Students' Rights: Can They Sue Over Missed Classes?

Students have sued universities for various reasons, including tuition refunds, false promises, and breach of contract. During the COVID-19 pandemic, students from over 25 colleges filed class-action lawsuits demanding partial refunds on tuition and campus fees, arguing that the quality of online education did not match the price of in-person classes. Students have also sued universities for false promises, such as guaranteeing a job after graduation or completing a degree within a certain timeframe. In terms of breach of contract, students may argue that the university failed to fulfill its obligations, such as providing in-person instruction or specific campus resources. These lawsuits raise questions about the value of online education compared to traditional classroom learning and the financial strain on both students and universities.

Students can sue universities for breach of contract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, students at more than 25 colleges in the United States filed class-action lawsuits against their universities demanding partial refunds on tuition and campus fees. The lawsuits argued that online classes did not have the same value as in-person classes and were not worth the tuition that students had paid for on-campus instruction. The suits reflected students' frustration with the quality of online education, lack of interaction with peers and professors, and the absence of campus perks and resources.

Universities, however, rejected the idea of providing refunds, claiming that students were still receiving the same education, taught by the same professors, and earning credits towards their degrees. They argued that the move to online learning was necessary due to the pandemic and that they were still offering a quality education, albeit in a different format.

The issue of whether there is a difference in value between online instruction and traditional classroom teaching remains a subject of debate. Proponents of online education argue for its effectiveness, while students emphasise the value of in-person interactions and the campus experience. The lawsuits against universities during the pandemic highlight the complexities of this issue and the need for clear contractual agreements between students and educational institutions.

Students can sue universities for fraudulent misrepresentation

To make a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, six elements must be proven:

• The university made a representation (a material statement of fact).
• The representation was false.
• When made, the university either knew the statement was false or made it recklessly without knowing whether it was true.
• The university intended for the student to rely on the representation.
• The student did, in fact, rely on the representation.
• The student suffered damages as a result of relying on the representation.

There are two particular challenges to a fraudulent misrepresentation lawsuit against a university:

• Proving that the university made a material statement of fact: The representation must be factual and material. For example, a university claiming to have "the best English program" is expressing an opinion, not a fact, and therefore cannot be sued for misrepresentation. A promise of a $10,000 scholarship, however, is a material statement of fact.
• Proving intent or recklessness: It must be shown that the university knew the statement was false or made it recklessly without knowing if it was true or false at the time the promise was made. It is not enough to show that the promise turned out to be false later on.

Students have successfully sued universities for fraudulent misrepresentation in the past. For example, a group of students sued Trump University, claiming that it lied about being a university when it lacked accreditation. The students received a $25 million settlement.

Students can sue universities for unjust enrichment

The students argued that their tuition specifically paid for in-person instruction, and that the universities knew this. The universities, however, insisted that students still got what they paid for in the form of a higher education. The students further contended that the decision by these institutions to use pass/fail grading systems diminished the value of the degrees offered.

In a ruling in Delaware, a federal judge allowed students at the University of Delaware to proceed with their claim that the school "unjustly enriched itself" during the pandemic. Judge Stephanos Bibas found the claims and demand for partial refunds "plausible". He rejected the idea that in-person and virtual classes were interchangeable, stating that "being on campus is a core part of the educational deal".

The unjust enrichment claims against universities during the pandemic centred on the notion that students had reasonable expectations of in-person classes in exchange for their tuition fees. While universities may argue that they provided the same education online, the context of the situation, including the sudden shift to remote learning due to the pandemic, could be considered in determining whether online courses fulfilled the initial agreement.

It is important to note that the outcomes of these lawsuits vary and are dependent on specific circumstances and local laws.

Students can sue universities for not providing the same quality of education as in-person classes

Students have sued universities for not providing the same quality of education as in-person classes. The COVID-19 pandemic forced universities to shift to online learning, prompting lawsuits from students who felt they were not getting the same calibre of education as they would in a classroom setting.

These lawsuits argue that online classes are not equivalent to in-person instruction in terms of quality and value. Students claim that remote learning lacks the interaction with faculty and classmates that is integral to the college experience. They also highlight the loss of campus perks and resources, such as recreational facilities, labs, and networking opportunities, which they argue justifies a reduction in tuition fees.

The primary legal argument made by students is that universities have breached their contract by failing to provide in-person instruction. To prove this, students must establish that their tuition payments specifically contracted for in-person classes. This can be challenging, as enrolment documents may not explicitly state that remote instruction is impermissible. However, students may also argue unjust enrichment, claiming that universities have been unfairly enriched by receiving tuition payments for services not fully rendered.

Universities have defended themselves by stating that students still receive the same information, credits, and credentials through online learning. They argue that the mode of delivery does not diminish the quality of education and that they are not obligated by contract to provide in-person instruction. Additionally, universities face their own financial hardships due to the pandemic and cannot afford to issue widespread refunds.

The outcome of these lawsuits remains uncertain, with some courts ruling in favour of universities and others awarding settlements to students. The complex nature of education law and the unprecedented impact of the pandemic will likely result in ongoing litigation and evolving legal interpretations.

Students can sue universities for not providing the same quality of education as advertised

The lawsuits allege that the universities committed a “breach of contract” and received "unjust enrichment" from tuition and fee payments that will not go towards the promised services and benefits of on-campus life. Students argue that their tuition specifically paid for in-person instruction and that online classes are a poor substitute for the classroom experience, with limited interaction with students and professors, and a lack of collaborative learning and in-person dialogue.

To prove a breach of contract, students must show that there was an enforceable contract formed by an offer, acceptance, and consideration. In the context of university education, a university's admission letter is an offer that a student may accept, and consideration refers to the mutual exchange of value, such as tuition paid in exchange for an education and degree. While universities may argue that they provided the promised education and credentials through online learning, students can counter that their tuition specifically paid for in-person instruction, and the move to online classes was a material breach of contract.

In terms of unjust enrichment, students may argue that they reasonably expected in-person classes in exchange for their tuition and that it would be unfair for universities to retain full tuition if it costs less to deliver classes remotely. A court may remedy this by forcing the university to refund the difference.

It is important to note that education law cases based on fraud and breach of contract can be complex, and universities will have legal representation in court. Students considering legal action should consult with a law firm specializing in education law to determine if they have a case worth pursuing.

Frequently asked questions