Michigan Supreme Court shoots down cases asking refunds from schools over disruptive Covid policies
The court found that ‘the University defendants’ housing contracts addressed the possibility of circumstances affecting the health and welfare of students.’
A dissenting judge wrote that ‘[t]he Court of Claims’ decisions to grant summary disposition for the three defendant universities fundamentally misconstrue the purported tuition agreement that each plaintiff signed upon registration.’
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled against granting refunds to college students who complained about disruptions caused by their respective school’s COVID-19 policies.
Students sued Eastern Michigan University, Central Michigan University and Lake Superior State University, claiming that the three schools’ COVID-19 restrictions caused complications with studying and housing on campus.
[RELATED: Columbia anti-Israel coalition says NYC mask ban proposal is rooted in ‘legacies of racism’]
The Court of Appeals struck down the lawsuits in 2022. The students then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which struck them down Aug. 27.
The Court of Appeals claimed at the time that “the University defendants’ housing contracts addressed the possibility of circumstances affecting the health and welfare of students” and that “the University defendants’ tuition contracts specifically addressed student payment obligations when registering for courses.”
The court thus determined that the students “failed to demonstrate that the defendant universities breached any contractual agreement with them.”
Eastern Michigan University still forces community members to wear face masks at certain times and in certain places on campus.
Two Michigan Supreme Court Justices, David Viviano and Richard Bernstein, dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision.
[RELATED: Former Harvard Medical School prof says he was fired for opposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates]
Viviano wrote: “The Court of Claims’ decisions to grant summary disposition for the three defendant universities fundamentally misconstrue the purported tuition agreement that each plaintiff signed upon registration.”
“The tuition agreements do not constitute a binding express contract because they fail to establish mutual assent as to the specific classes each university was obligated to provide the students. That obligation, including whether defendants were to provide the classes in any particular format, is controlled by an implied contract based on the registration materials, historical practice, and other relevant evidence,” he added.
Campus Reform has reached out to Eastern Michigan University for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.
