NYU may have to reimburse students for remote COVID instruction

This is a case for the COVID-19 era: a parent sues New York University to recover a partial refund of her daughter's college tuition after NYU transitioned to remote learning instead of in-person classes. An NYU student also sues for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment over these remote classes. The parent loses, but the student may proceed with the claim.

The case is Rynasko v. New York University, issued on March 23. It is not clear why plaintiff's daughter did not bring this lawsuit, but plaintiff argues that NYU marketed its educational program as a wonderful in-person experience through classes, sporting events, networking opportunities, and other programs that are not available over Zoom. When the world stopped in Spring 2020 due to COVID, these benefits of an in-person NYU education stopped as well. Yet, NYU continued charging its full tuition and fees. The student plaintiff's proposed claim makes the same allegation that NYU was unjustly enriched by charging its usual tuition without providing the same in-person services when COVID hit NYC.

As for the parent plaintiff, she lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. This plaintiff did not have a contract with NYU; her daughter did. Nor did her daughter assign her contractual rights to her mother, which means mom is not a third-party beneficiary of the contractual breach. Some lower courts in the last few years have similarly held, and now the Court of Appeals (Robinson, Park (dissenting in part) and Parker (dissenting in part)), makes this principle the law of the Second Circuit. For these reasons, the parent cannot bring an unjust enrichment claim against NYU, either. Yes, mom paid the tuition and fees, but no, "an injury to [mom's] expectation as to the services Emily would receive in exchange for the tuition payments paid to NYU on Emily's behalf pursuant to its contract with Emily is not an injury to her legally protected interest." It occurs to me that this holding could encourage more people to sue their colleges and universities to recover partial tuition reimbursements. That could be quite costly for these institutions. 

What about the student's claim against NYU? This student, Hall-Landers, is not plaintiff's daughter. The student asserts a plausible claim for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and money "had and received." A fact-finder may find there was a breach of implied contract because the student was not able to attend NYU in-person and enjoy all the services and advantages that in-person learning and student life has to offer. We're talking implied contract here, between NYU and the students, from the NYU promotional materials which promote the benefits of the in-person college experience in New York City, the greatest city in the world. The NYU catalogue's disclaimer that the university can alter its course offerings at any time does not get NYU off the hook, as that disclaimer only deals with course offerings and not the other benefits of the NYU experience. And the law frowns upon disclaimers that give one party an unfair advantage over the other. 

Note that Judges Park and Parker dissent in part. This will not make this case a suitable vehicle for the Supreme Court, as the case appears to only raise state law issues, and the Supreme Court only addresses federal claims. But this splintered ruling may entice the full Court of Appeals to hear this case en banc.