The North Dakota Supreme Court granted the University of North Dakota's petition for a supervisory writ, directing a district court to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by flight instructor Andrew Sangster over alleged unpaid wages.
In *University of North Dakota v. Whelan* (N.D. 2026), Justice Jensen wrote the court's opinion holding that Sangster's claims were not authorized by N.D.C.C. ch. 32-12-02 because they do not arise upon a contract. The court exercised its supervisory authority to direct the district court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Sangster filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated flight instructors, alleging UND failed to pay instructors for all time worked. According to the complaint, UND only compensated instructors for time spent directly with students, not for other essential duties.
The lawsuit alleged that UND deliberately implemented policies and procedures preventing instructors from logging time spent on duties beyond direct student instruction. These unpaid activities included scheduling flights, conducting pre-flight and post-flight procedures, maintaining records, waiting at airports between flights, and answering student questions outside of scheduled instruction time.
Sangster brought four separate claims against the university. Count 1 alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs minimum wage and overtime requirements. Count 2 claimed violations of North Dakota state wage laws. Count 3 alleged UND was unjustly enriched by receiving the benefit of unpaid instructor labor. Count 4 claimed conversion, suggesting UND wrongfully withheld compensation owed to instructors.
The flight instructor sought comprehensive relief including compensatory damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. The case was structured as a class action to potentially cover multiple instructors who worked under similar policies.
UND responded by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. The university contended that Sangster failed to provide proper notice to the Office of Management and Budget as required under state law before bringing claims against a state entity.
The procedural posture of the case involved multiple parties. The named respondents included both Judge Barbara Whelan of the district court and Andrew Sangster representing the class of flight instructors. UND was represented by Special Assistant Attorneys General Scott K. Porsborg and Brian D. Schmidt from Bismarck. Sangster was represented by Rowdy B. Meeks from Prairie Village, Kansas, and Leo F.J. Wilking from Fargo.
The North Dakota Supreme Court's decision focused on the statutory authorization for claims against state entities. The court determined that the specific statute cited, N.D.C.C. ch. 32-12-02, only permits certain types of claims that arise from contractual relationships. Since Sangster's wage claims were based on employment law violations rather than contract disputes, they fell outside the scope of authorized claims under this statute.
This ruling represents a jurisdictional barrier that prevented the case from proceeding to the merits. Rather than addressing whether UND actually violated wage laws or federal labor standards, the court determined that state law did not provide a proper avenue for bringing these particular claims against the university.
The supervisory writ mechanism used here allows the state supreme court to provide immediate guidance to lower courts on jurisdictional questions. By granting UND's petition, the high court avoided potentially lengthy litigation that would ultimately fail on jurisdictional grounds.
The decision may have broader implications for how employment-related claims can be brought against North Dakota state institutions. The ruling clarifies that wage and hour violations, even if they occurred, cannot necessarily be pursued through the same statutory mechanisms available for contract disputes.
For flight instructors at UND and potentially other state institutions, this ruling suggests that pursuing wage claims may require different legal strategies or statutory bases. The decision does not necessarily prevent all employment-related claims against state entities, but it does establish clearer boundaries around which statutes authorize such actions.
The case highlights the complex intersection between state sovereignty, employment law, and procedural requirements for suing government entities. While the flight instructors' underlying wage claims were never adjudicated on their merits, the procedural requirements for bringing claims against state entities proved dispositive.
The Supreme Court's exercise of supervisory authority in this case demonstrates the importance of proper jurisdictional foundations before pursuing litigation against state institutions. The ruling provides clarity for future litigants about the specific statutory requirements that must be satisfied when bringing employment-related claims against North Dakota state entities.