The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling in favor of the University of South Carolina (USC) regarding a lawsuit filed by students seeking tuition refunds related to the transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court ruled that the university did not breach its contract with the students, who argued they were entitled to refunds after in-person classes were canceled in March 2020.
The case, Davia Bunch and Casey Kelly v. USC, was filed as a class action by Bunch and Kelly on behalf of other students who attended USC during the spring 2020 semester. The court's decision is significant as it addresses the legal implications of educational institutions' obligations during unprecedented circumstances like a pandemic.
Background
Bunch and Kelly, both undergraduate students at USC, filed their lawsuit in May 2020 after the university shifted all in-person classes to remote instruction due to an executive order from Governor Henry McMaster. This order mandated the closure of all public schools and universities in South Carolina as a response to the COVID-19 outbreak. While USC offered prorated refunds for housing, meal plans, and parking permits, it did not refund tuition or other fees associated with the spring semester.
The students claimed that they entered into a contract with USC that required the university to provide in-person instruction. They argued that the transition to remote learning constituted a breach of this contract, as they were not receiving the educational experience for which they had paid. The lawsuit sought a prorated refund of tuition and fees based on this alleged breach.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of USC, affirming the lower court's decision that granted summary judgment to the university. The court determined that the contract between the students and USC did not explicitly require the university to provide face-to-face instruction. The court noted, "Students failed to set forth a genuine issue of material fact as to whether USC expressly agreed to provide in-person instruction under all circumstances."
The court also found that the students did not suffer legally cognizable harm as a result of the transition to remote learning. It stated that the sovereign immunity doctrine barred the students' claims for equitable relief, such as promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. The ruling emphasized that the students continued to attend their classes and graduated without seeking refunds until they filed the lawsuit.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for students and educational institutions across the country. It clarifies that universities may not be held liable for changes in instructional methods during emergencies, as long as they do not explicitly promise in-person instruction in their contracts. The decision also reinforces the principle of sovereign immunity, which protects state institutions from certain legal claims.
The ruling may discourage similar lawsuits from students at other universities who are seeking refunds for tuition or fees related to the pandemic. It sets a precedent that educational institutions can adapt their instructional methods in response to unforeseen circumstances without facing legal repercussions.
What's Next
While the Court of Appeals has upheld the ruling, it is unclear if the students will seek further appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling, but it may influence future litigation involving tuition refunds and educational contracts.