In 2020 a student at the MGH Institute of Health Professions allegedly questioned the institute’s COVID mask policy during an online class.
His professor allegedly refused to answer the student’s questions.
Instead, according to court documents, the professor muted the student’s mic before ultimately kicking him out of the virtual classroom.
Again, citing court documents, the institute suspended the student for the “disruption” and later expelled him from the program.
The student filed a lawsuit against MGH claiming, among other things, that MGH breached its contract with him.
According to the student’s pleadings, the institute failed to provide the “promised education”
(1) when the professor refused to provide academic insight, (2) when the [p]laintiff was removed from the classroom, and (3) when the [p]laintiff was denied access to all classes and educational services.
The institute filed a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and a superior court judge allowed the motion.
The student appealed the dismissal.
Today the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion upholding the claim’s dismissal.
According to the Appeals Court,
The plaintiff was required to plausibly allege that the defendant’s professor was obligated to answer the plaintiff’s question or to refrain from removing him from class, or that the defendant was obligated to permit the plaintiff to continue attending classes notwithstanding pending disciplinary proceedings. The complaint failed to do so. Of particular concern here is the complaint’s failure to precisely set forth the scope of {MGH’s] expected performance in these circumstances. Read broadly, the rights claimed by the plaintiff — to have all his questions answered and attend class despite the professor and school determining his conduct “disruptive” — substantially encroach on the autonomy of the professor to manage the classroom and of the educational institution to administer discipline. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
To read the full slip opinion, click the document below.