Is a suit against a University Dorm for changing policies on a whim likely to succeed (USA)? I'm going to be changing some identifying details here. Alice attends Omega University. OU has a policy which restricts guests&rsquo; access to dorms to only certain hours on certain days. The day in question is from 3 pm until midnight. Alice arrives with her guest Arthur around 7 pm, when they are told that Arthur must leave because of an event for which OU has suspended the hours. The email informing Alice of this was sent at 5 pm. Arthur now threatens to sue OU in a small claims court for travel costs, arguing that if OU had notified their students in a timely manner, he would not have expended resources traveling to the university. Ultimately, Arthur decided not to sue. If the lawsuit had gone forward, how likely would it have been that Arthur won? Jurisdiction is USA. I am not willing to provide the state because the above events are true with identifying information changed. If a state is required for an answer, pick your favorite.
Arthur has no contractual relationship with OU, and therefore no right to be in any dorm, or anywhere w.r.t. the university. The university has no duty to Arthur. Alice has some relationship to the university, but that doesn't matter here. This is similar to the situation where you drive to a store to get a chunk of cheese (assume that the store has a website) and find that the store is closed for some reason, or find that they are out of cheese. You can't sue the store for the expense of driving to the store and finding your goal thwarted. They have no legal obligation to third parties to inform them in a timely fashion of closures or product-outages. Given Alice's contractual relationship to OU, it is imaginable that the university makes a promise regarding advance notification about unscheduled changes in hours, for example, they might promise that students will receive an email pertaining to closures within 1 hour of the closure decision being made. There is zero chance that there is such a clause, which is stated in terms of something uncontrollable (receipt, not transmission, of email), and is an unrealistic time frame given the nature of OU bureaucracy (they would not willingly set themselves up like that). Furthermore, Alice suffered no financial loss. Alice also won't have a financial loss because Arthur sued Alice – Alice has in no way wronged Arthur.
As a lawsuit, it doesn't make sense in U.S. law unless you have suffered significant injuries. Your damages are likely to be, at most, nominal ($1) if you discovered it before you were hurt, so you'd only lose the money spent replacing the jar of peanut butter with a non-defective one and the nominal $1 damages. You would not generally have a right to any of your attorneys' fees and personal time spent on a lawsuit like that which would likely cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on an hourly basis (no attorney would take a case like that on a contingency basis), and would take hundreds of hours of your own personal time.
How should I proceed? I am asking law friends to recommend some employment lawyers, but other than this, can I do anything else? You definitely don't need an employment lawyer for this. From a legal standpoint, the matter is very simple: If you grant their request (whether by signing or otherwise expressing your acceptance), you would be waiving any remedies currently available to you for their breach of contract. The company's attempt to override its contract with you is quite naive, but the company can always (and evidently does) try to get away with its liability nonetheless. I would not be surprised if the company subsequently tries harder to intimidate you, but that does not change your legal position &amp; merits unless you sign the waiver the company is pursuing. Asking for your post-termination availability reinforces the notion of company's poor planning and subpar management.
could a case be made for breach of fiduciary duty? Yes, I think, although not every person or stakeholder would have standing to sue the board of trustees of the private university. The prima facie elements of breach of fiduciary duty are "(i) the existence of a fiduciary duty; (ii) a knowing breach of that duty; and (iii) damages resulting therefrom", Johnson v. Nextel Communications, 660 F.3d 131, 138 (2011) (I am not aware of any material differences in other jurisdictions). Absent any explicit disclaimers of fiduciary duty, (1) the element of existence of that duty is applicable because the trustees' relation with the university is not one of arms length; (2) in their deliberate --rather than negligent-- decision to do business with their friends, the trustees are knowingly and intentionally disregarding the advice from economists of the university, despite the evidenced financial detriment of that deliberate decision; and (3) the element of damages would be proved from the expenses as billed by the firm, coupled with any losses the friends' subpar performance may be causing to the university.
Finding Certainty There is only one way for certain: Do the supposedly unlawful thing Get sued (civil) or prosecuted (criminal) Go to court - if you win it wan't illegal If you lose, appeal to the next appellate court in the chain In one of those courts refuses to hear your appeal - it was illegal Repeat as necessary until you reach the Supreme Court - if you win it wan't illegal If you lose or the Supreme Court refuses to hear your appeal - it was illegal. Of course, this whole cycle will take a few years and quite a lot of money. Not certain but persuasive Consult a lawyer: their area of expertise is knowing what the law is and how it will likely apply to your circumstances. Of course, they can be wrong about this because - see above. Why is this so hard? Common law jurisdictions, of which Florida is an example, do not have a "Code of Laws" where you can look things up and see if they are legal or illegal. The Common Law in Florida is partially enacted law (by the US, Florida, County, City and finally your housing corporation) and partially unenacted law (decisions made by courts about both the enacted and unenacted law). In fact, enacted law is usually quite ambiguous until it has a body of unenacted (or case) law that surrounds it and provides guidance on how the courts will interpret it. Part of a lawyers skill is knowing (within their area of expertise) what the relevant case and statute law is with respect to the specific facts of the case, or knowing how to research them. Publish and be damned! You can always take the Duke of Wellingtons approach. In common law jurisdictions, everything is legal unless there is a law (enacted or unenacted) that makes it otherwise. If you do not believe that the action you wish to take is illegal then advise the other party that you will give them 24 hours to come back with a court injunction to prohibit it, otherwise you will proceed. You can't call a bluff harder than this!
As a private university, they have much broader discretion to require things of you. Questions of 4th amendment rights are beside the point, what would matter is whether it is already covered by some part of your contract with the university. As a starting point, they have the property right to control access to their property, and they grant you the right to use their property in certain ways, in exchange for things that you have to do. The contract does not have to say &quot;We can require you to get covid tests&quot;. It is extremely unlikely that any clause says &quot;You can do anything you want except for the following actions&quot;. Typically, your contract includes a generic agreement to &quot;follow the rules&quot;. There are safety-related standards somewhere in the code of conduct. The requirement to be tested, or to not spread bubonic plague etc. will be subsumed under one of these rules. I understand that you don't want to name the institution.
The official judgements do not reveal the funding for these lawyers; so where can I find this information? Nowhere. The commercial arrangements between lawyers and their clients are private and confidential like any other business transactions. You have no more right to know this then you do to know how your neighbour pays their mortgage. how could she have funded litigation in the EWHC and then EWCA before the UKSC? She may have rich parents or another benefactor who has in interest in her or the outcome of the case. She may have won the lottery. She may be the heiress of a dead rich uncle. By the way, "having" student loans does not mean you "need" student loans. Interest rates on student loans are cheap - if I need to pay $10,000 for a course and have $10,000 earning 5%, I would be nuts to use that if I could take out a loan at 3%.
Some kinds of companies (e.g. freight shipping companies and banks) often do have those policies. The real issue is not whether those policies are permitted, but what the consequences are for breaking them. The fact that a company forbids its employees from exercising a legal right doesn't mean that the employee ceases to have that legal right. It simply means that if the employee exercises that legal right, then the employee has breached the contract and may suffer the consequences for breaching that contract. Violations of those policies are grounds for termination from employment, and this would probably not be void as a matter of public policy. For an employee at will this is really pretty meaningless, although it could conceivably affect unemployment benefit eligibility. But, for a unionized or civil service employee who can only be fired for cause, this is a big deal. But, in theory, a company policy does not impact the tort liability or the criminal liability of the individual engaging in legally privileged self-defense to anyone. This is because two people can't contractually change their legal duties to third parties with whom they are not in privity (i.e. with whom they do not have a contractual relationship). And two people also can't contractually change the terms of a country's penal laws. The policy may be a defense of the company from vicarious liability for the employee's use of force in violation of the policy that gives rise to civil liability for the employee because the grounds for authorizing self-defense were not present. If the employee using force did so wrongfully and was sued for negligence rather than battery, the existence of the company policy might also go to the issue of whether the employee was acting negligently since a reasonable person in the employee's shoes might have been less likely to wrongfully use force in purported self-defense if there was such a policy than if there was not such a policy (and instead there might arguably have been a legal fiduciary duty as an agent to protect the property and workers of the principal in the absence of the policy).