Opinion
2020-00148AD
06-04-2020
TYRA GARRETT Plaintiff v. OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/2/21
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Tyra Garrett ("plaintiff") filed a complaint against defendant, Owens Community College ("defendant"). Plaintiff related on May 20, 2019, she began an online chemistry course offered by defendant. Due to a strike at her place of employment, she was working thirteen-hour days, with no days off, at the time. She was also enrolled in two other courses. These circumstances made it so that she was not able to complete her course work and she soon fell behind. Plaintiff claims that she attempted to go to the tutoring center but that it was closed for the first part of her course. Plaintiff also claims that she attempted to work with the professor to make other arrangements to complete her course work but that the professor was not willing. Plaintiff submitted an application to withdraw from the course after the deadline for withdraw and requested a full refund. Defendant allowed plaintiff to withdraw but did not refund any of her tuition. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $2,850.00, $850.00 for tuition for the course from which she withdrew at the defendant's institution, and $2,000.00 for the course she completed instead at a different institution. Plaintiff also submitted a copy of her ADA accommodation paperwork with her complaint. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee with the complaint.
{¶2} Defendant submitted an Investigation Report denying liability. Defendant states that its policy, which is given to students upon enrollment, states a clear timeframe for when a refund is given. Defendant asserts that this policy is not enforced, granting the student a refund, only upon a showing of extenuating circumstances under their policy. Defendant asserts that plaintiffs application did not meet the criteria for extenuating circumstances.
{¶3} Plaintiff submitted a response to defendant's Investigation Report reasserting her claim.
{¶4} To prove a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove all of the following: (1) a contract existed; (2) the plaintiff performed his obligations under the contract; (3) the defendant breached the contract; and (4) plaintiff suffered damages or loss due to the breach. Jarupan v. Hanna, 173 Ohio App.3d 284, 2007-Ohio-5081, 878 N.E.2d 66, ¶ 18 (10th Dist.), citing Powell v. Grant Med. Ctr., 148 Ohio App.3d 1, 10, 771 N.E.2d 874 (10th Dist.2002). "Under contract law, a breach occurs when a party fails, without legal excuse, to perform a promise that forms a whole or part of a contract." Landis v. William Fannin Builders, Inc., 193 Ohio App.3d 318, 2011-Ohio-1489, 951 N.E.2d 1078, ¶ 26 (10th Dist.). "When a student enrolls in college or university, pays his or her tuition and fees, and attends such school, the resulting relationship may reasonably be construed as being contractual in nature." Behrend v. State, 55 Ohio App.2d 135, 139, 379 N.E.2d 617 (10th Dist.1977). "The terms of such contract are found in the college catalog and handbook supplied to students." Jefferson v. University of Toledo, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-236, 2012-Ohio-4793, ¶ 15. (Internal quotations omitted.)
{¶5} Here, defendant provided its policy on withdraw and tuition reimbursement to plaintiff when she enrolled in the course. These are the terms of the contract between plaintiff and defendant as it relates to tuition reimbursement. The court finds that defendant did not breach the contract when it refused to refund plaintiffs tuition.
{¶6} Further, to the extent plaintiff may be asserting a claim under the ADA, the court finds that her claim must fail. "To prove a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he or she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the defendant is subject to the ADA; and (3) the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the defendant's services, programs, or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by the defendant, by reason of the plaintiffs disability." Wolfe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-346, 2011-Ohio-6825, ¶ 16, citing Franks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 195 Ohio App.3d 114, 2011-Ohio-2048, 958 N.E.2d 1253 (10th Dist.). Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to establish any of these elements.
{¶7} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant.
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶8} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.