CHICAGO – U.S. Seventh Circuit appellate judges revived a class action complaint claiming McKendree University breached its contract with students by teaching remotely in 2020.
On July 12, the appellate court reversed District Judge Staci Yandle, who dismissed the complaint in 2021.
They found she might have ruled differently if she had the benefit of Seventh Circuit decisions from last year and this year.
Kelsey Delisle and Kaitlin Pennington sued McKendree in St. Clair County Circuit Court in the fall of 2020, seeking refunds of tuition for the spring semester.
They claimed descriptions on McKendree’s website and the school’s practices prior to the virus established the existence of an implied contract.
They quoted promotional statements about a vibrant community, valuable connections, leadership skills, expert faculty, and “the personalized education you deserve.”
They quoted a statement that read, “Our 234 acre campus is home to 43 buildings and five residential communities.”
“The inclusive spirit and tight community ensure fun and exciting things to do on campus, including athletic events, campus organizations, fine arts events, worship services, and much more!”
“The opportunity to interact outside the classroom is greatly appreciated by our students, faculty and staff,” it continued.
McKendree removed the complaint to district court, asserting jurisdiction under the national Class Action Fairness Act.
McKendree then moved to dismiss the complaint and Yandle granted it, finding the website didn’t contain an explicit promise of services in person.
“McKendree’s website contains essentially marketing materials which are not among the terms of the contract between universities and their students,” she wrote.
Yandle concluded that descriptions of experiences, activities, and physical access didn’t guarantee the exact same experiences offered in photographs, words, and descriptions on the website.
She found the fact that McKendree provided instruction in person prior to the virus didn’t imply a contractual entitlement to instruction in the same location and manner.
Delisle and Pennington appealed.
While they awaited a decision, Seventh Circuit judges ruled in favor of students at Loyola University and Illinois Institute of Technology.
They found the students could establish an implied contract with statements in official publications, registration systems and policies, and prior practices.
In McKendree’s case, Seventh Circuit judges Michael Scudder, Kenneth Ripple, and John Lee found those precedents controlled their decision.
They held that Illinois generally recognizes an implied contract between student and school, with obligations inferred from facts and conduct rather than oral or written agreement.
They found that marketing materials alone couldn’t give rise to an implied contract but could be evidence of prior practice.
They also concluded that language in the materials was enough to make a reasonable inference that students were promised instruction in person.
“There are many cases similar to this one. Some will survive a motion to dismiss and others will not,” Scudder wrote.
“Breach of contract claims demand fact specific inquiries,” he added.
“Our analysis should not be read to imply that in person instruction and physical campus access are implied terms of every student-university contract,” he continued.
Richard Cornfeld of Mark Goldenberg’s firm in Edwardsville and Daniel Levy of St. Louis represent Delisle and Pennington.
Kyle Seelbach and Aleksandra Rushing of St. Louis County represent McKendree.