Kevin Ross v. Creighton University
957 F.2d 410, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 3038, 1992 WL 37340 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A student may not bring a tort claim for educational malpractice against a university, but may bring a breach of contract claim if the university has failed to honor a specific, identifiable promise that denied the student any meaningful opportunity to participate in its academic program.
Facts:
- In 1978, Kevin Ross, a talented high school basketball player with significant academic deficiencies, accepted an athletic scholarship to Creighton University.
- Creighton was aware of Ross's academic disadvantages and, to induce him to enroll, assured him he would receive sufficient tutoring to obtain a 'meaningful education.'
- During his four years at Creighton, Ross maintained a D average and was advised by the athletic department to take courses, such as Marksmanship, that did not count toward a degree.
- Creighton allegedly failed to provide the promised competent tutoring services; instead, an athletic department secretary read his assignments and typed his papers.
- When Ross left Creighton in 1982, he lacked the credits to graduate and possessed reading skills equivalent to a seventh grader.
- At Creighton's expense, Ross subsequently enrolled in a year of remedial education at a preparatory school where he attended classes with grade school children.
- Years later, Ross suffered a major depressive episode, which he attributed to his negative experiences at Creighton.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin Ross filed a lawsuit for negligence and breach of contract against Creighton University in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (a state trial court).
- Creighton University removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (a federal trial court) on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
- Creighton University filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted Creighton's motion, dismissing all of Ross's claims.
- Kevin Ross, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Creighton University as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a student state a valid claim for breach of contract against a university by alleging the university failed to honor specific promises of academic support, even though a tort claim for 'educational malpractice' is not recognized?
Opinions:
Majority - Ripple, Circuit Judge
Yes, a student states a valid claim for breach of contract under these circumstances. While courts will not recognize tort claims for educational malpractice due to public policy concerns, they can adjudicate a narrow breach of contract claim. The court held that claims of educational malpractice, negligent admission, and negligent infliction of emotional distress are barred because they would require courts to second-guess academic judgments, lack a satisfactory standard of care, and risk a flood of litigation. However, a university-student relationship is partly contractual. A student can state a claim for breach of contract by alleging the university failed to honor a specific, identifiable promise, rather than complaining about the general quality of the education. Here, Ross alleged Creighton made specific promises to provide services like tutoring, and its complete failure to do so effectively denied him any real access to its academic program. Adjudicating whether Creighton provided these specific services at all does not require the court to evaluate the nuances of educational theory, but rather to determine if a promise was made and broken.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction between non-actionable 'educational malpractice' claims and viable breach of contract claims against educational institutions. It reinforces the judiciary's reluctance to interfere with academic matters and evaluate the quality of education. However, it carves out a narrow but significant exception, holding universities accountable for specific, identifiable promises they make to students, particularly student-athletes. This precedent creates a path for litigation against schools that make explicit promises to academically underprepared students as a recruitment tool but then fail to provide the promised support, without requiring courts to act as academic arbiters.
