On Tuesday, a significant portion of oral arguments at the Ohio Supreme Court was devoted to pondering Ohio State University’s claim to discretional immunity concerning its decision not to offer full refunds to undergraduates when it had closed the campus due to the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the court’s previously voiced intent to concentrate on the wider procedural subject, it took the time to reflect on this remarkable aspect of the case. This legal dispute has its roots back in March 2020 when the University decided to suspend all in-person activities, including classes.
Brooke Smith, a senior at The Ohio State University at that time, moved to initiate a lawsuit against the University as a result of this action. According to court records, Smith’s grievance was that she only received a partial refund for her room and board expenses alongside the recreational fee. The University, however, didn’t issue reimbursements for a litany of other charges, including the instructional fee, non-resident surcharge, general fee, student activity fee, student union facility fee, learning technology fee, course fees, program fees, or the COTA bus fee.
Notably, the appellees, as stated by John R. Gall, a senior senior partner at Squire Patton Boggs in Columbus, who is also counsel for OSU, have accepted that there exists no “qualitative difference between online instruction and in-person instruction. They are the same, we charge the same, and it’s the same instruction.”