Reservation Clause in Student Handbook Rendered College’s Obligation to Student Too Indefinite for Legal Enforcement
October 6, 2005
According to one Maine court, a reservation clause contained in a student handbook can negate the existence of a binding contract between a college and its students. In Millien v. Colby College, 874 A.2d 397 (Me. 2005), the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that Colby College’s student handbook was not “a binding contract per se” between the college and its students. There, Colby College student Kevin Millien was accused by a fellow student of sexual assault. The Dean’s Hearing Board investigated the charges, conducted a hearing, and issued a decision in favor of Millien. The Dean of Students advised Millien and the claimant of the claimant’s right to appeal the decision to the Appeals Board and of her right to assistance from a victim’s advocate counselor.
After the claimant filed a written appeal, a subcommittee of the Appeals Board decided that she was entitled to a de novo hearing before the entire Appeals Board. After the hearing, the Appeals Board issued a written decision against Millien and invoked several sanctions, including permanent disciplinary probation, banning Millien from living in campus housing, eating in campus dining halls and being on campus after 11:00 p.m. After Colby’s president denied Millien’s request to overturn the decision of the Appeals Board, Millien sued, seeking reinstatement of the decision of the Dean’s Hearing Board.
Colby’s disciplinary process is set forth in part in its student handbook. The Judicial Board, comprised of both students and faculty, hear the majority of the college’s disciplinary matters. However, the Dean’s Hearing Board, comprised of three deans, a faculty member and a student, hears sexual assault cases. The student handbook also explains the structure of the Appeals Board, which exists to provide a panel of appeals “to which any student may petition for a review of any case which the student feels has not been adjudicated fairly.” The student handbook specifically mentions that students may appeal from decisions of the Judicial Board, but does not address a student’s right to appeal from a decision of the Dean’s Hearing Board. Finally, the student handbook contains a “reservation clause,” which provides that Colby “reserves the right to make changes at any time without prior notice.”
At his bench trial, Millien argued that Colby breached its contract with him by allowing the claimant to appeal when the student handbook contained no provision authorizing such an appeal from the Dean’s Hearing Board to the Appeals Board. The trial court found that although a contractual relationship existed between Millien and Colby, the contact was not “necessarily contained within or limited to the contents of the student handbook.” Instead, the trial court determined that Colby was obligated only to provide Millien with a disciplinary process that met common standards of fair play, met Millien’s reasonable expectations, and provided fundamental fairness. Additionally, in concluding that Colby did not breach any obligation to Millien, the trial court held that the student handbook was not “a binding contract per se,” largely because of its reservation clause.
On appeal, Millien argued that the trial court erred in holding that Colby met its contractual obligations because the claimant’s appeal was not authorized by the process described in the student handbook and thus not within the scope of his reasonable expectations. The Supreme Judicial Court first noted that under Maine law, a reservation of an unlimited right – to either party – to determine the nature and extent of performance in a contractual relationship renders an obligation too indefinite for legal enforcement. Thus, based on the reservation clause contained in Colby’s student handbook, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court did not err in concluding that the student handbook by itself was not a binding contract or the exclusive source of the terms of the parties’ agreement.
Additionally, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that Colby did not breach any obligation to Millien by allowing the claimant to appeal because the student handbook does not explicitly restrict appeals to cases originally heard by the Judicial Board, rather than the Dean’s Hearing Board. Finally, after reviewing Millien’s arguments regarding the claimant’s grounds for an appeal, his own lack of legal representation at the appeal and the admissibility of the claimant’s alleged prior inconsistent statements, the Court held that Colby did not breach its obligation to provide Millien
with a fundamentally fair disciplinary process and affirmed the judgment of
the trial court.
For more information, e-mail Lindsey G. Churchill at
lindsey.churchill@hklaw.com or by calling toll free, 1-888-688-8500.
Related Practices