Federal court revives tuition refund lawsuit against Baylor

Former student Allison King sues Baylor University in June 2020, seeking tuition refunds for those whose college experience was moved online due to COVID-19. Grace Everett | Photo Editor

By Clara Snyder | Staff Writer

Three federal judges revived the prospect of tuition refunds for Baylor students whose college experience turned virtual in spring 2020 after a previous court dismissed the class action lawsuit against the university. Following the spring semester, former student Allison King filed the lawsuit in June 2020, saying she didn’t get what she paid for.

“Allison King claims Baylor unilaterally changed her bargain with the school,” the lawsuit said. “She paid for classes on a physical campus in real classrooms before flesh-and-blood teachers. She wouldn’t have paid as much for zoom classes in the cloud.”

King contends she is not arguing a difference in quality of online education versus in-person education. Instead, she argues that in-person instruction and on-campus experiences warrant a higher price point than that of an online education.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District in Waco dismissed the suit, saying the Financial Responsibility Agreement King signed when she paid her tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester was a valid contract by Texas law and did not promise an on-campus education experience.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed the district court’s original declaration of Baylor’s Financial Responsibility Agreement as clear and unambiguous. The majority argued the previous court failed to address the exact parameters of “educational services” promised in the contract, and it could be interpreted more than one way and should be decided in court.

In the lawsuit, King argues the university failed to provide the educational services it asserted and failed to provide refunds for the alterations in educational delivery.

Upon reevaluating the parameters set by the Financial Responsibility Agreement, appellate judges ask the district court to reconsider whether or not the contract was breached. Fifth Circuit Judge Stuart Duncan wrote in the decision that this consideration will answer whether the contract, in the event of an emergency, constitutes the university’s unilateral right to alter course delivery methods at its discretion.

“[The district court] thought Baylor never agreed to provide ‘in-person instruction’ and ‘expressly’ reserved an absolute right to alter class offerings in response to catastrophes like a pandemic,” Duncan said. “Nonsense. Baylor could have written contracts with those escape hatches, but it didn’t. No contract Baylor points to says anything of the sort.”

Additionally, the majority disagreed with the district court’s cited evidence suggesting the term “educational services” is open-ended enough to allow shift of instruction without a breach of contract. The lawsuit points to Baylor’s own court evidence as showing that the Financial Responsibility Agreement bargained for in-person classes.

“Baylor’s motion to dismiss shows that a student may register for specific classes, which are then listed on a ‘schedule’ that specifies physical locations (‘Old Main 274,’ ‘Morrison Hall 110,’ …),” Duncan said. “King should have the opportunity to explain why she has plausibly alleged that Baylor breached its contract with her by converting to online instruction.”

Duncan said Baylor may have ironclad defenses to those claims, but the case isn’t at that point yet.

More than 300 lawsuits have been filed across the country seeking reimbursements for tuition and fees since the start of the pandemic, Alliant Insurance said. These lawsuits — some of which have been dismissed while others are scheduled for trial — vary in results for affected students across the country.

A previously dismissed case filed against Loyola University Chicago, containing parallels to the arguments made by King, was recently reinstated on the grounds that the university had breached contract claims maintained under Illinois law. According to Law360, students who filed this case argued the course catalog provided reasonable promise of in-person instruction.

Another case, similar in nature to King’s, was filed against Columbia University to seek tuition and fee reimbursements, and it found success in court last November. The $12.5 million settlement returned over $8.5 million worth of fees to students, with the remaining $4 million paid to prevent students from reviving tuition claims in another lawsuit, Law360 said.

King’s class action complaint asked Baylor to refund a minimum of $5 million in tuition and fees on behalf of herself and similarly situated students.

“Students should not be forced to bear all the costs of the pandemic’s impact on the educational system,” Glenn Chappell, an attorney representing King, said in a statement. “We are seeking pro rata refunds on behalf of Ms. King and students like her for the in-person instruction and on-campus services that they paid for but didn’t receive as a result of Baylor’s campus shutdown and transition to online courses. We look forward to pressing forward on behalf of students and are pleased with the Fifth Circuit’s decision.”

Baylor spokesperson Lori Fogleman said in a statement on behalf of the university that Baylor stands by the 2020 decision to move classes online in order to continue providing educational services amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We are pleased that the Fifth Circuit rejected significant portions of the plaintiff’s case and recognized that Baylor has several potentially viable defenses that the court’s decision did not address,” Fogleman said. “We look forward to presenting those defenses to the district court and are confident the district court will once again dismiss the claims in this lawsuit.”

King, no longer enrolled at Baylor, now lives in North Carolina. She did not reply to The Baylor Lariat’s request to comment on the lawsuit.

This story is ongoing. The Lariat will provide updates as further information is made available.