USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 96-2333

GAURAV MANGLA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BROWN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Boudin, Circuit Judge,

_____________

John R. Gibson,* Senior Circuit Judge,

____________________

and Pollak,** Senior District Judge.

_____________________

_____________________

Douglas A. Giron for appellant.

________________
Christopher H. Little,
_____________________

with whom John E. Bulman

______________

Bulman & Reardon, P.C. were on brief for appellee.

______________________

and Little
______

____________________

February 2, 1998
____________________
____________________

**

Of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Of

the

Eastern

District

of

Pennsylvania,

sitting

by

designation.

JOHN
JOHN

R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
_____________________

Gaurav Mangla

appeals from a

judgment as a matter

Brown University following a trial

promissory

estoppel claims.

of law entered in

favor of

on his breach of contract and

He argues that

the district court

erred in granting judgment, as a reasonable jury could have found

that Brown breached

the contract, acted

faith, and that Brown was

the graduate school.

certain evidence

in

reaching

He

arbitrarily and in

bad

estopped from denying him admission to

argues that the court improperly raised

and overlooked and misconstrued

this decision.

We

affirm

other evidence

the judgment

of

the

district court.

Mangla applied

School in

special

September

student,

for

1993, and

admission to

the

was admitted

category of

enrollment

Brown

as a

Graduate

probationary

that permits

the

taking of

graduate level

courses but which

is not in

itself a

degree program.

His admission in this capacity

was recommended

by the Computer

Science Department and approved

by the graduate

council.

Associate Dean Joan Lusk met

and explained to him that

he lacked

admitted to

his admission was probationary because

the requisite academic

computer science.

the

with Mangla at that time

background or

Lusk further told

degree program

course work

Mangla that in order to be

he would

need to

successfully

complete course

work in the Computer Science Department.

claims

satisfactorily

to have

completed

courses required for a Master's degree.

-2-

in

seven

of

the

Mangla

eight

After completing such course

Dean

to

work, Mangla inquired

Lusk about his probationary status,

obtain

response,

a faculty

advisor

Mangla obtained a

for

his

of

and she instructed him

Master's Project.

letter signed by

In

Professor Stanley

Zdonik, stating that Mangla "will be working under my supervision

for

his Master's project."

believed

the letter

Mangla claims

served as

admission into the degree program.

letter of

that at the

time he

recommendation for

In

September

1995,

Brown informed

special student status was discontinued

admitted into

new,

The

the Master's program.

Mangla

that

his

and that he had not been

Mangla thereafter

filed a

formal application for admission into the Master's program.

Computer

Science

application and voted

denied.

Department

faculty

reviewed

to recommend that Mangla's

the

new

application be

Mangla then appealed to the Graduate Council which voted

unanimously to uphold the department's decision.

Mangla brought this

promissory

estoppel for

Master's program.

close

action for breach of

Brown's refusal to

contract and

admit him

into its

The action was tried before a jury, but at the

of evidence, the judge granted judgment as a matter of law

to Brown

and dictated

detailed findings into

the record.

The

district court first decided that there was no breach of contract

because Mangla

knew

that one

performing his

side of

recommendation from the

of the

things he

the contract was

had

to obtain

to do

a favorable

Computer Science Department faculty

there was no evidence that

in

and

any such recommendation was obtained.

-3-

The court acknowledged Mangla's testimony that Dean Lusk told him

he would absolutely be admitted if he passed his courses or if he

got a faculty

however,

member to act

that the

notwithstanding

as his advisor.

key testimony

anything that

was

The court

stated,

Mangla's admissions

Dean Lusk

may have told

that

him, he

knew that a recommendation from the faculty was a requirement for

his admission into the Master's Program.

The

court further found

estoppel because there

alleged

that there was

no promissory

was no reasonable reliance on

representations.

There was

explicit

any of the

language in

the

Graduate School manual that even the department does not have the

power to

offer

admission

binding force only

The court stated

the

written

and that

offers

when made by the Graduate

of

of

admission

is

have

School in writing.

that Mangla's argument that he

offer

admission

nothing

was entitled to

more

than

circumvention

of the

explicit

Graduate School manual.

it was quite a stretch

amounting to

accepted.

requirement

Further,

set

forth

in

the

the district court stated that

to interpret Professor Zdonik's letter as

a recommendation by

the Department that

Mangla be

Even viewing the letter in the light most favorable to

Mangla, the district

reason to read

court determined that

it defied logic

the letter as a recommendation

Science Department.

and

from the Computer

Thus, the district court held that there was

no issue for the jury to decide, and judgment as a matter of

was granted.

-4-

law

I.
I.

In ruling on a motion for

the

be

district court must examine

drawn therefrom,

movant.

See
___

in the

judgment as a matter of law,

the evidence, and inferences to

light

most favorable

to the

non-

Rol n-Alvarado v. Municipality of San Juan, 1 F.3d

______________
_________________________

74, 76 (1st Cir. 1993).

granted "only if

Judgment as a matter

of law may then be

the evidence, viewed from this

such that reasonable

minds could not differ as

perspective, is

to the outcome."

Id. at 77.
___

When a judgment as a matter

court,

we must apply precisely the

the district

735

(1st

same criteria that constrain

court. See Gibson v. City of Cranston, 37 F.3d 731,

___ ______
________________

Cir. 1994).

judgment as

of law is appealed to this

Accordingly,

matter of

Jordan-Milton Mach., Inc.

_________________________

law under

we

a de

review the

novo

grant

standard.

v. F/V Teresa Marie, II,

____________________

of

See
___

978 F.2d 32,

34 (1st Cir. 1992).

II.
II.

Mangla argues

inappropriate because

that judgment

a reasonable

as

a matter

jury could

of law

find that

University breached a contract with Mangla by refusing

was

Brown

to confer

regular degree status upon him.

The

district

court,

required to apply the substantive

after careful research,

Rhode Island courts

between

a private

in

this

diversity

case,

law of Rhode Island.

was

However,

we have discovered no case

in which the

have addressed the contractual

relationship

academic institution

-5-

and its

students.

We

therefore

those

resolve Mangla's breach of contract claim according to

legal principles which we believe

would most likely adopt.

the Rhode Island courts

See Lyons v. Salve Regina College, 565

___ _____
_____________________

F.2d 200, 202 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 971 (1978).
_____ ______

The

student-college

contractual in nature.

F.2d

315, 316 (1st

See
___

is

essentially

Russell v. Salve Regina College, 938

_______
____________________

Cir. 1991).

include statements provided in

materials.

relationship

The terms of

the contract may

student manuals and

registration

See Lyons, 565 F.2d at 202 (construing College Manual

___ _____

and Academic Information booklet as terms of a contract between a

student

and college).

contractual

meaning

the

terms is

party

The proper

that of

making

the

standard for interpreting the

"reasonable

expectation --

manifestation,

what

the university,

should

(quoting

reasonably expect

Giles
_____

v.

the

other

party to

Howard University,
_________________

428

give

F.

it."

Id.
___

Supp. 603,

605

(D.D.C. 1977)).

Mangla maintains that he reasonably expected that if he

satisfactorily performed his

for

his master's

degree

project he

candidate in

course work and obtained

would

the Computer

bases his claim on the

be admitted

Science

as a

Department.

a sponsor

master's

Mangla

alleged statements of Associate Dean Lusk

and members of the Computer Science Department faculty.

However,

Brown University's graduate school catalog specifically provided:

Caveat.

Applicants are

particular notice
individual
having

of the

academic
major role

applications

of all

asked

to take

fact that

departments,
in

the
while

evaluating the

candidates, do

not

have

the power

to offer

admission, and

-6-

that

offers

force

only

School in
the Dean

of admission
when

made

have

by the

writing over the

of the Graduate

binding
Graduate

signature of
School or

her

representative.

By its terms,

of

any authority

to

this provision divested faculty

promise

admission

necessary prerequisites for admission.

or

to

members

determine

the

Because the provision was

included in the

expect

graduate school catalog, Brown

students

to

be

reasonable for Brown to

aware of

the

could reasonably

policy.

Thus,

expect its students not to

statements by individual

it was

rely on oral

faculty members as binding

promises by

the university.

Likewise, the statements of Associate Dean Lusk did not

give

Mangla

representative of

had

the

case.

to

offer

the acceptable

Mangla concedes

Therefore,

be

admitted.

As

an

apparent

the Dean of the Graduate School, Lusk arguably

authority to

restricted

writing.

right

admission.

form of

such

that no such

the language of

The

caveat, however,

an offer

to a

writing exists

the graduate

seriously compromises Mangla's claim that Lusk's

signed

in this

school catalog

statements gave

him a contractual right to be offered admission.

As

Mangla

catalog is not

one part of a

student and

correctly

asserts,

the

a wholly integrated contract but

graduate

school

instead is only

more complex contractual relationship between

the college.

We do

not foreclose

that, under certain circumstances, the

itself through the actions and

the

the possibility

university could obligate

oral statements of its officials,

-7-

despite the language of the caveat provision.

however, could

not find that

A reasonable jury,

such circumstances

exist in

this

Mangla's contract claim in

this

case.

Particularly fatal to

case

was

his

failure

department faculty.

to

secure

recommendation

Mangla admitted at

from

the

trial that he understood

that a faculty recommendation was a prerequisite to his admission

as

regular degree

candidate.

requirement was reasonably

Mangla maintains

met by a

letter signed by

that

this

Professor

Zdonik, a member of the Computer Science department faculty.

Zdonik

letter

admitted.

does

Rather,

not,

however,

the letter,

concern," identifies Mangla

recommend

addressed "To

that

Mangla

whomever

as a graduate student

The

be

it may

working under

Zdonik's supervision "for his Master's project" and requests that

Mangla be

provided with

help and the

research while living in Princeton,

claim to have

that

he

was a

by

Zdonik

believed

believe

him.

it

was

No reasonable jury

As a

Brown should

but instead

the

contends

"equivalent

of

could find that the letter

reasonably fulfilled

faculty recommendation.

conclude that

Mangla does not

Indeed, Mangla does not even contend

faculty recommendation,

reasonably

recommendation."

signed

New Jersey.

for his

informed Zdonik of his intent to use the letter as

a letter of recommendation.

the letter

use of resources

the

prerequisite

result, no reasonable

have reasonably

of a

jury could

expected Mangla

to

that the university was contractually obligated to admit

-8-

III.
III.

Mangla

Brown

argues that a

acted arbitrarily

Mangla

Mangla's

as

regular

claim

of

university's

decision

or in

jury could reasonably

bad faith

degree candidate.

arbitrariness

did

not

must

in refusing

find that

to admit

Brown

responds that

fail

because

the

depart

from

substantially

established academic norms.

Under Rhode

duty of good faith

Island law,

contracts contain an

and fair dealing.

See A.A.A. Pool Service &

___ ______________________

Supply, Inc.
____________

v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 A.2d

____________________________

(R.I. 1978).

Because the parties

assume for

faith

the purposes

extended

to

its

do not

of argument that

review

admission as a degree candidate.

of

implied

724, 725

contend otherwise,

Brown's duty

Mangla's

we

of good

application

for

We thus turn our focus to

the

question of whether Brown met that duty.

The decision to grant or deny admission to a student is

a quintessential matter

of academic judgment.

Courts have long

recognized that matters of academic judgment are generally better

left to

the educational institutions

than to the

judiciary and

have accorded

great deference where

As the Supreme Court stated

v. Ewing,
_____

override

474 U.S. 214,

such matters are

at issue.

in Regents of University of Michigan

_________________________________

225 (1985), "Plainly, [judges]

may not

[the faculty's professional judgment] unless it is such

substantial departure

demonstrate

that the

from

accepted

person or

committee

actually exercise professional judgment."

-9-

academic

norms

as

responsible did

to

not

Applying the standard of deference enunciated in Ewing,

_____

we conclude that

arbitrarily

regular

did

not

or in

degree

recommended

no reasonable jury could find

bad faith in

candidate.

The

Computer

admit Mangla

Science

as a

Department

against Mangla's admission on the ground that Mangla

demonstrate an

ability

independent work required for a

department's position was

of

refusing to

that Brown acted

to undertake

the

research or

Master's thesis or project.

based in part on

The

negative assessments

Mangla's research capabilities provided by professors who had

supervised Mangla's previous attempts at a research project.

Mangla argues

and in bad faith

the department's decision

because he was never informed that

was arbitrary

he would be

judged

on

however,

his

ability

was aware

that

necessary component

self-evident

that

admission into

applicant's

to do

independent

Master's thesis

of the Master's

prospects

of

or

program.

committee evaluating

a Master's

research.

program would

successfully

Mangla,

project was

We believe

an

it is

application

be concerned

completing

for

with the

the

degree

judged

Mangla

requirements.

The

according

evidence

establishes

to legitimate criteria and

that

Brown

had a sufficient basis for

believing that Mangla did not meet those criteria.

Consequently,

no reasonable jury could infer that Brown acted arbitrarily or in

bad

faith when

candidate.

it

decided

not to

admit

Mangla

as a

degree

IV.
IV.

-10-

Finally,

have

found Brown

Mangla argues

liable on

that a

a promissory

reasonable

jury could

estoppel theory.

We

reject his argument.

Under Rhode Island

should reasonably expect to

law, "A promise which

the promisor

induce action or forbearance on

the

part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such

action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only

by

enforcement

of

the

promise."

B.M.L. Corp.
_____________

Providence Deposit Corp., et al., 495 A.2d 675,

_________________________________

(quoting 1

Restatement (Second) Contracts

Greater
_______

677 (R.I. 1985)

90 at

Thus, the proper focus of our inquiry is again

v.

242 (1981)).

on the reasonable

expectations of the party making the manifestation.

As

we have previously discussed, Brown should not have

reasonably expected Mangla to rely on the oral statements of Dean

Lusk or the

admission.

no

individual faculty

members as

binding promises

of

Therefore, we uphold the district court's ruling that

reasonable

jury could

find

that

Brown was

estopped

denying Mangla admission as a Master's degree candidate.

from

We affirm the judgment as

______

Brown University.

-11-

a matter of law in favor

of