Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

First class action lawsuit filed in the college admissions scandal

Brian Leiter

The lawsuit purports to represent two classes of plaintiffs: 

Six plaintiffs joined [Stanford student] Kalea Woods ’20 in the class action lawsuit filed against Stanford and seven other universities implicated in the college admissions bribery scandal in an amended complaint filed hours after the original suit.

The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for student application fees paid by students who were ultimately rejected by an admissions process that the lawsuit deems to be fraudulent and unfair, according to lawyer John Medler.

Because student application fees typically range from $50 to $100 per student per application, and 30,000 to 40,000 students are rejected each year from each of the eight universities named as defendants, the amount in controversy will exceed $5 million, Medler told The Daily….

The case argues that “had Plaintiffs known that the system was warped and rigged by fraud, they would not have spent the money to apply to the school.” It maintains that applicants “did not receive what they paid for—a fair admissions consideration process.”

All new plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are students rejected by at least one of the eight universities or their parents….

The suit also includes in its class all students who between 2012 and 2018 were rejected from at least one of the eight universities in question after paying application fees.

The original version of the lawsuit included two Stanford students, who were also claiming the value of their degree was reduced by the scandal.  I've not seen the amended complaint, so don't know if that claim is still there (I'm skeptical that claim would get anywhere).   I'm also skeptical that the fact that some admissions decisions were tainted means that the process class members received wasn't fair.   I also imagine that those who applied and were rejected would have to show that, but for the corrupt decisions, they might have gotten in.  Some or all of these problems may mean that the courts will not certify that there is a "class" here:  it may be that individual plaintiffs, who are similarly situated vis-a-vis the process and each other, might be able to sue.  But I'm very far from an expert on class actions.  Opening comments in case any of my law readers have insight into any of this.  (Thanks to Ken Taylor for the pointer to the Stanford Daily article.)

Leave a Reply to Luke Weiger Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

12 responses to “First class action lawsuit filed in the college admissions scandal”

  1. David Noll

    I read the original (but not amended) complaint and don't think that any of the plaintiffs plausibly allege Article III injury or specific causation. Plaintiffs posit a duty to monitor the admissions process, grounded in California unfair competition law, that is akin to the duty of care that corporate directors owe hold shareholders. I've read quite a few unfair trade practices cases and have never seen anything quite like this. There are insurmountable obstacles to class certification.

    Thus, I'm dubious this particular case will go anywhere. Other law firms are doubtless looking at the scandal and may well file complaints with stronger legal theories.

    Reply
  2. Brian Leiter

    Thank you, very helpful. Glad an actual expert agrees with my amateur impression, and for better reasons!

    Reply
  3. Mohan Matthen

    It seems to me that if you pay for a service, you are injured if the service is not performed with due care. So, you must be saying either that Stanford did act with reasonable diligence and due care (and that the injury was just bad luck), or that the law, as written, does not prevent them from injuring people in this way. I wonder which.

    Reply
  4. David Noll

    Of course! Here's a longer piece on the case by Alison Frankel, with analysis from Professors Lahav, Zimmerman, and me:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-admissions/admissions-scandal-class-action-is-fascinating-but-likely-doomed-experts-idUSKCN1QV36C

    Reply
  5. Brian Leiter

    Failure to perform the service with due care is not an injury unless a harm results–that's generally the rule. Prof. Noll may have more to say about this, but I thought I'd post a brief response to your observation. (To put it in more philosophpical terms: "moral luck" gets you off the hook legally a lot of the time.)

    Reply
  6. David Noll

    I agree with both of you. There is such a duty, but it will be difficult for plaintiffs to show a harm caused by its breach.

    I'd add that this complaint doesn't do much to show a breach of the universities' duties. But other complaints with additional allegations will probably be filed soon.

    Reply
  7. Guha Krishnamurthi

    If I buy into a lottery with 5,000 winners, I lose the lottery, but I learn that 25 people are rigged to win (and 4,975 are legit winners), could I not sue for damages consistent with Article III standing? I would think one could bring such a case, and if so, I think there is a strong analogy. I take the points that there will be problems with the merits and that class certification may be a hurdle. And it could be that the damages are just some small fraction of the application cost, but I am less skeptical on the very preliminary standing question.

    Reply
  8. Mark Engleson

    There's a substantive defense to this: F*** you, this was never fair to begin with. Legacy admissions, buy-a-building, etc. The plaintiffs seem to be suggesting that *this* specifically kept them out, when perfectly legal forms of corruption may have been the reason they didn't get. It's all overdetermined, when you look at how many people don't get in and how many schlumps do.

    Reply
  9. Chris Surprenant

    When I see lawsuits like this, the first thing I think is that the US as a country would be much better off if the loser had to pay the attorney's fees of the other side. That would prevent a lot of nonsense like this from clogging up the courts.

    Reply
  10. Brian Leiter

    That would have a deterrent effect, perhaps too great a one, as experience elsewhere suggests. But the main thing clogging up the courts are drug cases! And the courts have efficient ways of dispatching lawsuits like this.

    Reply
  11. Luke Weiger

    Weak cases can't always be kicked on the pleadings, and sometimes even when they can be, failure on the part of the defendant or the court leads to lots of wasted time and expense in discovery. Not endorsing a "loser pay" rule, but I'd disagree with any assertion that nonsense clogging up the dockets and wasting time and money isn't a problem.

    Reply
  12. Michael E. Tigar

    Litigation decisions are usually determined by the perceived return on a decision to make a particular claim, choose a forum, seek class certification, conduct a given type of discovery, and so on. Class certification seems unlikely here. The details of individual claims, and of different colleges' admissions processes, are too diverse. Assuming a plaintiff's lawyer thinks there is a claim here — and on that I don't know enough to have a view — she would do well to seek MDL status for a batch of individual claims, thus gaining many of the benefits of a class action without the expense of class action discovery, appellate review of the certification/noncertificsation decision, and so on.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress