eNotes: Liability – March 2024 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Newman v. Howard Univ. Sch. of Law
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20224

Decided: February 6, 2024

Codes of conduct do not constitute binding contracts insofar as they are not a bargained for exchange of promises, but a list of rights and obligations.

Background

Plaintiff, Michael R. Newman, is a white former student of Howard University School of Law, who attended pursuant to a $26,000.00 scholarship that required he rank in the top half of his class. However, he was kicked out of Howard University School of Law allegedly as a result of disruptive emails to his classmates on multiple occasions, which is against school policy. In contrast, Mr. Newman asserted that the two years of racist abuse and hate speech he endured at the hands of Howard students and staff culminated in his expulsion. Mr. Newman allegedly responded to a controversy surrounding an interaction with his professor by emailing the student-wide listserv, and was later asked not to do so by the Howard administration. At a school-led online town hall discussing the controversy, Mr. Newman was partially prevented from explaining himself, until the very end of the meeting. By the end of his first year of law school, Mr. Newman was in the bottom half of his class.

In the fall of 2021, Mr. Newman filed a formal complaint of racial discrimination with the University based on his exclusion from a student-run group chat, and sent emails to a large number of Howard students from a private email, which a Howard Administrator alleged violated school policy. The Howard Administration brought student code of conduct charges against him, and after two panels on the issue, expelled him. Mr. Newman sued, alleging a number of causes of action, including violation of DC contract law and Federal antidiscrimination law. Plaintiff raised two breach of contract claims, alleging some combination of Howard’s Non-Discrimination Policy and Student Code of Conduct constituted a binding contract, and further, that his scholarship agreement constituted a binding contract. Howard subsequently filed a Motion to dismiss.

Holding

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that neither Non-Discrimination Policy and Student Code of Conduct constituted a binding contract, as they were not a bargained for exchange of promises. The Court did find, however, that the scholarship agreement was a contract, as Howard promised to pay Newman $26,000 per year in exchange for his meeting certain eligibility criteria. Thus, the Court denied, in part, the Motion to dismiss.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicholas Schaufelberger at (202) 945-9502 or nschaufelberger@tthlaw.com.