Introduction

In the landmark case of Sylvia Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, 51 F.4th 101 (2022), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed significant issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on higher education. This case involved former students of Tulane University seeking refunds for tuition and fees after the institution transitioned from in-person to online instruction amidst the pandemic. The Fifth Circuit's decision underscores the court's willingness to recognize implied-in-fact contracts between educational institutions and their students, especially in unprecedented circumstances.

Summary of the Judgment

Plaintiffs Sylvia Jones and John Ellis, representing a putative class of current and former Tulane University students, filed a lawsuit alleging that Tulane breached its contract by failing to provide the in-person instruction and on-campus services promised at the time of enrollment. Instead, Tulane shifted to online, off-campus instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic without issuing refunds for tuition and fees. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the students failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that the students plausibly alleged an implied-in-fact contract for in-person instruction and access to campus facilities. The court further rejected Tulane's arguments that the breach-of-contract claim was barred by an express Agreement and Disclosure Statement (A&DS) and that educational malpractice doctrines precluded the students' claims. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the breach-of-contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion claims to proceed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Petrobras Am., Inc. v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 9 F.4th 247 (2021): The court reviewed Rule 12(b)(6) motions de novo, emphasizing the requirement for a complaint to state a plausible claim.
• Guidry v. Our Lady of the Lake Nurse Anesthesia Program Through Our Lady of the Lake Coll., 170 So.3d 209 (2015): Established that while educational institutions have broad discretion, specific service agreements can be enforceable.
• Miller v. Loyola Univ. of New Orleans, 829 So.2d 1057 (2002): Clarified that educational malpractice is not recognized under Louisiana law, but specific service breaches can form the basis of a contract claim.
• Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992): Highlighted the balance between academic freedom and contractual obligations.
• Shaffer v. George Washington Univ., 27 F.4th 754 (2022): Emphasized that damages based on price disparities do not require subjective assessments of education quality.

Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit meticulously analyzed the plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claims, distinguishing between challenges to educational quality and breaches of specific service agreements. The court held that while Louisiana law prohibits claims of educational malpractice, it does not bar breach-of-contract actions based on failure to provide promised services. The key points in the court's reasoning include:

• Implied-In-Fact Contract: The court found that, based on the course catalog, credit hour policies, fee structures, and historical practices, an implied-in-fact contract existed promising in-person instruction and on-campus facilities.
• Agreement and Disclosure Statement (A&DS): Tulane's A&DS, intended to govern financial transactions, did not explicitly cover service provisions or refunds for non-delivery of services, thus not precluding the students' claims.
• Educational Malpractice Bar: The court clarified that the students were not challenging the quality of education per se but were alleging a breach of specific contract terms concerning the mode of instruction and access to campus services.
• Unjust Enrichment and Conversion: The court allowed these claims to proceed, noting that Tulane's retention of fees without providing the contracted services could constitute unjust enrichment and conversion if not justified.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for higher education institutions, particularly in contexts where unforeseen events disrupt the delivery of promised educational services. Key impacts include:

• Recognition of Implied Contracts: Universities may need to more explicitly outline service provisions and refund policies to mitigate potential vulnerabilities arising from implied contractual obligations.
• Fee Transparency: The decision underscores the importance of clearly linking fees to specific services, ensuring that retention of fees without service provision can be challenged.
• Pandemic Preparedness: Educational institutions may need to develop contingency plans and communicate them effectively to students to prevent similar disputes in the future.
• Legal Precedent: This case sets a precedent within the Fifth Circuit for recognizing implied-in-fact contracts in educational settings, influencing future litigation in similar scenarios.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Implied-In-Fact Contract

An implied-in-fact contract arises from the actions, conduct, or circumstances of the parties involved, demonstrating mutual intent to enter into an agreement, even if not explicitly stated in writing. In this case, Tulane's advertising, course catalogs, fee structures, and historical practices collectively implied a promise to provide in-person education and access to campus facilities, forming the basis for the students' contract claims.

Educational Malpractice

Educational malpractice refers to lawsuits challenging the quality of education provided by an institution. Louisiana law does not recognize educational malpractice as a cause of action under contract or tort law, primarily to protect academic freedom. However, specific breaches of contractual service provisions, such as failing to provide promised in-person instruction, are enforceable.

Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment occurs when one party benefits at the expense of another in circumstances deemed unjust by law. Here, Tulane retained tuition and fees without delivering the contracted educational services, which could constitute unjust enrichment if the retention is not legally justified.

Conversion

Conversion involves the wrongful possession or control over another's property. The students alleged that Tulane's retention of their fees without providing the agreed-upon services deprived them of their financial interests, potentially amounting to conversion.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit's decision in Jones v. Tulane University highlights the judiciary's role in upholding contractual obligations within the educational sphere, especially during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. By recognizing an implied-in-fact contract for in-person instruction and access to campus facilities, the court has set a significant precedent that balances academic autonomy with contractual accountability. Educational institutions must take heed of this ruling, ensuring clear communication and explicit agreements regarding the services they promise to deliver, thereby safeguarding both their interests and those of their students.

Ultimately, this judgment reinforces the principle that while academic institutions possess considerable discretion in managing their operations, they remain bound by the specific promises made to their students. As universities navigate future challenges, the lessons from this case will be instrumental in shaping policies that uphold contractual integrity and protect student interests.