The mass lawsuit claimed the university breached its contract by sending students home as the COVID-19 pandemic spread.
MACON, Georgia — A federal judge in Macon last week dismissed a class action lawsuit that claimed Mercer University broke its contract with students by sending them home during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lawsuit filed by the students alleged that Mercer broke their contract and improperly enriched itself over the university's handling of the pandemic. They claimed there was an “implied agreement” that classes would be held in person, which the university broke.
But on all fronts, federal Judge Tillman Self found that Mercer could suspend teaching and move classes online and dismissed a lawsuit from a group of students that argued the university should refund them the amount of tuition and fees they owed.
The suit was filed by student Mary Koerner and other students. They argued that Mercer's promotional materials mention that “student life goes beyond the classroom” in terms of academic and extracurricular options, and in Koerner's case, these arguments were part of why she decided to attend Mercer, the suit says.
In addition, he pointed to the list of individual instruction and mandatory fees in the course catalog, which also included individual laboratory and facilities fees.
The suit was filed on March 11 in the US Middle District of Georgia.
But in response to Mercer’s motion to dismiss the suit, Self said the arguments made by Koerner and his attorney have no merit.
While Koerner pointed to another class action lawsuit against Mercer that has not been dismissed, Self observed that new legal guidance from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — which the U.S. Middle District must follow — has changed the legal landscape.
The decision in Dixon v. University of Miami found that the university was allowed to change courses during the COVID-19 pandemic according to the agreement between the university and the student. In Self's decision, he noted that Mercer had a similar agreement.
“Because of binding precedent from the Eleventh Circuit, the Court agrees with Mercer: as a matter of law, even though the contract obligated Mercer to provide personal services, that same contract also permitted Mercer to modify its procedures in the face of an emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic,” Self wrote.
In short, Mercer’s student catalog states that the university “may change its rules affecting the admission and retention of students” when necessary, and another policy allows the university to “respond to a wide range of major emergencies that could threaten the lives, health, and safety of students.”
Mercer claimed this gave the university the power to suspend tuition, and Self agreed, considering the case against Miami University.
Self ruled that even though Mercer’s agreement with students included in-person instruction and a personalized student experience, those two policies allowed the university to suspend instruction when COVID arrived.
Furthermore, he did not find the students' claim that the mandatory fee was intended to cover personal services to be convincing.
“In short, plaintiff never presented any facts to show what the $150 fee actually included. Instead, she merely listed what she thought it included — and that's not enough,” Self wrote.
So even if the facts Koerner described were true, they would not be enough for him to win, Self ruled. Because of this, Self dismissed the suit and ruled in Mercer's favor.