Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University

Citations

• 338 Conn. 189

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, K Co., the owner of a certain fraternity house on the campus of Wesleyan University, the local chapter of the fraternity, and a member of the fraternity, sought, inter alia, injunctive relief and damages from the defendants, the university, its president, and its vice president for student affairs, in connection with the university's decision to preclude the fraternity from allowing its members to reside in the fraternity house. Following the university's announcement in 2014 that all residential fraternities on campus would be required to coeducate, and following This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker. Although Justice Palmer was not present when the case was argued before the court, he has read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording of the oral argument prior to partici- pating in this decision. The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 190 SEPTEMBER, 2021 338 Conn. 189 Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University a series of unsuccessful negotiations between the parties to establish a mutually agreeable coeducation plan, the university notified the plain- tiffs that fraternity members could no longer reside in or use the frater- nity house as of the 2015–2016 academic year. A Greek Organization Standards Agreement (agreement) between K Co. and the fraternity, on the one hand, and the university, on the other, which was a prerequisite to allowing the use of the fraternity house for residential purposes, permitted any party to terminate the relationship for any reason upon thirty days' notice and required the fraternity to comply with and be bound by all university rules and policies, which the university could amend or modify at any time. In their action against the defendants, the plaintiffs alleged promissory estop