Cases & Developments

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiffs, seven students who were enrolled in in-person classes at Boston University during the Spring 2020 semester, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. The district court denied class certification and granted summary judgment to the University, finding that the University was entitled to an impossibility defense for the contract claims. Massachusetts subsequently enacted “Law 80” granting immunity from monetary relief claims to Massachusetts higher education institutions that shifted to remote learning during Spring 2020. The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on the alternate ground that Law 80 bars plaintiffs’ action. In holding the retroactive application does not violate due process, the court found that Law 80 serves reasonable “public interests related to health, safety, future compliance, and economic consequences beyond the control of the universities;” that plaintiffs did not have a reasonable expectation that the University should violate the Governor’s public health order; and that the duration of Law 80’s application is appropriately limited.   

Opinion reversing and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiff, an undergraduate student at The Ohio State University during the Spring 2020 semester, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. At issue in the instant appeal is whether the University’s assertion of discretionary immunity is a jurisdictional bar or an affirmative defense. Noting that it has held that “the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction when the state makes highly discretionary decisions pursuant to its legislative, judicial, executive, or planning functions, because the state has not waived its sovereign immunity for those decisions,” the Supreme Court of Ohio held that discretionary immunity is a limitation on the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to the trial court “to determine whether Ohio State is immune from suit in the Court of Claims regarding its decisions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including to suspend in-person instruction, transition to virtual learning, restrict access to its campus, and provide pro rata refunds to students only for the recreational fee and for room and board.”