Judge dismisses lawsuit over Pitt's refusal to refund tuition during pandemic shutdown

A judge has thrown out a federal lawsuit filed by students against the University of Pittsburgh for failing to refund any of their tuition and fees when campus was shut down last year because of the pandemic.

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV on Tuesday granted Pitt’s motion to dismiss.

“The unforeseen circumstances relating to the pandemic and the response of governments and institutions were just that — unforeseen,” Stickman wrote. “When the governor of Pennsylvania declared a state of emergency, the university’s hands were tied as it was required to act in accordance the measures put in place.”

The judge wrote that he was sympathetic to students whose lives were severely disrupted.

“Nevertheless, not every unfortunate situation is actionable.”

The lawsuit, filed by Claire Hickey and Akira Kirkpatrick in May, sought to become a class-action.

“Students attending the University of Pittsburgh’s Spring 2020 semester at its Pittsburgh campus did not choose to attend an online institution of higher learning, but instead chose to enroll in the university’s in-person educational program,” the plaintiffs wrote.

On March 20, 2020, Pitt Chancellor Patrick Gallagher announced that campus operation would be limited, and all non-essential services would end.

Based on those changes, the lawsuit alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. It sought a prorated return of tuition and fees for the 35 days of the spring 2020 semester that were lost, as well as refunds for unused housing and meal plans.

The lawsuit also alleged that the online learning options offered by Pitt for the rest of the semester were sub-par and that students were deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning.

But in his 13-page opinion, Stickman said the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for breach of contract in that they failed to identify any specific contractual promise the university broke. Although the plaintiffs cited online materials used by Pitt to promote events and on-campus activities, Stickman said they did not exclusively promise in-person and live education.

“These materials and publications merely describe the university’s on-campus experience, which plaintiffs received until the university was required to respond to and comply with Pennsylvania state mandates as a result of the covid-19 pandemic,” Stickman wrote. “The university as much as its students had to pivot and change to adapt to circumstances unforeseen by everyone only weeks and days before the covid-19 mitigation measures were imposed.

“Plaintiffs were, nevertheless, given the chance to complete their semester and earn college credits.”

As for the unjust enrichment claim, Stickman found that the plaintiffs failed because Pitt continued to provide instruction even after campus shut down.

“Even without the ability to experience courses and extracurriculars in person, even though their college experience was different than they anticipated (as 2020 was for every American), plaintiffs ultimately continued to receive education and earn credits from a top-tier institution,” Stickman wrote. “That is what they paid for.”

Messages left with Pitt and the plaintiffs’ attorney were not immediately returned.