State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | A17-1740 |
| Citation | 935 N.W.2d 124 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant/cross-respondent, v. MINNESOTA SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, INC. d/b/a Minnesota School of Business, et al., Respondents/cross-appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Minnesota, sued two for-profit universities, the Minnesota School of Business, Inc. and Globe University, Inc. (the Schools), alleging that the Schools misled prospective students about the value of criminal justice degrees offered by the schools. The Attorney General invoked his parens patriae power and statutory authority under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (2018), to pursue violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA), Minn. Stat. § 325F.69 (2018), and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Minn. Stat. § 325D.44 (2018).1
The parties agree that, to prevail, the Attorney General must establish a "causal nexus" between the Schools' uncontested violations of the MCFA and the harm suffered by the students who entered the Schools' criminal justice program seeking to become police and probation officers. But the parties disagree about the showing required to prove a causal nexus. The court of appeals held that the evidence in the record supported the district court’s finding that the Attorney General established a causal nexus between the Schools' wrongful conduct and the harm identified by testifying students but failed to establish a causal nexus as to nontestifying students. State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus. , 915 N.W.2d 903, 910–13 (Minn. App. 2018). Accordingly, we must decide what the Attorney General must show to establish a causal nexus and whether the Attorney General met that burden in this case. In addition, we must address whether the equitable restitution process ordered by the district court is proper.
We conclude that the Attorney General proved that a causal nexus was established between the Schools' fraudulent statements and the harm suffered by the students. We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the equitable restitution process. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the court of appeals.
The Schools are for-profit, postsecondary educational institutions that offer certificates and associates', bachelors', masters', and doctoral degrees in several different fields including criminal justice.2 This case focuses on the Schools' criminal justice program.
Most prospective students who signed up for the criminal justice program wanted to be either a police officer or a probation officer. As described to prospective students and put into practice, the criminal justice curriculum focused on police work like crime scene investigations and many classes were taught by former or current police officers. In marketing materials and through admissions practices, the Schools made statements to prospective students that graduates of their criminal justice program were qualified to become a police officer, or at least qualified to enter programs providing the additional training required to become a police officer. Some advertisements referenced mandated additional skills training and stated that the Schools would help the student find a program to complete the training. The Schools also advertised that an associate’s degree from their criminal justice program qualified a student for a career as a probation or parole officer.
During the relevant time period, the Schools spent approximately $120 million on marketing all of their programs to the public through online advertising, other mass marketing, and sales interactions between prospective students and admission representatives. The Schools disseminated the information on their website and by using media platforms to target people interested in a career in policing. The Schools placed advertisements for, or otherwise recruited potential students to, their criminal justice program on sites like PoliceLink.com, military.com, policemag.com, policeone.com, and officer.com.
The Schools also placed advertisements for their criminal justice program on Google and other search engines. The ads would appear as results to search inquiries that included "law enforcement schools" and "police schools." These online ads made statements such as: [...] and Other advertisements by the Schools were accompanied by images of police officers.
The Schools' claims about the value of a criminal justice degree were false. The Schools do not contest that to become a police officer in Minnesota, one must have either a criminal justice degree from a program approved by the Police Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Board or a bachelor’s degree in any field and complete a certified professional peace officer education (P.P.O.E.) program offered by a college. The Schools were not P.O.S.T. Board approved, and the Schools' credits did not transfer to any college that offered certified P.P.O.E. programs.
The Schools' statements that an associates' degree in criminal justice would qualify a student to be a probation or parole officer were also misleading. The Schools do not contest that while the qualifications to become a probation or parole officer in Minnesota vary by county, every county requires probation officers to hold at least a bachelor’s degree as a prerequisite to employment. Many counties (including the state’s large metropolitan counties) also require in-field experience. The Schools' criminal justice associate’s degree program did not meet these prerequisites.
The district court conducted a 17-day bench trial on the Attorney General’s claims against the Schools. Over 60 witnesses testified, including 15 students who had enrolled in the criminal justice program. For example, one student testified that he transferred into the criminal justice program because the school "assured him that the program would allow him to become a Minnesota police officer" and that he would not have pursued that program had he known the school was not P.O.S.T. certified. Another student enrolled in the criminal justice program after being told that he could attend training after graduating and thereafter become a Minnesota police officer. After graduation, when he attempted to enroll in a skills training as recommended by the Schools, he learned that he was not eligible to attend because the School was not P.O.S.T. certified. The 15 students' testimony had some variations, but they all testified that, based on statements made by the Schools (or their agents), they enrolled in the program to become a police officer or probation officer.
After reviewing the evidence and testimony, the district court found the Schools' false advertising pervasive and characterized the Schools' practices as "a trap for the unwary." It determined that the "evidence [presented at trial] is sufficient to establish fraud and/or deception in the marketing of [the Schools'] Criminal Justice program." The district court ruled:
Notably, the Schools do not challenge any of these findings of fact or conclusions of law on appeal.
The district court found that the student witnesses produced by the Attorney General "credibly testified to being injured by these false and misleading practices." The district court concluded that the Schools violated the MCFA regarding students who wanted to be police officers and those who wanted to become probation or parole officers.
Further, the district court found that the students were harmed by paying tuition for degrees that would not allow them to become police or probation officers and that such economic harm "is an inevitable and foreseeable consequence of the misrepresentations and obfuscations in [the Schools'] marketing of the program." Consequently, the court stated that the Attorney General proved a causal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Pork Antitrust Litig., Civil Nos. 18-1776
...with the sale of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact been misled[.]" Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1. In State v. Minnesota School of Business , the Minnesota Supreme Court held that " ‘proof of individual reliance’ is not needed to prevail under the MCFA," and concluded i......
-
Kellogg v. Watts Guerra LLP
...a client to recover the compensation paid to an attorney who breached a duty of loyalty); see also State v. Minn. v. Sch. of Bus., Inc. , 935 N.W. 2d 124, 138–39 (Minn. 2019) (allowing recovery for equitable restitution to divest a wrongdoer of improper profits). The Kellogg farmers' intere......
-
Johnson v. Charps Welding & Fabricating, Inc.
...See State v. Minnesota Sch. of Bus., Inc. , 915 N.W.2d 903, 905 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018), rev’d in part on other grounds , 935 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. 2019). The Trustees do not meet their burden to show a joint enterprise.V. The Trustees believe that the collective bargaining agreements impose a du......
-
Johannessohn v. Polaris Indus., Inc.
...its nature cause harm unless the statement "had some impact on" inducing the individual plaintiff's actions. State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc. , 935 N.W.2d 124, 141 (Minn. 2019) (quoting Grp. Health , 621 N.W.2d at 14 ). Polaris claims that a causal nexus under Minnesota law cannot be presu......