid spreading the coronavirus.
Earlier this month, an Illinois federal judge tossed a similar suit against Lewis University, saying the student hadn't alleged that the university made a promise to provide in-person classes.
And New York University on March 17 dodged a tuition suit, followed by George Washington University on March 24, while Santa Clara University on March 29 beat a tuition suit brought by three law students.
The Pitt students are represented by Gary F. Lynch, Edward W. Ciolko and Kelly K. Iverson of Carlson Lynch LLP, Jeffrey A. Klafter, Seth R. Lesser and Amir Alimehri of Klafter Lesser LLP and Eric M. Poulin and Roy T. Willey IV of Anastopoulo Law Firm.
Pitt is represented by Thomas L. Allen, Jeffrey M. Weimer and Tia M. McClenney of Reed Smith LLP.
The case is Claire Hickey et al. v. University of Pittsburgh, case number 2:20-cv-00690, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
--Additional reporting by Matthew Santoni, Celeste Bott, Melissa Angell, Khorri Atkinson and Hannah Albarazi. Editing by Daniel King.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
