Judge Orders UC to Repay Fee Increases

The University of California broke its promises not to hike some fees and should pay refunds totaling more than $33.8 million to thousands of current and former students, a Superior Court judge in San Francisco has ruled.

The decision, released Monday, carries the biggest potential benefit for about 9,100 students who were enrolled in professional schools, such as law, medicine, nursing and business, in 2002 or earlier.

Some may be eligible for as much as $7,500 apiece, while some UC students could each receive less than $100, attorneys estimate.

However, the university system strongly disagrees with the ruling and plans to appeal. No money will be paid until higher courts review the matter.

Students and their attorneys said Monday that they felt vindicated even if they have to wait for the refunds, plus interest.

“It think it’s a great victory for students. It shows the UC is not above the law,” said Mohammad Kashmiri, a UC Berkeley law school graduate who was the lead plaintiff in the case.

But Kashmiri, 27, who said he owes about $130,000 in student loans from earning his undergraduate and law degrees, added that he was saddened that the university “has chosen to privatize what used to be public education. That’s really what is going on here. The UC is trying to balance the budget on the backs of the students.”

The case focused on statements in UC catalogs and other publications that the portion of payments known as professional student fees would not rise during the students’ enrollment. Those professional school fees constitute about half or more of such students’ overall UC bills.

In December 2002, the university raised the professional school portion by $400 for the spring and then enacted raises of $1,125 to $3,473 for the next year to help cover funding gaps during the state’s budget crisis.

UC officials, while fighting the suit, stressed that all its literature carried disclaimers that fees were subject to change.

However, Judge James L. Warren said such disclaimers were not as important as the promises to keep that fee portion stable. UC had, in effect, a contract with students and the school’s breach of it was “clear and unambiguous,” the judge wrote. As a result, he awarded $28.4 million to the professional school students enrolled before Dec. 16, 2002. (The judge, in a previous decision, blocked UC from charging those students additional professional school fee increases for the school years that began in 2004 and 2005.)

The costs of a UC professional school education has skyrocketed since the case began. For example, a California resident attending UCLA’s law school now pays about $24,580 annually in overall fees, not including books and living costs. That figure is about double what a student paid in the 2002-03 school year, according to university records.

Warren’s ruling also said that more than $5.4 million was due to 47,000 students who were enrolled in 2003 in summer programs at UCLA and UC Berkeley or in the spring semester at UC Berkeley and at some units at UCLA and UC Davis.

Although most of UC is on the quarter system, those on the semester plan did not receive adequate notice about fee increases, the judge ruled. Lawyers estimate that some refunds could be less than $100 for a student taking one summer class.

“The university’s demand for a higher price came at a time when it was too late for students to change their plans without incurring various costs,” the judge wrote of the spring 2003 semester students.

Christopher Patti, a university counsel, said UC “will be vigorously pursing an appeal.”

“We think we have strong arguments against” Warren’s ruling, he added. Among them, the school believes that the disclaimers about fees possibly going up overrode any other statements, especially in a budget crisis, Patti said.

However, plaintiffs’ attorney Andrew D. Freeman said he thought that Warren’s ruling would withstand an appeal.

Jonathan Weissglass, a San Francisco attorney who also helped represent the students, linked the case to the recent controversy over lucrative bonuses and benefits for top UC administrators. While UC cited the budget crisis as the cause of the disputed fee increases, the university did not stop granting bonuses at the time, he said.

If UC ultimately loses, it will have to pay interest for the extra time. Contrarily, the judge substantially reduced the potential award because UC offset some of the fee increases by raising financial aid.

Kashmiri estimated that he could receive $3,000 to $6,000 in refunds. Kashmiri, who now works as a field representative for a union, said he faces monthly payments of $1,700 on his student loans.

The refund “would make a huge difference with the way my expenses are now,” he said. “That money would mean a ton.”