Case Summary
This lawsuit is not about false claims. It is about the manipulation of a legal standard by two former disgruntled employees and their opportunistic trial lawyers. The plaintiffs are trying to twist a routine regulatory matter, previously resolved with the U.S. Department of Education, into a federal case of fraud and will not succeed.
The government regulations at issue in the lawsuit were adopted to prevent the enrollment of unqualified students. University of Phoenix’s compliance with these regulations is demonstrated by its low student loan default and high graduation rates – two widely-accepted measures of quality. For the period covered by this lawsuit, University of Phoenix’s average student loan default rate was well below the national average for comparable schools, and its graduation rate was equal to or better than the average rate found among four-year colleges and universities.
University of Phoenix’s quality is further validated by the fact that it is regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association, one of six regional accrediting bodies considered to be the gold standard of accreditation. Regional accreditation is every bit as rigorous for University of Phoenix as it is for the other colleges and universities accredited by the North Central Association, which include Northwestern University, University of Notre Dame, University of Michigan, Ohio State University and University of Arizona, to name a few.
University of Phoenix looks forward to trying this case on its merits and is confident the evidence will support the fact that the University fully complied with the law. The plaintiffs’ approach to this litigation will not hold up at trial – they have disregarded the facts, used the wrong legal standard, and cannot demonstrate any harm caused to students or taxpayers. University of Phoenix is eager to turn this case on its head and expose the plaintiffs’ false claims, vindicating the University in the process. Trial is set for September 15, 2009.
For more information on the case, click here.
Back to Top
