Hernandez v. Illinois Institute of Technology

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-University’s motion to dismiss plaintiff-student’s action, alleging that defendant breached implied contract to provide in-person, on-campus instruction, when in March of 2020, as part of its response to COVID-19 pandemic, defendant moved all classes to online instruction, restricted plaintiff and other students from access to campus facilities and failed to give plaintiff and others refund for tuition and mandatory fees. Ct. of Appeals, in relying on Gociman, 41 F.4th 873, found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts that plausibly suggested existence of implied contract for in-person education and access to defendant’s physical facilities and resources, where plaintiff alleged that: (1) defendant had long-standing practice of providing in-person instruction and on-campus resources to its students; and (2) defendant consistently indicated through its website, course catalogs and other official materials that service it was selling was one that involved in-person, on-campus experience. Fact that plaintiff did not allege that students enrolled in traditional on-campus programs paid higher tuition and fees than students enrolled in defendant’s online program did not require different result. Ct. further rejected defendant’s contention that plaintiff essentially alleged educational malpractice claim that improperly involved plaintiff’s second-guessing of defendant’s academic judgment.