Hickey v. University of Pittsburgh

In March 2020, the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University (the universities) (defendants) shifted all Spring 2020 classes online and closed campus facilities in response to Pennsylvania’s COVID-19 shutdown orders and the global pandemic. Before the closures, students enrolled in the universities’ traditional on-campus programs received in-person instruction and had access to campus services. Both universities charged higher in-person tuition and mandatory fees—such as student-activity, wellness, computing, security, and transportation fees—which funded on-campus services and applied only to in-person students. Students were also required to sign financial responsibility agreements (FRAs), which required the timely payment of tuition and fees. After the closures, neither university offered any tuition or fee reductions. Several students (plaintiffs) sued their respective universities for breach of contract, seeking partial refunds. They argued that they had paid for in-person education and access to on-campus facilities and that the universities’ prior practices and publications implied a contractual promise to provide in-person education. They emphasized university marketing materials highlighting the on-campus experience, experiential learning, and access to student organizations and facilities, and noted that online-only programs were cheaper, reflecting the premium for in-person education. The universities moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the FRAs constituted fully integrated agreements governing tuition and fee payments and contained no promise of in-person instruction or specific services. They further contended that, even absent the FRAs, the students failed to state an implied-contract claim because they identified no specific and identifiable contractual commitment to in-person education, as the statements in the universities’ publications were merely aspirational and prior practices of in-person instruction did not obligate the universities to continue offering it in all circumstances. The district courts granted the universities’ motions. The students appealed. The appeals were consolidated.