Litigation against higher ed increases, due to promises we can't fulfill

Image via Wikipedia

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9164650.htm

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/02/twelve-more-law-schools-slapped-with-class-action-lawsuits-over-employment-data/

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/03/43614.htm

At the close of the 21st century’s first decade, no one working in higher education blithely challenges potential plaintiffs with the old saw, “So sue me!”
One school that certainly isn’t doing so is the University of Pennsylvania.  A couple of years ago, a news headline was, “Exec wins $435k in suit over nonexistent Wharton degree.”  The winning plaintiff was a graduate of Penn’s Executive Master's in Technology Management (EMTM) program.  His 2006 suit claimed the school misrepresented the offering, which was co-sponsored by the Wharton School, and taught by faculty in both the engineering school and Wharton.  After investing a year in what he thought was a dual-degree program, Reynolds learned that Wharton would only award him a certificate and that he would not be deemed an alumnus of Penn’s prestigious business school.
Tenacious dental student
Even less likely to be inviting a lawsuit is the University of Michigan School of Dentistry, against whom expelled student, Alissa Zwick, won a $1.7 million verdict in December.  Ms. Zwick began her dentistry studies back in 2002, and her troubles began a year later, when she performed poorly on exams and claimed to have trouble paying attention in class.  A psychiatrist diagnosed attention deficit disorder.  Zwick and her clinical faculty disagreed on reasonable accommodations.  In May 2004, her continued shortfalls led to a dismissal by the school’s Academic Review Board.  Zwick appealed and was reinstated.
   
Ms. Zwick continued to be plagued with poor grades.  In June 2005, a number of faculty wrote uniformly negative letters concerning Zwick’s potential for success in the dental profession.  Plaintiff was notified of another dismissal on June 20th, and argued her appeal before the Academic Review Board with counsel present on December 8, 2005. The board denied the appeal and again recommended dismissal. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Executive Committee of the Dental School, and argued her appeal before the committee on January 11, 2006, losing again – and then dismissed from school.
Zwick was able to lay her grievances before a jury in a courtroom late last year.  During the trial, her attorney, Deborah Gordon, elicited some damaging admissions from the school’s former dean (see adjacent box), which no doubt influenced the jury in rendering its banner verdict and $1.72 million award to Ms. Zwick.    
Zwick trial testimony that did not help the University of Michigan’s defense
Q You would agree with me that based on Alissa's transcript, there is nothing to support your statement that she had deficits?
A I disagree.
Q Let's look and see what you said at your deposition. Page 89:
Q So is there anything on her transcript that you can see that would
legitimize your statement that the reason for the decision is past and continuing
clinical performance deficits?
A If this is the only information I have with which this deposition is based, I
would say she has a B in clinical.
Q So let me just sum this up then.  Based on her transcript alone, just alone, you do not see any basis for your statement that she is being dismissed on past and
continuing clinical performance deficits.
Your answer: Just based on that, I can't extract anything other than that she did B
work.
A Okay. I will -- I agree.
Q Correct?
A Yes.
Q She's one of the few students in the D3 level that's ever been dismissed, correct?
A I can't recall who in the past has.
Q Very few, correct?
A Correct.

A sampler of relatively recent suits
• Radke v. University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign (U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois, 2009):  A class action suit by applicants who claimed they were denied admission in favor of other applicants, who were on a university “clout list.”  Result: Despite the political scandal this case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  
• Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of California (California Court of Appeals, 2007):  Professional program students claimed the university was obliged to maintain their fees at the same level as the year they were admitted.  Result: The court agreed with the students.  Furthermore, the state’s financial crisis did not constitute an emergency that excused the school from adhering to the implied contract in its catalog.
• Blake v. Career Education Corporation  (U.S. District Court, Eastern Missouri, 2009):  Students claimed that the defendant’s Sanford Brown College violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, when it claimed its associate and bachelor’s degrees in criminal justice were valuable.  Plaintiffs claimed in fact they had very little practical, real-world value.  Result: Case dismissed for failure to plead the facts of fraud with the specificity required by the state’s law. 
• Diallo v. American InterContinental University (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2009): Students brought a fraud action, alleging the education they had received wasn’t worth its cost.  Result: The courts denied class-action status to the students, but allowed individual students to go forward and try to prove their unique cases.