Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07026/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07026-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 15-7026 September Term, 2015

 FILED ON: APRIL 26, 2016

SANDRA COMPTON, SOROR, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA SORORITY INCORPORATED AND HOWARD UNIVERSITY,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:13-cv-00262)

Before: TATEL and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District 

of Columbia and on the briefs of the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. R. 34(j). The 

Court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a 

published opinion. See Fed. R. App. P. 36; D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed August 12, 2014, September 

10, 2014, and February 18, 2015, be affirmed for the reasons stated in the memorandum 

accompanying this judgment. 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to 

withhold the issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the resolution of any timely 

petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

 Ken Meadows

 Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #15-7026 Document #1610396 Filed: 04/26/2016 Page 1 of 3
2

Compton v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Incorporated, No. 15-7026

MEMORANDUM

Appellants filed this diversity suit against Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Incorporated (AKA) and 

Howard University (Howard). Appellants are two mothers, active AKA members, and two 

daughters, both Howard students during the period relevant to their claims. The mothers’ status as 

active members of AKA entitled their daughters to preferential treatment during the AKA 

membership-selection process. Appellants allege the daughters were denied such treatment when 

they applied to join AKA’s Howard chapter, giving rise to claims for breach of contract, ultra vires 

acts, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with 

contractual relations. We agree with the district court that none of the claims has merit.

The membership selection process for AKA is regulated by multiple institutions. AKA’s 

Constitution requires compliance with school rules in the membership-intake process. Howard rules 

dictate that “[e]ach fraternity or sorority is expected to maintain membership” in either the National 

Pan-Hellenic Council or Council of Fraternal Organizations and “to abide by all applicable . . . 

governing council rules and regulations.” Howard University Student Handbook 63 (2012-2013) 

(J.A. 85). AKA is, accordingly, a member of the National Pan-Hellenic Council. The rules of the 

Howard chapter of the Council limit sororities to accepting fifty new members per year. The rules 

also dictate that no more than one-third of new members can be legacy applicants, defined, as 

relevant here, as students who have a parent who is an active member of AKA. Finally, AKA’s 

Undergraduate Membership Intake Process Manual provides criteria for selecting members when, as 

here, more qualified applicants apply than the applicable membership caps allow. According to the 

Manual, when the number of new members is capped, legacies are to be admitted first. Additionally, 

when the number of legacies is also capped, the available legacy spots are to be filled first with 

sophomores, then juniors, and then seniors. GPA may be used as a further tiebreaker. 

When the daughters applied for membership in early 2013, AKA considered sixty-one

applicants, of whom twenty-eight were legacies. Applying the Manual’s selection criteria and the 

Council rules imposing a fifty-person new-member cap and a one-third legacy-applicant cap, AKA 

admitted seventeen legacies (one-third of fifty, rounded up), of whom sixteen were sophomores and 

juniors; the remaining legacy spot was filled by the senior legacy applicant with the highest GPA. 

The daughters, Howard seniors neither of whom had the highest GPA, were therefore not admitted. 

Appellants allege that the chapter’s administration of the membership process was a breach of 

contract because it violated AKA’s Constitution. Each of Appellants’ theories of breach fails, 

however. Appellants primarily take issue with AKA’sfollowing the caps set by the Howard chapter 

of the National Pan-Hellenic Council. The Manual, they argue, requires following caps set by “a 

college or university”—not by a Pan-Hellenic council. J.A. 102. Appellants further contend that the 

Constitution permits reliance only on rules of the National Panhellenic Conference, not the National 

Pan-Hellenic Council. The district court found that distinction irrelevant. 

USCA Case #15-7026 Document #1610396 Filed: 04/26/2016 Page 2 of 3
3

We affirm the district court. Compliance with Council regulations is required by Howard. In 

particular, AKA’s Constitution requires following school rules. Howard’s rules in turn require 

membership in and adherence to the rules of a Pan-Hellenic council. AKA is consequently bound by 

the Council caps. Whatever may be the exact relationship between the National Panhellenic 

Conference and the National Pan-Hellenic Council, the AKA Constitution and Manual clearly 

require following university rules. The district court thus was ultimately correct to conclude that 

AKA “followed the required process in selecting and rejecting candidates,”Compton v. Alpha Kappa 

Alpha Sorority, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 3d 1, 17 (D.D.C. 2014), because it complied with the caps imposed 

by its university-mandated membership in the Council.

Appellants’ remaining arguments in support of their breach of contract claims are also meritless. 

First, they allege that AKA violated its obligation to follow Howard’s sixty-five-person new-member 

cap by instead abiding by the fifty-person cap set by Howard’s chapter of the Council. Adhering to

the latter, however, inevitably honors the former. Howard dictates only a maximum number of new 

members, so admitting fifty new members was squarely in compliance with Howard’s rule. Next, 

Appellants assert that the daughters were subjected to a chapter vote, in violation of the AKA 

Constitution’s Legacy Clause, which states that legacy candidates “will not be subject to a vote by 

the chapter.” J.A. 94. Appellants contend that the chapter had only one member at the time of the 

selection, who made the decision not to submit the daughters’ names, so the decision not to accept 

the daughters “was voted upon 100 percent by one member.” J.A. 14. But the application of 

nondiscretionary caps to exclude the daughters, in accordance with the AKA Constitution and 

Manual, was not a vote. The Legacy Clause only protects legacy candidates from selection by vote; 

it does not guarantee that the alternative legacy-selection process will end in membership. 

The mothers also bring ultra vires claims for AKA’s withdrawal of their membership. Those 

claims are now moot: AKA reinstated the mothers’ memberships such that AKA has “eradicated the 

effects of the alleged violation,” and “there is no reasonable expectation . . . that the alleged violation 

will recur.” Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Ret. Plan, 701 F.3d 718, 725 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The remaining 

claims—negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with 

contract—are meritless for the reasons stated by the district court.

USCA Case #15-7026 Document #1610396 Filed: 04/26/2016 Page 3 of 3