## Facts

- Terrell Jackson was recruited to play men’s basketball at Drake University, a private university in Iowa.
- Drake hired Tom Abatemarco as the new head basketball coach, and Abatemarco recruited Jackson.
- Jackson alleged that during recruiting Abatemarco said Jackson would have the opportunity to obtain an excellent education at Drake and would receive academic support to help him succeed.
- Jackson signed written financial-aid agreement(s) providing an athletic scholarship and setting out Drake’s scholarship obligations.
- Drake provided Jackson with a tutor, but Jackson claimed he was required to miss tutoring sessions because basketball practice was mandatory.
- Jackson alleged that basketball staff prepared term papers for him and urged him to enroll in “easy” courses to maintain athletic eligibility; Jackson said he refused and instead enrolled in courses needed for a degree.
- Jackson alleged Abatemarco singled him out at practice, made him run extra laps, and called him derogatory names.
- Jackson sued Drake in Iowa state court asserting six counts: (I) breach of contract; (II) negligence; (III) negligent misrepresentation; (IV) fraud; (V) negligent hiring; and (VI) race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- Drake removed the case to federal court based on the § 1981 claim and diversity, then moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- Drake asserted it had met its obligations under the written financial-aid agreement(s).

## Issues

1. Whether Jackson’s claims about tutoring, academic advising, and the operation of the basketball program were, in substance, barred “educational malpractice” claims that Iowa law would not recognize in tort or contract form.
2. Whether Jackson could maintain a breach-of-contract claim based on recruiting statements and university-related materials despite written financial-aid agreement(s) that Drake asserted it performed.
3. Whether the evidence created a triable issue on negligent misrepresentation or fraud based on identifiable false statements, reasonable reliance, and damages.
4. Whether Drake could be liable for negligent hiring or retention of the coach absent evidence that Drake knew or should have known of a relevant risk posed by the coach.
5. Whether Jackson produced sufficient evidence of intentional race discrimination affecting contractual benefits to survive summary judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

## Decision

- The court **partially granted and partially denied** Drake’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment on claims or theories that would require the court to evaluate the quality or reasonableness of educational services, academic support, or coaching/program decisions, treating those as noncognizable educational-malpractice-type claims.
- The court did not allow generalized recruiting assurances about obtaining an “excellent education” to serve, by themselves, as enforceable standards for tort or contract liability.
- The court allowed only those portions of Jackson’s case that were tied to concrete representations or evidence beyond conclusory allegations—particularly where a factfinder could assess a discrete promise, reliance, and injury without judging overall educational quality.
- The court narrowed the § 1981 claim under the summary-judgment record, granting judgment on unsupported aspects while permitting any remaining race-discrimination theory to proceed only to the extent the evidence could support intentional discrimination affecting the contractual relationship.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the nonmovant must point to record evidence on each element on which it bears the burden at trial. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.)
- Courts generally reject attempts to recover damages for alleged inadequacies in educational services or academic/athletic program administration when adjudication would require measuring educational quality or second-guessing discretionary academic or coaching judgments (often described as “educational malpractice”).
- A student may pursue a contract-based claim against a university only where the plaintiff identifies a definite promise or obligation capable of judicial enforcement; broad statements of educational opportunity or quality ordinarily do not create enforceable terms.
- Negligent misrepresentation and fraud require proof of a materially false representation of fact (not mere opinion or aspiration), reasonable reliance, and resulting damages; generalized recruiting talk typically is not enough.
- Negligent hiring or retention requires evidence that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s unfitness in a way that made the complained-of harm reasonably foreseeable.
- Section 1981 prohibits intentional race discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts; a plaintiff must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find purposeful discrimination affecting contractual rights or benefits.

## Conclusion

Jackson’s suit survived summary judgment only in limited form: the court refused to let the case proceed as a challenge to the adequacy of Drake’s educational or basketball program, but it allowed any remaining claims to go forward only where Jackson’s evidence supported a concrete promise or intentional discrimination affecting his contractual relationship with the university.


Jackson v. Drake University, 778 F. Supp. 1490 (1991)