ERIE – An undergraduate student has filed a class action lawsuit against Gannon University, charging that he and others were deprived of the on-campus education and experience they paid for, when the COVID-19 pandemic occurred and learning shifted to remote status.
Andrew Engel (individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 18 versus Gannon University, of Erie.
“Higher education is no different from any other industry in as much as consumers (i.e., students) have the ability to shop between different educational products offered by competitive institutions before ultimately purchasing the product that is right for them. Some colleges and universities offer an educational product without access to a campus or in-person community, while others offer an educational product with access to a varied suite of services, activities, facilities, and experiences through an on-campus, in-person educational experience,” the suit states.
“Gannon offers students the option to pick either: (1) Online classes, or (2) an on-campus, in-person educational experience at its Erie, Pennsylvania campus. Plaintiff, an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020 semester, chose and paid tuition and fees to enroll in Gannon’s on-campus, in-person education program, including all the benefits and services associated therewith for the entirety of the semester. Plaintiff’s paid-for experience was cut short mid-way through the Spring 2020 semester, when that in-person educational experience was taken away from plaintiff and other students at Gannon.”
The suit continues that in March 2020, Gannon, like many other colleges and universities, transitioned to remote, online-only education, canceled on-campus recreational events, canceled student activity events and ordered students to refrain from going on campus – thus making all on-campus education, services and amenities no longer available to Gannon students for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester.
“Despite the harsh reality that students could no longer enjoy the benefit of the
bargain for which they pre-paid, Gannon refused to provide a prorated refund of tuition or fees tied to on-campus education, services, and amenities that were not available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester. Indeed, upon transitioning to online-only education in March 2020, Gannon only pro-rated room and/or board charges for students for the Spring 2020 semester. Accordingly, Gannon’s students lost the benefits of the bargain for services and the experience they paid for but could no longer access or use following the school’s transition to remote learning in March 2020. By not giving pro-rated refunds for tuition or fees charged for on-campus education and services not provided, Gannon breached its contracts with students or was otherwise unjustly enriched,” the suit says.
“It cannot be disputed that the circumstances underlying this legal action are unfortunate and unprecedented. However, the students did not choose these circumstances, and they certainly did not agree to pay tuition and fees for online-only education and services. It is unfair and unlawful for Gannon to retain tuition and fees for campus-based, in-person education and services not being provided and to pass the financial losses on to its students. Importantly, plaintiff does not challenge Gannon’s discretion in adhering to federal, state and local health guidelines, but rather challenges Gannon’s decision to retain the tuition and fees, paid by plaintiff and other students for in-person education, experiences, access to campus, and services, without providing such for the entire duration of the Spring 2020 semester.”
Specifically, the lawsuit seeks “disgorgement of the pro-rated, unused amounts of the fees that plaintiff and other putative class members paid, but for which they (or the students on behalf of whom they paid) were not provided the benefit, as well as a partial pro-rated tuition reimbursement representing the difference in fair market value between the on-campus product for which they had paid, and the online product that they received.”
For counts of breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff is seeking:
• An order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and naming plaintiff as representative of the class and plaintiff’s attorneys as class counsel to represent the class;
• An order finding in favor of plaintiff and the class on all counts asserted herein;
• Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
• For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief;
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses;
• Pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; and
• Such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Jamie R. Schumacher and Nathan P. Venesky of MacDonald Illig Jones & Britton, in Erie.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 1:23-cv-00244
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com