Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	19. Commitments and Contingencies Adtalem is subject to lawsuits, administrative proceedings, regulatory reviews, and investigations associated with financial assistance programs and other matters arising in the normal conduct of its business. As of December 31, 2021, Adtalem believes it has adequately reserved for potential losses. The following is a description of pending legal and regulatory matters that may be considered other than ordinary, routine, and incidental to the business. Descriptions of certain matters from prior SEC filings may not be carried forward in this report to the extent we believe such matters no longer are required to be disclosed or there has not been, to our knowledge, significant activity relating to them. We have recorded accruals for those matters where management believes a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated as of December 31, 2021. For those matters for which we have not recorded an accrual, their possible impact on Adtalem’s business, financial condition, or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time. The continued defense, resolution, or settlement of any of the following matters could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate. On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively the “Adtalem Parties”) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the court granted defendants’ motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss this complaint as it was substantially similar to the one the court previously dismissed. After settlement discussions the court granted a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Settlement”) on May 28, 2020. In conjunction with the Settlement, Adtalem was required to establish a settlement fund by placing $44.95 million into an escrow account, which is recorded within prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2021, June 30, 2021, and December 31, 2020. Adtalem management determined a loss contingency was probable and reasonably estimable. As such, we also recorded a loss contingency accrual of $44.95 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020 and charged the contingency loss within discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statement of Loss for the year ended June 30, 2020. As of June 30, 2020, we had anticipated the potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal year 2021. We now anticipate the potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal year 2022. This loss contingency estimate could differ from actual results and result in additional charges or reversals in future periods. The court issued an order approving the Settlement on October 7, 2020, and dismissed the action with prejudice. On November 2, 2020, Stoltmann Law Offices filed on behalf of Jose David Valderrama (“Valderrama”), a class member who objected to the terms of the Settlement, a notice to appeal the court’s order approving the Settlement. On November 5, 2020, Richard Peart (“Peart”), another class member who objected to the terms of the Settlement, filed a notice to appeal the court’s order approving the Settlement. Those appeals were consolidated before the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District and fully briefed. The Appellate Court has agreed to stay Valderrama’s and Peart’s appeals of the Settlement pending the outcome of mediation involving the objections to the Settlement. The objections were not resolved at mediation on February 1, 2022 and are still pending a decision by the Appellate Court. Stoltmann Law Offices is representing hundreds of individuals (“Stoltmann Claimants”) who have filed claims with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”) alleging fraud-based claims based on DeVry University’s graduate employment statistics. Stoltmann Law Offices has paid the filing fees for certain of these arbitrations to move forward. JAMS has sent commencement letters in several waves. Respondents have filed answers in response to certain of these arbitration demands. These arbitrations are in various stages of litigation. On November 2, 2021, Adtalem and the Stoltmann Law Offices participated in a mediation to resolve the claims of the Stoltmann Claimants. Adtalem and the Stoltmann Law Offices have reached agreement on settlement terms, provided that the requisite number of Stoltmann Claimants agree to participate in the settlement. The settlement remains subject to the approval of the Adtalem Board of Directors and is voidable at Adtalem’s option if a sufficient number of Stoltmann Claimants decline to participate in the settlement. On January 19, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Chamberlain by Tanesia Dean on behalf of herself and similarly situated students of Chamberlain. The complaint alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Chamberlain related to its decision to transition all classes online in March 2020, in light of the global pandemic, without altering tuition or fees. The putative class was defined to include all students, nationwide, who paid tuition and fees during the following academic sessions: May 2020, July 2020, September 2020, November 2020, and January 2021. Plaintiff sought monetary relief exceeding $5 million, and attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. On April 5, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The motion to dismiss was granted in full on August 16, 2021 and the case was dismissed. On September 14, 2021, plaintiff filed an appeal in the Sixth Circuit asserting that the trial judge erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s appeal is pending. On March 12, 2021, Travontae Johnson, a current student of Chamberlain, filed a putative class action against Chamberlain in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The plaintiff claims that Chamberlain’s use of Respondus Monitor, an online remote proctoring tool for student examinations, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/15. More particularly, the plaintiff claims that Chamberlain required students to use Respondus Monitor, which collected, captured, stored, used, and disclosed students’ biometric identifiers and biometric information without written and informed consent. The plaintiff also alleges that Chamberlain lacked a legally compliant written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information. The potential class purportedly includes all students who took an assessment using the proctoring tool, as a student of Chamberlain in Illinois, at any time from March 12, 2016 through January 20, 2021. The plaintiff and the putative class seek damages in excess of $50,000, attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiff and class also seek an unspecified amount of enhanced damages based on alleged negligent or reckless conduct by Chamberlain. On June 16, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. On June 29, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 19, 2021, Chamberlain filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint arguing that plaintiff’s lawsuit is expressly preempted by Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Chamberlain’s motion is pending. On July 22, 2021, plaintiffs Cheryl Burleigh and Chad Harris (both contributing faculty members at Walden) filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws by Walden and Laureate Education, Inc. The complaint alleges that Walden’s “per assignment” pay scale results in uncompensated work time for plaintiffs and class members for time spent in trainings and meetings. Plaintiffs also allege that they were not paid for meal and rest breaks, that they were not reimbursed for necessary business expenses, that Walden did not provide wage statements as required by California state law, and that they were not paid wages due upon termination. Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks restitution including pay for uncompensated hours of work, unreimbursed business expenses and interest, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, penalties, and attorney fees and costs. Walden and Laureate have filed a demurrer. On January 28, 2022, the parties agreed to settle the complaint for $0.8 million, subject to the approval of the Superior Court of Alameda County, California. On January 12, 2022, Walden was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by Aljanal Carroll, Claudia Provost Charles, and Tiffany Fair against Walden for damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated individuals alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota statutes prohibiting false statements in advertising, and for common law fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs allege that Walden has targeted, deceived, and exploited Black and female Doctor of Business Administration (“DBA”) students by knowingly misrepresenting and understating the number of “capstone” credits required to complete the DBA program and obtain a degree. Walden believes the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

19. Commitments and Contingencies

Adtalem is subject to lawsuits, administrative proceedings, regulatory reviews, and investigations associated with financial assistance programs and other matters arising in the normal conduct of its business. As of December 31, 2021, Adtalem believes it has adequately reserved for potential losses. The following is a description of pending legal and regulatory matters that may be considered other than ordinary, routine, and incidental to the business. Descriptions of certain matters from prior SEC filings may not be carried forward in this report to the extent we believe such matters no longer are required to be disclosed or there has not been, to our knowledge, significant activity relating to them. We have recorded accruals for those matters where management believes a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated as of December 31, 2021. For those matters for which we have not recorded an accrual, their possible impact on Adtalem’s business, financial condition, or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time. The continued defense, resolution, or settlement of any of the following matters could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively the “Adtalem Parties”) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the court granted defendants’ motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss this complaint as it was substantially similar to the one the court previously dismissed. After settlement discussions the court granted a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Settlement”) on May 28, 2020. In conjunction with the Settlement, Adtalem was required to establish a settlement fund by placing $44.95 million into an escrow account, which is recorded within prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2021, June 30, 2021, and December 31, 2020. Adtalem management determined a loss contingency was probable and reasonably estimable. As such, we also recorded a loss contingency accrual of $44.95 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020 and charged the contingency loss within discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statement of Loss for the year ended June 30, 2020. As of June 30, 2020, we had anticipated the potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal year 2021. We now anticipate the potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal year 2022. This loss contingency estimate could differ from actual results and result in additional charges or reversals in future periods. The court issued an order approving the Settlement on October 7, 2020, and dismissed the action with prejudice. On November 2, 2020, Stoltmann Law Offices filed on behalf of Jose David Valderrama (“Valderrama”), a class member who objected to the terms of the Settlement, a notice to appeal the court’s order approving the Settlement. On November 5, 2020, Richard Peart (“Peart”), another class member who objected to the terms of the Settlement, filed a notice to appeal the court’s order approving the Settlement.

Those appeals were consolidated before the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District and fully briefed. The Appellate Court has agreed to stay Valderrama’s and Peart’s appeals of the Settlement pending the outcome of mediation involving the objections to the Settlement. The objections were not resolved at mediation on February 1, 2022 and are still pending a decision by the Appellate Court.

Stoltmann Law Offices is representing hundreds of individuals (“Stoltmann Claimants”) who have filed claims with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”) alleging fraud-based claims based on DeVry University’s graduate employment statistics. Stoltmann Law Offices has paid the filing fees for certain of these arbitrations to move forward. JAMS has sent commencement letters in several waves. Respondents have filed answers in response to certain of these arbitration demands. These arbitrations are in various stages of litigation.

On November 2, 2021, Adtalem and the Stoltmann Law Offices participated in a mediation to resolve the claims of the Stoltmann Claimants. Adtalem and the Stoltmann Law Offices have reached agreement on settlement terms, provided that the requisite number of Stoltmann Claimants agree to participate in the settlement. The settlement remains subject to the approval of the Adtalem Board of Directors and is voidable at Adtalem’s option if a sufficient number of Stoltmann Claimants decline to participate in the settlement.

On January 19, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Chamberlain by Tanesia Dean on behalf of herself and similarly situated students of Chamberlain. The complaint alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Chamberlain related to its decision to transition all classes online in March 2020, in light of the global pandemic, without altering tuition or fees. The putative class was defined to include all students, nationwide, who paid tuition and fees during the following academic sessions: May 2020, July 2020, September 2020, November 2020, and January 2021. Plaintiff sought monetary relief exceeding $5 million, and attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. On April 5, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The motion to dismiss was granted in full on August 16, 2021 and the case was dismissed. On September 14, 2021, plaintiff filed an appeal in the Sixth Circuit asserting that the trial judge erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s appeal is pending.

On March 12, 2021, Travontae Johnson, a current student of Chamberlain, filed a putative class action against Chamberlain in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The plaintiff claims that Chamberlain’s use of Respondus Monitor, an online remote proctoring tool for student examinations, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/15. More particularly, the plaintiff claims that Chamberlain required students to use Respondus Monitor, which collected, captured, stored, used, and disclosed students’ biometric identifiers and biometric information without written and informed consent. The plaintiff also alleges that Chamberlain lacked a legally compliant written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information. The potential class purportedly includes all students who took an assessment using the proctoring tool, as a student of Chamberlain in Illinois, at any time from March 12, 2016 through January 20, 2021. The plaintiff and the putative class seek damages in excess of $50,000, attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiff and class also seek an unspecified amount of enhanced damages based on alleged negligent or reckless conduct by Chamberlain. On June 16, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. On June 29, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 19, 2021, Chamberlain filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint arguing that plaintiff’s lawsuit is expressly preempted by Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Chamberlain’s motion is pending.

On July 22, 2021, plaintiffs Cheryl Burleigh and Chad Harris (both contributing faculty members at Walden) filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws by Walden and Laureate Education, Inc. The complaint alleges that Walden’s “per assignment” pay scale results in uncompensated work time for plaintiffs and class members for time spent in trainings and meetings. Plaintiffs also allege that they were not paid for meal and rest breaks, that they were not reimbursed for necessary business expenses, that Walden did not provide wage statements as required by California state law, and that they were not paid wages due upon termination. Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks restitution including pay for uncompensated hours of work, unreimbursed business expenses and interest, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, penalties, and attorney fees and costs. Walden and Laureate have filed a demurrer. On January 28, 2022, the parties agreed to settle the complaint for $0.8 million, subject to the approval of the Superior Court of Alameda County, California.

On January 12, 2022, Walden was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by Aljanal Carroll, Claudia Provost Charles, and Tiffany Fair against Walden for damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated individuals alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota statutes prohibiting false statements in advertising, and for common law fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs allege that Walden has targeted, deceived, and exploited Black and female Doctor of Business Administration (“DBA”) students by knowingly misrepresenting and understating the number of “capstone” credits required to complete the DBA program and obtain a degree. Walden believes the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.