Students
v.
Empty Food Table
75 U.Va 10 (2022)
Kulkarni, J. delivered the opinion of the court.
Background
The case before us comes from a multitude of students, spearheaded by 3Ls. They complain of a lack of food on the so-called “Food Table” in front of the Law Library. This table is the same that is normally used for Cookie Fridays. On other days, this table serves as the host for leftover food from events hosted by student organizations on grounds. In years past, this table has been covered with tanks of coffee, boxes of pizza, and the occasional healthy meal. Whether through tradition or simply silent norms, this table has been a staple of the law school experience for at least as long as the members of this Court have been enrolled in this Law School. For many students, checking to see if there is any food available on the table is the only reason that they deign to open their class GroupMe.
Issue
The complaint before us is simple. Complainants state that the Food Table is far more barren than in past years—on most days, it lies empty, they argue. In these 3Ls’ minds, something they have come to expect is no longer available to them. They argue that, as law students, they are losing an essential source of nutrition each week. There were also arguments by amici[1] that this source of easily accessible food is especially helpful to students who face mental health issues that make it hard to cook on top of everything else law students face each week. Moreover, both Complainants and amici noted that this table can be especially helpful to students facing financial difficulties.
In general, the overarching argument is that this Food Table is an effective source of nutrition that has been rendered less useful by an increasing lack of food. Respondents, represented by student organizations that frequently place food on said table, argue that 1Ls as a class should be impleaded into this case. They have chosen to assert an affirmative defense: Although they admit guilt for not placing as many food items on the table, they argue that this is not their fault. Respondents state clearly and boldly that the current crop of 1Ls is the most gunnery class they have ever had the misfortune of interacting with in recent memory. These student organizations are formed and exist for the purpose of promoting camaraderie and supporting students. They argue that they have a desire to share their leftovers—but how can they do so when the gunner 1Ls don’t allow any leftovers to exist?
Analysis
The arguments from Complainants and Respondents are compelling. This Court, as we often state, is dominated by 3Ls. As such, any opportunity to call it a day and simply accept the arguments we are presented with is another chance to resume 3LOLing. However, it is important to bring in some legal analysis here. Primarily, the issue we are faced with is one of reliance. Law students have come to expect a table full of leftovers that they can peruse to their heart’s content. There is an expectation created by the norms and traditions of this Law School that, at least a few times a week, students can expect a message warning them to “hurry or miss out” on free food. While there was no written agreement between student organizations and non-member students to this point, there is a clear argument for promissory estoppel based upon the students’ reliance on the expectations of free food.[2] So, two questions remain. Did the complainants rely on this unspoken promise to their detriment, and, if so, what relief should they be given? It is clear to this Court that Complainants have lost a source of weekly nutrition. They have lost, at times, an entire free meal (if they can get to the table quickly). There is no doubt that losing a source of free food is an absolute detriment to anyone who has a reasonable expectation of said food.
The tougher question is the relief. It is clear to this Court that the student organizations have made a full-faith effort to make their leftovers available. They cannot produce more food if the amount they budgeted for is consumed. However, so long as the table lays bare, they bear a portion of the blame for the lack of free food. The fact is, however, that the real relief for Complainants comes from court action against the true culprits: 1Ls. As usual, this Court does not hesitate to strike down unruly members of the Class of 2025. 1Ls are invited to far more events. This year’s 1Ls are even presented with IN PERSON firm events—a luxury that previous classes were not given. Such events come with their own free food. Rather than appreciating this unique treatment, these 1Ls continue to grasp at that which belongs to all. As such, the Court only has to reiterate the case that plays the same role in the Court of Petty Appeals as Twombly[3] and Iqbal[4] play in other courts: 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else.[5] The rule provided by that case is simple and absolute. 1Ls always lose.[6] As such, this Court does not hesitate to levy an injunction against 1Ls from accessing the food at events or at the free food table unless they are actual members of the organizations hosting the events. No longer can these students be networking gunners and take away free food from other students under the guise of attending events regarding issues that they absolutely don’t care about. Free food belongs to all law students, and 1Ls—who are already spoiled with a litany of specialized in-person events—should not monopolize such a key resource. Especially since they haven’t even taken the final exam that tests on promissory estoppel yet.
Pazhwak, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
My esteemed colleagues once again deal with a disturbing and disruptive issue at the University of Virginia School of Law: the overconsumption of event food by an overactive 1L class, to the minor detriment of 2Ls and major detriment of 3Ls.[7] The majority here picks up where the majority in 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls left off by recognizing that 1L overconsumption at events, in addition to depriving 2Ls and 3Ls of event food at the time of the event itself, creates the subsequent problem of a dearth of food at that most hallowed of Law School sites, the “Food Table” or “Free Food Table.” The majority in the previous case issued an injunction “limiting 1L consumption to 33.3% of event food, regardless of the number of them present at an event,” thereby ensuring that “66.7% of all food will be reserved for 2Ls and 3Ls.”[8] In the instant case, the majority issues a further injunction requiring that 1Ls be members of the organizations from which they take food. This must be read alongside the previous injunction, meaning that only 1Ls with organization membership—as opposed to all 1Ls—can consume, at maximum, 33.3% of available event food.
This raises the question of whether the 33.3% limitation on 1L consumption of event food set in 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls extends to 1Ls taking food from the Free Food Table.[9] Given the well-established principle that “1Ls always lose,” it is only logical that this former injunction be read to cover both situations where food is available, thereby creating a comprehensive regulatory regime.[10]
However, the majority’s ruling must be read narrowly. In no way should it be understood to constrain 2L and 3L non-members of an organization from taking event food or Free Food Table food.
In addition, the majority errs in several of its assumptions. It claims that the 1Ls taking event food are “networking gunners” who “take away free food from other students under the guise of attending events regarding issues that they absolutely don’t care about.” While the latter part of this might be true in some cases, it suggests an unhelpful binary of 1Ls caring or not caring about an event’s subject matter. In reality, many 1Ls might have different levels of interest that inform their decision to attend. This leads to the issue with the former part of the Court’s assumption, that the 1Ls attending are “networking gunners.” This, too, misconstrues the motivation to attend, with some 1Ls simply desiring to feed themselves at low cost, and so put a dent in their mountains of loan debt. They might listen, grab their food, and get out without anything approaching gunner activity or networking. Thus, the Court ought not to focus on an analysis of the subjective intent of student event attendees.
---
omk6cg@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
[1] An amicus brief authored by 2Ls was, in fact, the most eloquent statement of the facts and legal issues. This proves, once again, that 3Ls can’t be bothered to even argue in their own favor without 3LOLing.
[2] Much to the surprise of Justice Walsh, I can indeed include real legal concepts when writing for the Court.
[3] Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
[4] Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
[5] 324 U.Va. 22, 24 (2019).
[6] Id.
[7] See Class of 2025 v. Classes of 2023 and 2024 (1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls), 75 U.Va. 6 (2022).
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019).