A recent court filing reveals a significant legal battle between students and a major university over alleged breaches of contract during the COVID-19 pandemic. Taylor Gunter, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, filed a class action complaint against the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University (LSU) on August 17, 2020, in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
The lawsuit centers around LSU's decision to transition from in-person to remote learning during the spring 2020 semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Gunter claims that this shift constituted a breach of contract because students paid for services and amenities they did not receive. According to Gunter’s allegations, LSU’s actions forced students to bear the financial burden without receiving the full benefits for which they had paid tuition and mandatory fees. The plaintiff argues that this led to economic damages for all affected students.
LSU responded by denying these allegations and stating that their decision was in compliance with an executive order from the Governor. They argued that students were given opportunities to complete their courses remotely and were provided new grading options as well as direct payments under the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. Despite these measures, Gunter pursued class certification to seek reimbursement for herself and other affected students.
On May 12, 2023, the trial court granted class certification for Gunter’s case but LSU appealed this decision. The appellate court reviewed whether common questions of law or fact predominated over individual issues among class members—a key requirement for class action certification under Louisiana law. The appellate court concluded that individual inquiries into each student's specific circumstances would be necessary to determine liability and damages, thereby precluding class certification due to lack of commonality.
Gunter’s case hinges on proving an implied contract based on LSU’s catalogs, bulletins, and website materials promising an in-person educational experience. However, LSU argued that no such written contract existed and any implied contracts would vary across different colleges within the university. The appellate court agreed with LSU's position that determining liability would require individualized evidence from each student regarding their expectations and usage of campus facilities.
Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to certify the class action, remanding it for further proceedings. This ruling emphasizes the challenges plaintiffs face in certifying class actions when individual circumstances significantly impact claims.
The attorneys involved include Christopher K. Jones, Andrew Blanchfield, Chelsea A. Payne representing LSU; Andrew A. Lemmon representing Taylor Gunter; along with several pro hac vice attorneys from various states including South Carolina, New York, Minnesota, Washington D.C., Florida among others. The case was presided over by Judge Donald R. Johnson under Case ID numbers 2023 CA 1149 consolidated with 2023 CA 1150.