In yesterday's Landau v. Corp. of Haverford College, Judge Gerard McHugh (E.D. Pa.) rejected plaintiffs' Title VI claims (see here for more), but allowed the breach of contract claim to go forward, albeit only for nominal damages:
Plaintiffs allege that although they filed complaints to Haverford about many of the instances [of alleged anti-Semitic behavior], they did not receive any response, violating the policies that Haverford represents as active on their website. The absence of demonstrable harm does not prohibit this claim, because Pennsylvania law permits contract claims for nominal damages. Plaintiffs allege that Haverford failed to evenhandedly enforce its "Anti-Discrimination, Harassment, and Bias Policy." To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must "set forth facts regarding (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms; (2) a breach of duty imposed by the contract; and (3) resultant damages." "Written guidelines, policies, and procedures" distributed to students over the course of enrollment may constitute the terms of such contracts.
[1.] Existence of a Valid Contract
Plaintiffs rely on a combination of two Haverford documents as the basis for their claim. They first allege that Haverford has breached its promise set forth in its Non-Discrimination Statement to provide an employment and educational environment free from all forms of unlawful discrimination on the basis of "religion, national origin, ancestry, citizenship … or any other characteristic protected by law." Plaintiffs then allege that this Non-Discrimination policy is enforceable through the College's Anti-Discrimination, Harassment, and Bias Policy ("Bias Policy"), which itself is a binding contract, and details a series of procedures that Haverford has failed to follow. Plaintiffs attach what they contend is an active and binding version of the Bias Policy that they downloaded from Haverford's website. Plaintiffs also plead that the policy is directly adjacent to the portal where students can, and did, submit "bias incidents."
Haverford disputes the validity of the contract, pointing to the fact that the attached PDF of the Bias Policy, the same Bias Policy that was linked on Haverford's website on the date of oral argument, is clearly labeled as a "draft." Haverford argues that because the Policy was designated as a draft, it was not in force during any of the incidents alleged. Notably, Haverford does not provide any alternative policy that was in place, further asserting that even if the Court finds that the Bias Policy was operative, Plaintiffs' allegations of breach are too vague to state a contract claim.
