Opinion ID: 2973254
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contract claim against SCC

Text: Count XII of the complaint alleges that SCC breached various contractual duties set forth in the SCC catalogue and manuals related to the OTA program. The district court properly held that Plaintiff did not point to any language in the cited documents which constituted an unqualified promise of a student’s right to be warned and evaluated prior to termination from the program. The district court also noted that the SCC catalogue contained a disclaimer which explicitly stated that its contents did not create a contract. Therefore, the district court dismissed the breach of contract count for failure to state a claim. On appeal Plaintiff argues that the disclaimer language in the SCC catalogue does not doom her contract claim because the claim is based on language in the OTA Student Manual and the OTA Fieldwork Supervisor’s Manual, neither of which contains a similar disclaimer. However, this argument was not presented to the district court. Below, Plaintiff’s argument was focused on alleging that a contract was breached and little space was devoted to establishing the existence of 5 If SCC is considered a state entity, as opposed to a municipal entity, it is entitled to sovereign immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 123 n.34 (1984); Mt. Health City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977). However, which side of this line a community college falls on is often a close question which depends on the particular funding structure and measure of local autonomy of the community college in question. See United States ex. rel. Diop v. Wayne County Cmty. College Dist., 242 F. Supp. 2d 497, 527 (E.D. Mich. 2003). To date only one case has addressed this issue in the context of a Michigan community college. Id. (finding that the college in question was a state entity). - 16 - No. 04-1924 McGee v. Schoolcraft Community College a contractual relationship. The only statement related to the latter issue was that the breach of contract claim was supported by statements in SCC’s catalogue. Plaintiff did not direct the district court to the OTA student or supervisors’ manuals to find the source of the alleged contract. As observed above, the appellate court’s function is “to review the case presented to the district court, rather than a better case fashioned after a district court’s unfavorable order.” Barner, 399 F.3d at 749. Plaintiff has offered no argument that the district court’s analysis of the original argument was flawed. Nor does an examination of the relevant portions of the record reveal any such flaw.