## Facts

- Shelva Fussell enrolled in a private business college’s legal-secretary program and paid tuition, forming a contractual student–school relationship.
- Fussell maintained strong grades and attendance.
- Fussell and other students signed a petition to public authorities alleging administrative and financial improprieties at the school.
- About four months into the program, the school suspended Fussell as a “disruptive influence” and conditioned readmission on her signing a statement admitting disruption; she refused and was not allowed to return.
- The school’s asserted basis for disruption consisted largely of complaints that Fussell questioned school practices and “putting doubts in other students’ minds,” supported by generalized administrative assertions rather than identified incidents.
- Two instructors testified favorably about Fussell and did not support the characterization of her as disruptive.
- Fussell sued for breach of contract, alleging the school wrongfully terminated educational services without proof of misconduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the school proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Fussell engaged in misconduct constituting a “disruptive influence” that justified suspension under the parties’ contract.
2. Whether a private school defending a breach-of-contract claim based on student discipline must present competent, specific evidence of misconduct sufficient to justify terminating instructional services.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment for the school.
- The court held the school failed to carry its burden to justify the suspension by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The court rendered judgment for Fussell and awarded contractual damages (amount not ascertainable from the available record summary).

## Legal Principles

- Enrollment at a private educational institution can create an enforceable contract: the student pays tuition and meets academic requirements; the school provides instruction subject to legitimate disciplinary grounds.
- When a school defends nonperformance by alleging student misconduct, the school bears the burden to prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Generalized claims that a student “instigated unrest” or “undermined goals,” without concrete, specific instances of disruptive conduct, are insufficient to justify suspension or expulsion under a contractual theory.
- Evidence such as strong academic performance and credible instructor testimony can weigh against a finding that alleged misconduct was more probable than not.

## Conclusion

The court treated the student–private school relationship as contractual and required the school to prove, with specific competent evidence, that alleged disruption justified ending educational services; because the school’s proof was vague and non-specific, the suspension was an unjustified breach and the student recovered damages.


Fussell v. La. Bus. Coll. of Monroe, 519 So. 2d 384 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988)