## Facts

- Sharon L. Russell enrolled at Salve Regina College, a private college in Rhode Island, after disclosing that she was severely overweight (about 280 pounds) and intending to enter the nursing program.
- Russell completed her freshman year and was admitted into the nursing program for her sophomore year.
- Nursing faculty raised concerns that Russell’s weight affected clinical performance and patient-care safety and imposed weight-loss expectations tied to continued participation in clinical components.
- Russell asserted the weight-related conditions were arbitrary, inconsistent with the college’s published standards and the parties’ student–college agreement, and were administered in a way that invaded her privacy and caused emotional distress.
- The college ultimately required Russell to withdraw from the nursing program and ended her student status, prompting Russell to sue for damages under Rhode Island law in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the student–private college relationship is contractual and, if so, whether the contract’s terms may be derived from the college’s catalogs, bulletins, and official statements.
2. Whether dismissing Russell based on weight-loss conditions not clearly grounded in published academic/clinical standards could constitute breach of that contract.
3. Whether the college’s conduct regarding Russell’s weight and dismissal could satisfy Rhode Island tort standards for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4. How a federal district court sitting in diversity should determine and apply unsettled questions of Rhode Island law relevant to these claims.

## Decision

- The court held that the pleadings and record supported treating the student–college relationship as enforceable in contract, with terms informed by institutional publications and reasonable expectations created by them.
- The court permitted Russell’s breach of contract theory to proceed as a triable claim based on allegations that the college departed from its own stated standards by imposing ad hoc weight-related conditions.
- The court viewed Russell’s tort theories more narrowly under Rhode Island law; the litigation posture reflected that privacy and emotional-distress claims were not viable on the evidence ultimately presented and did not proceed to a jury in the same manner as the contract claim.

## Legal Principles

- A private college may be bound in contract by commitments and standards expressed in its catalogs, bulletins, and other official materials, as reasonably understood by the student.
- Contract review in the academic context focuses on whether the institution followed identifiable, self-imposed rules and procedures, rather than inviting generalized “educational malpractice” claims.
- Academic judgments may receive deference, but that discretion does not protect conduct that is plausibly inconsistent with the institution’s stated standards or imposed on an ad hoc basis.
- Under Rhode Island law, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress require specific, demanding elements (including unreasonable intrusion or extreme and outrageous conduct) that are not satisfied by merely insensitive or uncomfortable interactions absent proof meeting those thresholds.
- In diversity cases, federal courts must determine state law as it would likely be applied by the state’s highest court when controlling precedent is unclear.

## Conclusion

The court treated the dispute as primarily contractual, allowing Russell to pursue a claim that Salve Regina breached obligations reflected in its published academic and clinical standards by imposing and enforcing weight-based conditions leading to her dismissal, while restricting tort recovery absent proof meeting Rhode Island’s stringent privacy and emotional-distress requirements.


Russell v. Salve Regina Coll., 649 F. Supp. 391 (D.R.I. 1986)