## Facts

- Two mothers, longtime members of a national sorority, wanted their daughters (Howard University students) to join the sorority’s Howard-based chapter as “legacy” candidates.
- The daughters entered Howard in 2009, pursued membership, and alleged they met eligibility requirements and expected preferential treatment as legacies.
- Due to chapter suspensions and university/Pan-Hellenic rules affecting membership intake timing, the daughters were not initiated before graduation.
- Plaintiffs sued the sorority and Howard University in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, seeking damages and emergency injunctive relief to force participation in initiation; the court denied emergency relief.
- After suit was filed, the sorority sent letters to the mothers suspending membership privileges and threatening expulsion based on filing suit and failure to exhaust internal remedies.
- Plaintiffs asserted state-law claims including breach of contract, negligence, tortious interference (principally against Howard), intentional infliction of emotional distress (including based on the letters), and ultra vires conduct by the sorority for disciplining members for filing suit.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs plausibly alleged an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 per plaintiff to support diversity jurisdiction.
2. Whether the sorority’s constitution, bylaws, or related rules created enforceable contractual obligations guaranteeing legacy preference, chapter availability, or a particular intake process.
3. Whether the alleged misconduct stated a negligence claim based on a duty independent of any contractual duties.
4. Whether Howard University could be liable for tortious interference by enforcing university/NPHC rules affecting the sorority’s intake process.
5. Whether denial of membership and post-suit disciplinary letters constituted “extreme and outrageous” conduct sufficient for intentional infliction of emotional distress under D.C. law.
6. Whether the sorority’s post-suit discipline of members for filing suit plausibly exceeded its corporate authority (ultra vires) under its governing documents and applicable law.

## Decision

- The court held the amount-in-controversy allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage; it did not dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Howard University’s motion to dismiss was granted in full; all claims against Howard were dismissed.
- The sorority’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part:
  - Breach of contract: dismissed.
  - Negligence: dismissed.
  - Tortious interference: dismissed.
  - Intentional infliction of emotional distress: dismissed.
  - Ultra vires claims based on post-suit discipline: survived.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity jurisdiction is not defeated at the pleading stage unless it is legally certain that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional minimum based on the claims and alleged damages.
- A breach-of-contract claim based on an organization’s governing documents requires identification of a specific, enforceable provision that was violated; generalized expectations about membership or legacy preference are insufficient.
- Under D.C. law, negligence claims fail where the alleged duty arises solely from contractual obligations and no independent tort duty is pleaded.
- Tortious interference requires a valid contract and a breach procured by the defendant; enforcement of rules consistent with the governing documents, where no breach is shown, does not support the claim.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress in D.C. requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous; unfairness or alleged retaliation typically does not meet this threshold absent severe, egregious conduct.
- An ultra vires claim may proceed where plaintiffs plausibly allege a nonprofit corporation acted beyond authority granted by its constitution and bylaws, including disciplining members for filing suit without clear authorization.

## Conclusion

The court treated the dispute over sorority membership as largely nonactionable in contract and tort absent a clear governing provision, dismissed all claims against the university, and allowed only the claim that the sorority may have exceeded its authority by suspending members and threatening expulsion for filing the lawsuit.


Compton v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2014)