A New Jersey appellate court has ruled against students seeking tuition refunds from Kean University and Montclair State University after both institutions transitioned to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court's decision, issued on December 30, 2022, affirmed the lower courts' dismissals of the students' claims, citing immunity under the Emergency Health Powers Act (EHPA).

The case, Jacqueline Bernal Mueller v. Kean University, identified under docket numbers A-1843-20 and A-3091-20, involved several plaintiffs, including Andrew Mueller and Athena Brock-Murray, who were students at Kean University, and Colin Keyes, a student at Montclair State University. The students argued that they were entitled to refunds for tuition and fees since they did not receive the in-person educational experience they paid for after classes moved online due to health concerns.

The plaintiffs contended that the universities failed to deliver the educational services, facilities, and opportunities they had contracted for, as they had enrolled expecting an on-campus experience. They described the online education provided during the pandemic as inferior, lacking the collaborative learning and access to resources that in-person classes offered.

The dispute arose when both universities announced the shift to remote learning in March 2020. Kean University made its announcement on March 10, 2020, while Montclair State extended its Spring Break and transitioned to online classes starting March 23, 2020. Both institutions did not issue refunds for the tuition and fees paid by students for the Spring 2020 semester.

In response to the students' claims, the universities filed motions to dismiss, arguing they were protected from liability under the EHPA. This act grants immunity to public entities during public health emergencies, allowing them to take necessary actions without fear of lawsuits. The trial courts agreed with the universities, leading to the appeals.

The appellate court, led by Judge Geiger, upheld the lower courts' decisions, stating that the universities' actions were indeed within the scope of the EHPA. The court emphasized that the universities continued to provide educational services, albeit in a different format, and that the transition to online instruction was a necessary response to the public health crisis.

The court ruled, "We conclude that a proper interpretation of N.J.S.A. 26:13-19 incorporates the definition of 'property' found in N.J.S.A. 1:1-2, thereby extending the immunity afforded by the EHPA to public entities like Kean and Montclair against claims of breach of contract where the alleged breach occurred because those entities exercised powers and duties related to a public health emergency."

The court also addressed the plaintiffs' argument that the EHPA's immunity conflicted with constitutional protections against impairing contracts. The judges found that the statute served a significant public purpose by allowing institutions to act swiftly during emergencies without the threat of litigation.

The decision has implications for students across New Jersey and potentially other states, as it sets a precedent regarding the limits of liability for educational institutions during public health emergencies. The ruling clarifies that universities can operate under the protections of the EHPA when responding to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

As a result of this ruling, students seeking refunds for tuition and fees due to the shift to online learning may find it challenging to pursue similar claims in the future. The court's interpretation of the EHPA suggests that public institutions have broad protections when acting in the interest of public health.

Looking ahead, it is unclear if the plaintiffs will seek further appeals to a higher court, such as the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court filing did not indicate any pending related cases. However, the outcome of this case may influence future litigation involving educational institutions and their obligations during emergencies.