Sharon and Harry Pollack, parents of an eleventh-grade student at AIM Academy, a private school in Pennsylvania, brought suit after their daughter, A.P., was asked to withdraw or face expulsion following a serious disciplinary incident. The case arose from an April 2021 episode in which A.P. falsely accused another student of racist conduct. She submitted a “hate speech” report alleging that the student had appeared in “blackface” in a deliberately racist act, accompanied by a photo and video she had secretly taken. In reality, the student had been participating in a spa night over FaceTime and was wearing a mud mask. A.P. admitted to making the report as an act of revenge.
Even after meeting with school administrators, A.P. continued to circulate the image, showing it to Black students, including members of the School’s Black Student Union, and again asserting that it depicted a racist act. On April 28, 2021, AIM met with the Pollacks and provided a letter detailing its concerns about A.P.’s conduct and mental health. The letter stated that A.P.’s “mental health needs supersede her needs in the classroom,” that AIM lacked the resources to support her at that time, and that she could no longer remain at the school. The letter presented two options: A.P. could voluntarily withdraw and seek mental health treatment, after which she could reapply, but “her enrollment [would] not [be] guaranteed,” or the School would move forward with expulsion. The Pollacks replied the same day, writing that they were withdrawing their daughter as per the School’s recommendation and would follow its advice to obtain treatment.
Two months later, AIM withdrew tuition funds from the Pollacks’ bank account for the following school year, apparently through an automated payment system. When the Pollacks notified the School of the error, AIM refunded the full amount with interest. After A.P. completed a treatment program, the family requested her readmission in August 2021. AIM declined, explaining that her prior conduct and the School’s prior communications made re-enrollment inappropriate. The Pollacks sued, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud in the inducement. They claimed that AIM’s April 2021 letter and their response email together formed a binding contract that obligated the School to give good faith consideration to A.P.’s reapplication.
The Court found no evidence that the April 2021 letter or the parents’ response created an enforceable contract. The letter was not an “offer” in the legal sense, but rather an ultimatum: A.P. could withdraw voluntarily to pursue treatment or face immediate expulsion. It contained no language of mutual agreement, consideration, or intent to be bound. The statement that A.P. may reapply but that her enrollment is not guaranteed confirmed that AIM retained full discretion over any future decision. The Court also rejected the argument that AIM’s mistaken tuition withdrawal or the family’s compliance with the withdrawal option reflected a contractual relationship, finding that those facts did not alter the letter’s clear meaning.
On the fraudulent inducement claim, the Pollacks argued that AIM had misled them into withdrawing their daughter by falsely suggesting that it would later consider her for re-enrollment. The Court rejected this claim, noting that AIM’s letter accurately described A.P.’s options and that the School could have expelled her outright under its Community Handbook, which listed expulsion as a permissible consequence for harassment, bullying, or misuse of technology. The record contained no evidence that AIM misrepresented its intentions or acted with fraudulent motive.
The Court likewise dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, which required proof that AIM made a clear promise on which the Pollacks reasonably relied to their detriment. The letter’s statement that A.P. could reapply after treatment, with no guarantee of re-enrollment, was not a promise capable of enforcement. The family’s decision to withdraw A.P. did not amount to reliance on any promise, since withdrawal was a disciplinary alternative to expulsion.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for AIM on all claims.
Pollack v. Acad. in Manayunk D B A Aim Acad. Appeal of Sharon Pollack (Nov. 12, 2025, No. 268 EDA 2025) 2025 LX 591452.
Note: This decision reinforces the importance that communications with families are clear and consistent.