Butthurt Barristers v. Dirt-Cheap Deans
74 U.Va 19 (2022)
MORSE, J. delivers the opinion of the COURT.
I. Holding
It is a wise parent who knows their own child.[1] The case before us today asks whether the University of Virginia School of Law knows their children (a.k.a., students) at all. Petitioners, the entire student body of the Law School, urge this court to find that the Law School’s failure to provide as much “stuff” as Darden students receive demonstrates that the school either doesn’t care about making law students feel special, or doesn’t know them at all. As petitioners assert, “obviously we want more fancy stuff.” Respondent, the Law School Administration, argues that it is in the business of running one of the leading law schools in the country and its legitimate business interests trump “students’ feelings about whether their toys are as shiny as Darden’s.” Respondent further argues that even if they are at fault, Petitioners seek an inappropriate remedy, and students should just dump their feelings of deep personal inadequacy on an unsuspecting Uber driver like normal people do.
We disagree and affirm the district court’s finding that the Law School is guilty of negligent supervision and intentionally inflicted emotional distress (“IIED”).
II. Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioners filed this suit after becoming aware of significant differences between the resources that Law School students receive compared to Darden students. For evidence, the petitioners point to the fact that Darden students receive free, high-quality coffee every day until noon, get way tastier free snacks,[2] tons of swag,[3] have their own freaking hotel, and generally have “so many fancy banquets and open bars.” The Petitioners argue that the difference in the quantity and quality of free stuff, contrasted with the Law School’s great rankings,[4] amount to negligent supervision and IIED.[5] The Law School contends that while its only actual obligation is to provide a world-class education, it does offer several coffee options at various prices, free snacks most of the time, and cookies on some Fridays.
Petitioners initially brought suit in the District Court of Petty Appeals, which decided for the Petitioners and awarded damages in the form of “snacks, coffee, and other free stuff at least as nice as Darden’s.” The Respondents won a reversal on appeal to the Circuit Court of Petty Appeals, which noted that “this is getting ridiculous” and that the courts were not designed to resolve “petty temper tantrums from over-privileged graduate students.”[6] The students appealed to this Court, and we granted certiorari on the question of whether a Law School has an affirmative duty to make its students feel special and whether a disparity in amenities and “swagoo” relative to another graduate school can violate this duty.
III. Discussion
We will address the question in two parts. First, we find that the Law School does have a duty to make its students feel special. The source of this duty is found in long-standing principles of common law. As Justice Holmes articulated, “The first requirement of a sound body of law is, that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong.” [7] Clearly, the student body, which comprises the largest portion of our community, feels that the Law School should make them feel special. In fact, some of the plaintiff class went so far as to demand a one-on-one relationship of one-sided support and affirmation, including a requirement that each administrator follow them on Instagram and “finally accept my find-my-friends request.” While even this Court is reluctant to extend judicial coverage to anything that the student body decides it wants, we are comforted by a highly non-formalist theory of contract law which supports finding a duty when it aligns with majoritarian preferences.[8]
Next, we turn to whether the alleged disparities between what Darden students receive and what Law School students receive can violate this duty. We may as well ask ourselves whether a three-legged dog swims in a circle.[9] In this case specifically, the relevant instrumentalities of the Law School are fully under the Law School’s control. Whether there are Friday cookies, regular Cheez-Its or amazing Cheez-Its, or a hotel,[10] are all decisions made by the Law School Administration. Their failure to rectify the imbalance in snacks, major construction projects, columns, and Patagonias is more than sufficient to constitute a dereliction of their duty to make students feel special.
At its end, this case turns on an eternal question: what does a child need to do in order to receive parental approval? The student body has argued persuasively that they are willing to do anything to receive this Law School’s approval, including wear Sperrys (or Allbirds), Patagonias, talking loudly about “streamlining” and “right-sizing,” group projects, making a Powerpoint presentation, and playing an obscene amount of golf.[11] It is only right that the Law School should respond in kind and make students feel loved in what science tells us is the most effective way possible: give us more and nicer stuff.
Accordingly, this Court reverses the Circuit Court’s decision and orders the Law School to provide more free stuff, more fancy banquets, more horse racing,[12] and no less than one unnecessarily large hotel directly across the street from the Inn at Darden.
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
[1] The Merchant of Venice, Act 2, Sc. 2. That’s right, a Shakespeare quote in the VERY FIRST LINE.
[2] This suit was filed prior to the Student Affairs office introducing the new Cheez-its. During oral argument, Petitioners acknowledged that these were “nucking futs” and “worth every dime of tuition.”
[3] There were repeated references to a “Darden Patagonia”. When pressed on the point in oral argument, it was unclear whether Petitioners wanted their own Law School Patagonias, or if they just wanted the Law School to purchase Darden Patagonias and provide them to law students free of charge.
[4] The Petitioners devoted an exhaustive (and truly exhausting) fourteen pages of their brief to an analysis of U.S. News & World Report rankings among law schools and business schools.
[5] Worth noting here is the Law School’s argument that these two counts amount to an illogical conflation of mutually exclusive causes of action, violating the maxim that “even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” The students responded that they feel both stumbled over and/or kicked, depending on the day.
[6] The Circuit Court erred here not because it mischaracterized the nature of this suit, but because it failed to recognize that since our primary source of subject matter jurisdiction is pettiness, we are in fact impelled to hear this case because it is so, so petty.
[7] Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law, 1881.
[8] Or at least, what we think majoritarian preferences ought to be. Shout out to Professor Gulati, hopefully this is the correct takeaway from Nanakuli and Vokes!
[9] The answer is yes. Quick thanks to the Texans (or as I call them, Cowboy Cardozos) who have truly enriched and expanded my vocabulary.
[10] This would of course house all the family and friends who TOTALLY want to come visit the over-caffeinated law student in their life.
[11] Former Chief Justice Tonseth is, indeed, missed.
[12] Horses are very fancy. Plus, this is Virginia.