Judge Puts UD In Crosshairs
On the face of it, this lawsuit appears absurd:
A federal judge has granted class-action status in a lawsuit in which current and former students of the University of Delaware claim the school breached contractual obligations and unjustly enriched itself by halting in-person classes and shutting down the campus in 2020 because of the coronavirus epidemic.
According to the ruling, more than 17,000 undergraduates were enrolled at UD in spring 2020, and the university collected more than $160 million in tuition.
The plaintiffs have argued that, before the pandemic, the school treated in-person and online classes as separate offerings and charged more for some in-person programs than they did for similar online classes. They also noted that the university charged them fees for the gym, student centers, and the health center, sometimes at higher rates than those paid by online students, and that the school kept those fees while denying them the services.
The plaintiffs are seeking partial refunds of their spring 2020 tuition, having earlier agreed to dismiss their claims arising from student fees.
Here’s what the judge wrote:
In his ruling, Bibas rejected UD’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The university also argued unsuccessfully that it is impossible to know who actually paid tuition because some students may have used outside sources like scholarships.
“Those students, no less than students who paid out of their own pockets, were parties to a contract that U. Delaware allegedly breached,” wrote the judge, who noted that the only students excluded from the class would be those who received full rides. “Because U. Delaware has enough records to figure out which students did not get full rides, there is a reliable way to determine who those students are.”
I’m far from a cheerleader for UD, and I wonder whether some percentage of students who routinely cut class will be factored into whatever equation might ultimately be determined, but it seems ridiculous to me that the University should be held responsible for going virtual during a pandemic.
In fairness, although the judge is a Trump appointee, he issued a strong opinion in this case:
- Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 830 F. App’x 377 (3d Cir. 2020). On November 27, 2020, Bibas authored the opinion in the case that rejected the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign‘s attempt to undo the certification of votes in the 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania. Bibas opened his opinion by writing: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” Bibas concluded by stressing that “[v]oters, not lawyers, choose the President” and “[b]allots, not briefs, decide elections.”[30]
Maybe there’s something to this case after all…
Had two kids in college (elsewhere) that year. They were basically locked up in their rooms with take out bag meals. No extracurricular activities. No sports. No gym. No clubs. No parties. Nothing extra. Sit in your room and zoom classes. Yet, we paid full freight. I agree with the lawsuit.
There is some merit here. My son was attending UD when the quarantine hit, and finished on Zoom. He was paying UD’s “public Ivy” tuition but getting University of Phoenix quality education. All the while UD was cutting back on staff citing pandemic. His academic advisor was removed and replaced by someone less qualified and with a much bigger caseload.
In our case it wasn’t all bad news since as a member of the internet generation he did well with remote classes, and was living at home anyway. But there was a real loss and UD should have cut back tuition to reflect the cutback in services.
Don’t forget, UD also CUT (non union) employee pay during 2020. …. but damn, that new stadium certainly looks…. real.
Also, a President pulling down $1.5 million.
Suppose UD finally admits it IS a public institution, in the hope of seeking sovereign immunity. Id host the FOIA part the day that ruling comes down
Y’know, I was wondering whether they’d have to open their books as part of their defense…