## Facts

- Students in on-campus programs at the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University paid tuition and mandatory fees for Spring 2020 and agreed to Financial Responsibility Agreements (FRAs) concerning payment obligations.
- After COVID-19 shutdown orders in March 2020, both universities closed facilities, canceled in-person events, moved instruction online for the remainder of the term, and discouraged students from returning to campus housing.
- The universities did not reduce tuition or mandatory fees; Temple provided pro rata housing/dining refunds, and Pitt provided limited refunds tied to move-out timing.
- Students alleged they paid for in-person instruction and access to campus facilities and services, citing university publications describing the on-campus experience, Temple’s separately priced online programs, and mandatory fees tied to campus-based services.
- Students brought putative class actions asserting implied-contract and unjust-enrichment claims seeking partial refunds.
- District courts dismissed for failure to state a claim, reasoning the FRAs controlled and did not promise in-person education or specific services, and that students failed to plead specific contractual commitments.

## Issues

1. Whether the FRAs were integrated contracts that foreclosed implied-contract and unjust-enrichment claims about in-person education and campus services.
2. Whether students plausibly alleged an implied contract for in-person instruction in exchange for on-campus tuition.
3. Whether students plausibly alleged an implied contract tied to particular mandatory fees for access to campus services.
4. Whether unjust-enrichment claims were plausibly pleaded and could proceed in the alternative where the scope of any contract was disputed.
5. Whether claims regarding Pitt’s housing and dining charges stated a plausible entitlement to additional refunds.

## Decision

- The court held the FRAs functioned primarily as payment instruments and were not integrated enrollment contracts governing instructional modality or access to services.
- The court reversed dismissal of implied-contract claims for tuition at both universities based on plausible allegations that on-campus tuition included an in-person component.
- The court reversed dismissal of implied-contract claims as to Pitt’s mandatory fees and as to Temple’s university services fee, but affirmed dismissal as to other Temple fees.
- The court affirmed dismissal of claims seeking additional refunds for Pitt’s housing and dining charges.
- The court reversed dismissal of unjust-enrichment claims related to tuition and the fees that survived, allowing pleading in the alternative.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A writing addressing a student’s obligation to pay does not, without more, bar implied-contract or quasi-contract claims concerning what the university must provide in exchange.
- Under Pennsylvania law, implied-contract claims in the education context require plausible allegations of specific, identifiable promises, not merely generalized or aspirational statements.
- At the pleading stage, allegations such as program structure, pricing differences between online and on-campus offerings, and fee descriptions tied to particular campus services can support a reasonable inference of an implied agreement for in-person instruction and access to identified services.
- Unjust enrichment may be pleaded in the alternative where the existence or scope of an enforceable contract governing the disputed benefit is uncertain.
- Distinct charge categories (e.g., housing/dining versus tuition and broadly assessed fees) may require separate analysis based on the nature of the arrangement and any refunds already provided.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that students plausibly alleged implied contracts for in-person education and certain campus-service fees and could alternatively pursue unjust-enrichment claims, because the FRAs did not comprehensively define the universities’ performance obligations; it nevertheless rejected claims for additional Pitt housing and dining refunds and remanded the surviving claims for further litigation.


Hickey v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 81 F.4th 301 (3d Cir. 2023)