Enforceability of University Policies as Contracts: Insights from University of Denver v. John Doe

Introduction

In the case of University of Denver v. John Doe (2024 CO 27), the Supreme Court of Colorado addressed critical issues surrounding the contractual obligations of higher education institutions towards their students. John Doe, a student expelled from the University of Denver (DU) following allegations of nonconsensual sexual contact, challenged the university's investigation and adjudication processes. This case delves into whether DU's sexual misconduct policies constitute enforceable contracts and the extent of the university's duties under both contract and tort law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed part of the Colorado Court of Appeals' decision while reversing another part. Specifically, the court held that the promise within DU's Office of Equal Opportunity Procedures (OEO Procedures) to conduct a "thorough, impartial and fair" investigation, when read in conjunction with specific procedural provisions, is sufficiently definite and certain to be enforceable under contract law. Consequently, there are genuine disputes of material fact regarding Doe's breach-of-contract claims. However, the court also determined that DU does not owe an extra-contractual tort-based duty to its students in the context of sexual misconduct investigations, thereby upholding the summary judgment in favor of DU on Doe's negligence claim.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents to shape its decision:

WHITAKER v. COLEMAN (1940): Emphasized that summary judgment is a procedural tool, not a means to deprive parties of a trial.
CenCor, Inc. v. Tolman (1994): Recognized that educational institutions have a contractual relationship with students, which can be enforceable based on provided materials like enrollment agreements.
AMOCO OIL CO. v. ERVIN (1995): Established that the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing applies only when contract terms allow for discretion.
Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr. (2000): Highlighted the interplay between contract law and tort law, particularly the economic loss rule.
Doe v. University of Dayton (6th Cir. 2019) and Doe v. Trustees of Boston College (1st Cir. 2018): Both cases rejected negligence claims against universities in similar contexts, reinforcing the boundary between contract and tort obligations.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the OEO Procedures as a contractual agreement. By reading the promise of a "thorough, impartial and fair" investigation alongside specific procedural details, the court found that DU had established clear contractual obligations. These obligations included specific protocols for conducting investigations, such as interviewing designated witnesses and reviewing all relevant documentation.

The court rejected DU's contention that the promise was too vague by emphasizing the importance of the specific provisions within the OEO Procedures. These provisions provided the necessary clarity to enforce the promise as a contract. Furthermore, the court upheld the principle that tort claims, such as negligence, are precluded when a contract governs the relationship between the parties, aligning with established precedents.

Impact

This judgment significantly impacts how higher education institutions draft and implement policies related to student conduct and sexual misconduct investigations. By affirming that such policies can constitute enforceable contracts when they are sufficiently detailed, universities must ensure that their procedural guidelines are clear, specific, and consistently followed to avoid contractual breaches. Additionally, the decision reinforces the boundary between contractual obligations and tort duties, streamlining the avenues through which students can seek remedies for grievances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is a legal procedure where the court decides a case without a full trial when there are no disputed material facts. It’s not intended to trap or deceive parties but to expedite cases where the law clearly favors one side based on undisputed facts.

Contractual Promises in University Policies

Universities often include promises in their policies, such as conducting fair investigations into misconduct. If these policies are detailed enough, they can be considered contracts between the university and its students. This means that if the university fails to follow its own procedures, it may be legally liable for breach of contract.

Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

This is an unwritten obligation in all contracts that requires parties to act honestly and fairly towards each other, ensuring that neither party attempts to undermine the contract’s purpose.

Economic Loss Rule

This legal principle prevents plaintiffs from recovering solely for economic losses in tort actions when a contract exists between the parties. It ensures that contract law addresses breaches, avoiding overlapping remedies in tort law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Colorado's decision in University of Denver v. John Doe underscores the critical importance of clarity and specificity in university policies that are intended to serve as contracts. By affirming that detailed procedural guidelines enforce contractual obligations, the court has set a precedent that higher education institutions must meticulously craft and adhere to their policies to protect both the institution and its students. Furthermore, the clear demarcation between contractual and tort duties ensures that both parties have a predictable framework for resolving disputes, ultimately fostering a fair and accountable academic environment.