MACON, Ga. — A federal judge in Macon dismissed a class-action lawsuit last week claiming Mercer University broke its contract with students when it sent students home during the COVID-19 pandemic
A lawsuit brought by students claimed Mercer broke their contract and unjustly enriched themselves over the university's handling of the pandemic. They claimed there was an "implied agreement" that classes would be in person that the university then broke.
But on all fronts, federal judge Tillman Self found Mercer could suspend instruction and move classes online and rejected the group of students' lawsuit arguing the university owed them a refund on tuition and fees.
The lawsuit was brought by student Mary Koerner along with other students. They argued that Mercer's promotional material mentions how "student life goes beyond the classroom" in terms of academic and extracurricular options, and in Koerner's case, those arguments were part of why she decided to attend Mercer, the lawsuit says.
Plus, she pointed to the course catalog's listing of in-person instruction and mandatory fees covering in-person lab and facilities fees.
The suit was filed in the U.S. Middle District of Georgia back on March 11.
But in response to Mercer's motion to throw the lawsuit out, Self said Koerner and her attorney's arguments didn't have any basis.
While Koerner pointed to another class action lawsuit against Mercer that was not thrown out, Self found that the new legal guidance from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — which the U.S. Middle District must follow — changed the legal landscape.
The decision in Dixon v. University of Miami found that the university's and student's agreement allowed the university to change course when the COVID-19 pandemic. In Self's decision, he noted Mercer also had a similar agreement.
"Due to the binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, the Court agrees with Mercer: As a matter of law, even if the contract implied obligated Mercer to provide in-person services, that very same contract also permitted Mercer to amend its procedures in the event of an emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic," Self wrote.
In short, Mercer's student catalog says that the university can "change its rules affecting the admission and retention of students" when needed and another policy allowed the university to respond "to a broad range of major emergencies that may threaten life, health and safety" of students.
Mercer claimed that gave the university the ability to suspend instruction and, in looking to the case against Miami University, Self agreed.
Even if Mercer's agreement with the student implied in-person instruction and an in-person student experience, those two policies allowed the university to suspend the instruction when COVID hit, Self ruled.
Plus, he didn't find the students' claim that the mandatory fees were intended to cover in-person services.
"In sum, Plaintiff never offered any facts to show what the $150 fee actually covered. Rather, she simply listed what she assumed they covered — and that is not enough," Self wrote.
So even if the facts Koerner laid out were true, they would not be enough for her to prevail, Self ruled. Because of that, Self tossed the lawsuit out and found in Mercer's favor.