Sulliwan Hall at Temple University in Philadelphia. Photo: Roman Babakin/Shutterstock.com

Numerous higher-education institutions in Pennsylvania and across the country are facing class action suits seeking tuition refunds after classes went online as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and now Temple University is the first school in the state to begin fighting back.

Last week, the school filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, captioned Ryan v. Temple University, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in early May. The filing could provide insights into how universities and colleges may seek to challenge the flood of litigation schools have faced after closing campuses and switching to online courses.

The plaintiff, Brooke Ryan, like many plaintiffs in similar suits, is raising breach-of-contract and unjust enrichment claims over the campus closures, but, in its motion to dismiss, Temple argued that there was never a contract guaranteeing in-person-only education and that state law also does not recognize claims second-guessing the quality of an education.

"Plaintiff's class action lawsuit for a pro-rata refund of tuition and the university services fee is defeated by the plain terms of Temple's financial responsibility agreement and the tuition and fees policy set forth on the bursar website," Fine, Kaplan and Black attorney Roberta Liebenberg, who filed the motion on behalf of Temple, said. "Also, plaintiff's subjective belief that her online classes were not of the same 'quality' as those given in-person prior to the pandemic is not actionable under well-settled Pennsylvania law."

Over the past few months, Dozens of class actions lawsuits have been lodged against colleges and universities seeking tuition refunds in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. In Pennsylvania at least 12 class actions have been filed against eight colleges in all three federal district courts in the state.

Schools, however, are now beginning to react, with some, such as the University of Miami, similarly seeking to have the cases dismissed at the pleadings stage. Temple's response is the first motion to dismiss filed in the Pennsylvania wing of the litigation.

In the suit against the Philadelphia-based school, Ryan, who was scheduled to be in class for about 113 days during the spring semester, argued that she is entitled to a partial refund because the school's decision to close its campus in March "deprived [her of] the benefit of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition."

Temple, however, countered that Ryan's breach-of-contract claim failed because the terms of the contract for the 2020 spring semester did not say class would only be live and in-person, and further it said students would be responsible for the full fee if they were still enrolled as of the Jan. 27 drop/add deadline. The school also argued that the claims were essentially an "education malpractice claim," which is not permissible under Pennsylvania law.

"The policy reasons for prohibiting claims against a university based on the quality of the education provided apply with even greater force where, as here, an emergency requires schools to create novel solutions to ensure that students receive the best education possible while also remaining safe," Temple said, adding that many courts around the country, including the Second and Seventh federal circuit courts, hold similarly.

Also, the school contended that the damages would be speculative, which, again, is not recognized as a matter of law in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

"Courts have long recognized that decisions as to how classes are taught rest within the sole purview of a university's academic freedom and should not be second-guessed by the judiciary," Temple said.

Neither Liebenberg, nor Eric Poulin of Anastopoulo Law Firm in Charleston, South Carolina, who is representing Ryan, returned a call seeking comment.