As higher education joins the consumer economy, plaintiffs abound
t the close of the 21st existent Wharton degree.” The winning dual-degree program, Reynolds learned
A
century’s first decade, no plaintiff, Frank Reynolds, was a gradu- that Wharton would only award him
one working in higher ate of Penn’s Executive Master’s in Tech- a certificate and that he would not be
education blithely chal- nology Management (EMTM) pro- deemed an alumnus of Penn’s presti-
lenges potential plaintiffs gram. His 2006 suit claimed the school gious business school.
with the old saw, “So sue me!” misrepresented the offering, which was
One school that certainly isn’t doing co-sponsored by the Wharton School, Tenacious dental student
so is the University of Pennsylvania. In and taught by faculty in both the engi- Even less likely to be inviting a lawsuit
early October, a related news headline neering school and Wharton. After in- is the University of Michigan School of
was, “Exec wins $435k in suit over non- vesting a year in what he thought was a Dentistry, against whom expelled stu-
dent, Alissa Zwick, won a $1.7 million
verdict in December. Ms. Zwick began
her dentistry studies back in 2002, and
A sampler of recent suits
her troubles began a year later, when
she performed poorly on exams and
claimed to have trouble paying atten-
Radke v. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (U.S. District Court, Northern
tion in class. A psychiatrist diagnosed
Illinois, 2009): A class action suit by applicants who claimed they were denied ad-
attention deficit disorder. Zwick and her
mission in favor of other applicants, who were on a university “clout list.” Result:
clinical faculty disagreed on reasonable
Despite the political scandal this case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
accommodations. In May 2004, her con-
tinued shortfalls led to a dismissal by the
Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of California (California Court of Appeals,
school’s Academic Review Board. Zwick
2007): Professional program students claimed the university was obliged to main-
appealed and was reinstated.
tain their fees at the same level as the year they were admitted. Result: The court
Ms. Zwick continued to be plagued
agreed with the students. Furthermore, the state’s financial crisis did not constitute
with poor grades. In June 2005, a num-
an emergency that excused the school from adhering to the implied contract in its
ber of faculty wrote uniformly negative
catalog.
letters concerning Zwick’s potential for
success in the dental profession. Plain-
Blake v. Career Education Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern Missouri,
tiff was notified of another dismissal on
2009): Students claimed that the defendant’s Sanford Brown College violated the
June 20th, and argued her appeal before
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, when it claimed its associate and bachelor’s
the Academic Review Board with coun-
degrees in criminal justice were valuable. Plaintiffs claimed in fact they had very
sel present on December 8, 2005. The
little practical, real-world value. Result: Case dismissed for failure to plead the
board denied the appeal and again rec-
facts of fraud with the specificity required by the state’s law.
ommended dismissal. Plaintiff appealed
that decision to the Executive Commit-
Diallo v. American InterContinental University (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2009):
tee of the Dental School, and argued her
Students brought a fraud action, alleging the education they had received wasn’t
appeal before the committee on January
worth its cost. Result: The courts denied class-action status to the students, but
11, 2006, losing again—and then was
allowed individual students to go forward and try to prove their unique cases.
dismissed from the school.
Zwick was able to lay her grievances
This compilation is courtesy of Attorney Jennifer Farer of the law firm of Saul Ewing.
before a jury in a courtroom late last year.
During the trial, her attorney, Deborah
18 T
oday’s
C
ampus subscribe at no charge at www.todayscampus.com
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68