Law Students for Fall Break v. The Law School
73 U.Va 7 (2020)
Justice Deskins delivered the opinion of the Court.
This opinion comes in response to one of the many concessions and sacrifices law students have been forced to endure as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic—the cancellation of their beloved fall break. A plaintiff class consisting of students across the J.D., S.J.D., and LL.M. classes avers that this cancellation is improper, and they request an order reinstating fall break.
Facts
This summer, in response to the pandemic, the University of Virginia administration announced that there would be no fall break this year for undergraduate students, and the Law School administration followed their lead, similarly cancelling the Law School’s fall break. The University’s administration cited public health concerns in justifying the drastic measure. The administration averred that removing any break in classes during the semester would lessen the ability of students to come and go from Charlottesville during the semester. They worried that traveling students would bring COVID-19 with them upon their return to Grounds, thus putting the University community and Charlottesville in danger. The Court cannot remember whether the Law School administration cited similar concerns, but it assumes without deciding that the same reasoning led to the cancellation of the Law School’s fall break.
Later in the summer, students across the University began the fall semester, both on-Grounds in in-person classes and online in a variety of different places (on-Grounds, in Charlottesville but off-Grounds, and elsewhere around the country and the world). Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was an uptick in COVID-19 cases after the undergraduates returned to the area. In response, the University put additional restrictions in place, including a renewed and reinvigorated request that students (including law students) not leave Charlottesville and not invite outsiders to town.[1]
Plaintiffs assert that they really, really, really need the break. They aver that they are exhausted, that they aren’t the type to go to London or Florida over breaks because they’re strapped for cash and/or saddled with debt (and also just straight up exhausted[2]), and that they legitimately need the time not only to rest but to study because they sincerely care about how they do in school. They also claim that it is inappropriate for the Law School to impose the cancellation upon law students—the real COVID-19 problems are coming from the undergrads.
Defendants emphasize that the cancellation was needed to prevent students from travelling and bringing COVID-19 back to Charlottesville with them. They state that the risk is too great that some students would travel and bring the virus back if given the chance. They further declare that the cancellation simply “makes good pedagogical sense.”
Analysis
The issue at hand is one of first impression before this honorable Court. The Court of Petty Claims previously dismissed this case, asserting that Plaintiffs did not have standing to dismiss their claim. That court declared that Plaintiffs had not successfully pled that they would suffer harm as a result of the cancellation. We disagree. Plaintiffs have clearly demonstrated that they would suffer harm. Their briefs were riddled with typos, poorly formatted, and clearly not proofread before being filed—per se evidence that Plaintiffs need a break from the mental beating of law school. The Court also finds that the class was properly certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.[3]
This Court rules in favor of Plaintiffs for three main reasons. First, this has been an unusually difficult time for Plaintiffs, even more so than a normal fall semester at the Law School. They suffer from isolation, monotony, and worries about the future, among many other concerns, at much higher levels than they normally would, and this has taken a serious toll on their wellbeing. Second, as Plaintiffs aver, they need that time to study and catch up on work! Out in the real world, one can take paid days off to relax, go to medical appointments, and get one’s car registration updated. Not so in the Law School world. Should class members skip lectures or fail to do their readings in order to study for other courses, their grades may suffer. Having a few extra days of break after Thanksgiving before exams begin will not do the trick. A mid-semester break is absolutely necessary. Third, as Plaintiffs state in their briefs, the real risk here is the undergrad population, not law students. In contrast to undergrads, who often live in dorms or other large communal housing arrangements, eat in dining halls, and are otherwise unable to avoid coming in contact with other people, law students such as Plaintiffs often live off-Grounds, with few, if any, roommates, and can easily avoid coming into contact with other people.[4] Law students are much less likely to transmit the virus to their classmates.
Defendants raise a good point in stating that having fall break would give students an opportunity to travel elsewhere and potentially bring the virus back with them to Charlottesville. Yes, in the past, some law students have travelled to places near and far over fall break. Yes, such travel would pose public health risks this year, as Defendants have claimed. However, the University Administration has already shown that it can prevent students from traveling by sending out new travel restriction policies through videos posted on various social media outlets after business hours, letting those videos percolate among the student body, and then sending an email to the University community the next day explaining the new restrictions. In short, Defendants’ concerns about travel can easily be avoided by imposing restrictions on student travel for the duration of fall break.
This Court does not look fondly upon Defendants’ claim that skipping the break “makes good pedagogical sense.” Perhaps studies do indicate that continuous academic calendars, without breaks, facilitate better learning. However, even if there is evidence to support Defendants’ claim, they have often chosen to ignore “good pedagogical sense” in the past. For example, research has shown that cold-calling is an unnecessary, unhelpful, counterproductive, and archaic pedagogical technique. Yet, many professors at the Law School still utilize cold-calling in their lectures. When Defendants decide to fully modernize their pedagogical approaches and implement evidence-based techniques shown to better student outcomes, they are welcome to try to cancel fall break. In the meantime, this Court does not treat their claim as being made with sufficient good faith to allow the cancellation to proceed.
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the Law School community to endure a number of novel hardships. The cancellation of fall break need not be one of them. We hereby REVERSE the finding of the lower court, and we ORDER that Defendants reinstate fall break.
It is so ordered.
Martin, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with much of the Court’s reasoning, but I would remand for trial to resolve remaining questions of fact.
This court is bound by its precedent in Students v. Labor, Generally, 73 U.Va 4 (2020), wherein it was established that students have a due process right not to be unilaterally denied traditional breaks. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions and popular perception, Plaintiffs have not waived their Constitutional rights to health and well-being, for which breaks are a necessary prerequisite, by willingly becoming law students. As such, Plaintiffs’ complaint should not have been dismissed by the lower court on summary judgement.
Defendants’ decree was a broad infringement on Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and thus traditionally would be voided for vagueness. Defendants’ actions not only prohibit time for dangerous activities such as travel, which few students are in a position to do but also time for such benign and common break behavior as working on job application materials, sleeping, finishing classwork that has been procrastinated on, sleeping, staring at apartment walls in existential dread of student loans, sleeping, binging Netflix, and sleeping.[5]
Nonetheless, exigent circumstances may sometimes call for extreme emergency measures. Defendants have attempted to distinguish this case from Students v. Labor, Generally, by arguing that circumstances have changed because of an increase in positive cases at the University and Law School. Defendants have argued that the elimination of fall break is the only way to fulfill the compelling governmental interest of adequately reducing the transmission of COVID-19. As long as reasonable people could disagree on whether this is the case, this is a question of fact that should be decided by a jury.
Plaintiffs have argued that, while eliminating the break would reduce the opportunity for travel, COVID-19 is already in the Charlottesville community. Any Plaintiff with the energy left to travel presumably also has the energy to engage in other high-risk activities in the local area, such as patronizing indoor bars and restaurants, which in normal times are frequently done while classes are in session. Plaintiffs have further argued that Defendants have also proved itself capable of using other, less restrictive measures to reduce travel and gatherings, such as the new policies that the Court mentioned in its opinion, and that Defendants could also reduce travel by shortening rather than eliminating fall break. Defendants have countered that other measures have proven ineffective in sufficiently reducing transmission. Defendants also presented evidence that similar holidays in other locations, including some schools, have led to upticks in COVID-19 cases. In light of this evidence, it is my opinion that reasonable people could disagree on whether eliminating fall break is a necessary emergency measure to curb COVID-19 transmission.
Therefore, I would also reverse the order of the lower court dismissing the case, but rather than granting summary judgement for Plaintiffs, I would remand the case for trial.
---
lcd4ew@virginia.edu
rdm9yn@virginia.edu
[1] A similar request had been in place before.
[2] Did I mention that Plaintiffs are EXHAUSTED?
[3] The Court took Class Actions/Aggregate Litigation with Professor Ballenger last semester, so the Court knows that class actions must be certified pursuant to Rule 23, but because everything ended up being pass/fail (“Credit/No-Credit” in official terms), this Court has little recollection of how the Rule actually works. Nonetheless, the Court has a gut feeling that it’s satisfied, so we’ll go with that.
[4] Indeed, even this Justice spends almost all of her time alone in her chambers. Even if she had clerks, she would avoid them as much as possible.
[5] As the Court noted, Plaintiffs are all exhausted.