Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-07265/USCOURTS-caDC-00-07265-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 19, 2001 Decided April 17, 2001

No. 00-7265

Nevin M. Katz, M.D.,

Appellant

v.

Georgetown University, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 00cv02412)

Steven K. Hoffman argued the cause for appellant. With

him on the brief was Martha Walfoort.

Thomas S. Williamson, Jr. argued the cause for appellee.

With him on the brief was Anthony T. Pierce. Charles F.

Ruff entered an appearance.

USCA Case #00-7265 Document #590237 Filed: 04/17/2001 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Williams and Henderson,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.

Edwards, Chief Judge: In this case, Dr. Nevin M. Katz,

appellant, filed a diversity action claiming that he was improperly terminated from his tenured position as a Professor

and Surgeon at Georgetown University Medical Center

("GUMC"), because he was denied one-year's advance notice

prior to his dismissal. In pursuit of his claims in District

Court, Dr. Katz sought a preliminary injunction against

Georgetown University (the "University"), pursuant to which

he would be reinstated in his positions at GUMC and retained

with full salary and benefits until June 30, 2001. The motion

for preliminary injunction was denied by the District Court

and Dr. Katz now appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1292(a)(1).

In his Complaint for Specific Performance, Preliminary and

Permanent Injunctive Relief and Damages at 18-19, Katz v.

Georgetown University, (No. 00-02412), reprinted in Joint

Appendix ("J.A.") 21-22, Dr. Katz asserts that, under the

terms of the University Faculty Handbook ("Faculty Handbook"), he could not be terminated by the University without

at least one-year's notice; he also asserts that he had a right

to continued employment and tenure during the notice period.

The University answers that Dr. Katz was properly terminated due to financial exigencies, and that he was not entitled to

one-year's notice in advance of dismissal. We find that Dr.

Katz has no reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of

his claim. Accordingly, the District Court was fully justified

in denying the motion for preliminary injunction.

I. Background

Dr. Katz was a full-time faculty member in the Department

of Surgery at GUMC for approximately 20 years. He earned

tenure in 1985 and he held the position of Professor from

1992 until his termination in 2000.

Prior to July 1, 2000, GUMC consisted of the School of

Medicine, the School of Nursing, and a clinical operation that

included the hospital, the Faculty Practice Group, and the

USCA Case #00-7265 Document #590237 Filed: 04/17/2001 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Community Practice Network. GUMC faculty members normally worked in either "research" or "clinical" practice. Generally, research faculty were supported by research grants

and clinicians were supported by revenues generated from

clinical patients. As a member of the clinical faculty, Dr.

Katz was primarily engaged in cardiac surgery; however, his

duties also entailed some teaching responsibilities and medical research. Many of the principal terms of employment for

GUMC faculty members, including Dr. Katz, were contained

in the Faculty Handbook. Katz v. Georgetown Univ., No.

00-02412, Mem. Op. at 2 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2000), reprinted in

J.A. 642.

Beginning in 1996, the University was threatened by a

financial crisis attributable in large measure to GUMC. The

situation was serious enough to cause University officials to

explore ways in which to rid itself of significant portions of

GUMC operations. In February 2000, the University Board

of Directors finally entered into an agreement with MedStar

Health, Inc. ("MedStar"), whereby the University transferred

the operation of the hospital and clinical practice to MedStar,

while retaining control of the medical school. Under this

arrangement, the University no longer needed to employ

clinical faculty members who were primarily engaged in

clinical practice. As a result, 330 members of the clinical

faculty at GUMC, including Dr. Katz, were terminated. Id.

at 2-3, reprinted in J.A. 642-43.

On March 29, 2000, Dr. Katz was notified that, due to the

University's "grave economic stringenc[ies]," his tenure with

GUMC would be terminated on June 30, 2000. Letter from

John J. DeGioia to Dr. Nevin M. Katz 1-3 (Mar. 29, 2000),

reprinted in J.A. 78-80. The letter received by Dr. Katz

indicated that former GUMC clinicians would be eligible for

employment with MedStar; Dr. Katz was also advised that he

could pursue a non-tenured, clinical-faculty appointment with

the University. In addition, in recognition of his tenure, Dr.

Katz was offered a lump-sum payment of $750,000 as a

severance buy-out. Id. at 2-3, reprinted in J.A. 79-80.

USCA Case #00-7265 Document #590237 Filed: 04/17/2001 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In June 2000, MedStar offered Dr. Katz a one year, nontenured faculty appointment at a salary of $345,000. Later

that month, the University offered to pay Dr. Katz the

difference between his former salary at the University,

$500,000, and the MedStar-offered salary, on a monthlyinstallment basis. Dr. Katz accepted the monthly disbursements, but rejected MedStar's employment offer, as well as

the $750,000 lump-sum buy-out. Katz, No. 00-02412, Mem.

Op. at 3, reprinted in J.A. 643.

On June 15, 2000, Dr. Katz filed a grievance with the

University, contesting his termination. Dr. Katz's principal

claim was that the University had improperly terminated him

without one-year's notice as allegedly required by the Faculty

Handbook. A three-member Grievance Panel upheld Dr.

Katz's grievance claim, and this decision was subsequently

affirmed by the full University Grievance Code Committee.

Id. at 3-4, reprinted in J.A. 643-44. University officials then

appealed the Committee's decision to the University President, Father Leo O'Donovan, who issued a final judgment

dismissing Dr. Katz's grievance. President O'Donovan held

that the University's grievance process was "not designed and

cannot be used as a forum to second-guess or question the

correctness of the Board's decision." Letter from Leo J.

O'Donovan, S.J. to Steven K. Hoffman, Esq. and Charles F.C.

Ruff, Esq. 5 (Aug. 7, 2000), reprinted in J.A. 303. He further

noted that the Board had explained its decision to transfer

the clinical enterprise to MedStar, because the University

" 'faced a state of grave economic stringency' that required 'a

change in the University's institutional aims.' " Id. at 3,

reprinted in J.A. 301. In short, President O'Donovan's ruling

implicitly rejected the suggestion that Dr. Katz's status as a

tenured faculty member protected him from dismissal due to

financial exigencies; the ruling also implicitly rejected the

claim that the University was required to give Dr. Katz oneyear's notice in advance of termination.

On October 6, 2000, Dr. Katz filed his complaint in the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Subsequently, on October 11, 2000, Dr. Katz filed a motion

seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the University to

USCA Case #00-7265 Document #590237 Filed: 04/17/2001 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

reinstate him to his position as a tenured Professor of Surgery for the duration of an asserted contractually mandated

notice period. Dr. Katz also sought back pay for the period

during which the University had refused to employ him

consistent with the alleged notice provision. Motion for

Preliminary Injunction at 1, Katz v. Georgetown Univ., (No.

00-02412), reprinted in J.A. 29. This appeal followed the

District Court's denial of the motion for injunctive relief.

II. Analysis

To prevail in his request for a preliminary injunction, Dr.

Katz must "demonstrate 1) a substantial likelihood of success

on the merits, 2) that [he] would suffer irreparable injury if

the injunction is not granted, 3) that an injunction would not

substantially injure other interested parties, and 4) that the

public interest would be furthered by the injunction." CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738,

746 (D.C. Cir. 1995). "We review a district court decision

regarding a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion,

and any underlying legal conclusions de novo." Id.

In the instant case, we have no doubt that the District

Court got it right in denying the motion for a preliminary

injunction, because on this record there is no merit whatsoever to Dr. Katz's claim that he was entitled to one-year's notice

before being terminated for just cause. See Ross-Simons of

Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir.

1996) (in assessing a request for a preliminary injunction,

"[l]ikelihood of success is the main bearing wall of the fourfactor framework"). And "[g]iven the inadequacy of [Dr.

Katz]'s prospects for success on the merits, there may be no

showing of irreparable injury that would entitle him to injunctive relief." Taylor v. Resolution Trust Corp., 56 F.3d 1497,

1507 (D.C. Cir.), amended on other grounds on reh'g, 66 F.3d

1226 (D.C. Cir. 1995). In other words, although we apply a

four-factor test in weighing a request for a preliminary

injunction, such relief never will be granted unless a claimant

can demonstrate "a fair ground for litigation." Washington

Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559

USCA Case #00-7265 Document #590237 Filed: 04/17/2001 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

F.2d 841, 844 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Dr. Katz's request for relief

based on a claim that he was entitled to one-year's notice

before being terminated for just cause is hopelessly deficient

in this regard.

Dr. Katz contends that the University's Faculty Handbook

constituted a binding contract of employment to which we

must look to determine his rights as a tenured member of the

faculty. This point is not contested by the University. See

McConnell v. Howard Univ., 818 F.2d 58, 62-63 (D.C. Cir.

1987) ("Faculty Handbook defines the rights and obligations

of the employee and the employer, and is a contract enforceable by the courts."). Dr. Katz also asserts that because he

was an "Ordinary Faculty" member as defined in the Faculty

Handbook, the University could not terminate him without at

least one-year's notice. The University disputes this second

point, and with good basis.

The Faculty Handbook states that

[t]hose officers of instruction who by reason of their

qualifications have been appointed to one of the four fulltime tenure-eligible academic ranks (which in ascending

order are Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor) constitute the Ordinary Faculty of

the University.

Georgetown University, Faculty Handbook 24 (1999), reprinted in J.A. 115. Dr. Katz maintains that, pursuant to this

provision, it is clear that tenured professors are "Ordinary

Faculty" members and, thus, are covered by the following

notice provision in the Faculty Handbook:

For one regularly appointed to the Ordinary Faculty the

normal term of employment is one year, renewable annually. The appointment may be extended to seven years.

...

Notice of nonreappointment will be given in writing to

members of the Ordinary Faculty ...

USCA Case #00-7265 Document #590237 Filed: 04/17/2001 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

3. Not later than July 31st in the year prior to termination after two or more years of service.

Id. at 27, reprinted in J.A. 118.

In the light of the foregoing provisions, Dr. Katz presses an

extended, and largely pointless, argument over the scope of

"Ordinary Faculty" under the Faculty Handbook. The argument is pointless because it is absolutely clear that the notice

of nonreappointment provision in the Faculty Handbook has

nothing whatsoever to do with the termination of tenured

faculty members for just cause. Indeed, it is clear that

tenured faculty members have the benefit of "continuing

employment," with or without notice, unless they are dismissed for "just cause."

The Faculty Handbook states explicitly that

Tenure may be defined as a mutually acknowledged

expectation of continuing employment that is terminable

by the University only for just cause (as for professional

incompetence or moral turpitude of the faculty member,

for grave economic stringency on the part of the University, or for reasons of major changes in institutional

aims).

Id. at 27-28, reprinted in J.A. 118-19. In other words, under

this provision, faculty members with tenure retain their employment indefinitely, subject only to termination for "just

cause." The previously cited notice of nonreappointment

provisions-which refer to a "normal term of employment [of]

one year, renewable annually" and "appointment[s] [that]

may be extended to seven years"-obviously do not pertain to

tenured faculty members. And, most importantly, Dr. Katz

can point to no provision in the Faculty Handbook that

requires the University to give one-year's notice to a tenured

faculty person who is subject to termination for just cause.

Dr. Katz argues that the Faculty Handbook does not mean

what it says, because some tenured faculty members have in

fact received annual notices of appointment in the past.

Even if this were true, it proves nothing of importance in this

case. Under the terms of the Faculty Handbook, tenure

USCA Case #00-7265 Document #590237 Filed: 04/17/2001 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

means "continuing employment" absent termination for "just

cause." This is a typical definition of tenure in the context of

faculty employment in colleges and universities in the United

States. See McConnell, 818 F.2d at 68 n.11 ("[T]enure normally carries with it an expectation that, absent demonstrable

cause to terminate a faculty member's appointment, a tenured

professor will enjoy the freedom to carry out his or her duties

free from the fear of dismissal."); see generally Richard P.

Chait & Andrew T. Ford, Beyond Traditional tenure: A Guide

to Sound Policies and Practices (1982); Comm'n on Academic

Tenure in Higher Education, Faculty Tenure (1973); Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American

Association of University Professors (Louis Joughin ed., 2d

ed. 1969). Thus, traditional forms of tenure do not typically

depend upon notice of reappointment. Unsurprisingly, Dr.

Katz points to nothing in the Faculty Handbook or in University practice to suggest otherwise. Indeed, we are quite sure

that tenured members of the Georgetown University faculty

would be stunned were this court to hold that a faculty

member's tenure would be nullified if the University failed to

furnish an annual notice of reappointment.

Dr. Katz also asserts that, whether or not a tenured faculty

member must receive an annual notice of reappointment, the

University always must provide one-year's notice of termination for just cause. This is a specious argument. It would

make little sense for the University to agree to give oneyear's notice to a faculty person designated for dismissal for

"just cause" (which includes dismissals for "professional incompetence," "moral turpitude," and "grave economic stringency"). Counsel for appellant conceded as much at oral

argument when he acknowledged that a non-tenured member

of the faculty may be dismissed for just cause without oneyear's notice, i.e., notwithstanding the previously cited "notice

of nonreappointment" provision. If non-tenured faculty persons, who are covered by the "notice of nonreappointment"

provision admittedly can be dismissed for just cause without

one-year's notice, then there is no question that this very

same notice provision cannot limit the right of the University

to terminate tenured faculty members for just cause. InUSCA Case #00-7265 Document #590237 Filed: 04/17/2001 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

deed, as noted above, the Faculty Handbook explicitly states

that tenured faculty members may be terminated for just

cause, including for "grave economic stringency." There is

no one-year notice requirement that limits this provision; and

there is no serious dispute in this case that Dr. Katz was

terminated for any reason other than the alleged dire financial exigencies faced by the University.

Finally, Dr. Katz suggests that we should defer to the

views of the Grievance Panel and Grievance Code Committee

in interpreting the Faculty Handbook. It is undoubtedly

correct that ambiguous contract terms "must be construed in

keeping with general usage and custom at the University and

within the academic community." McConnell, 818 F.2d at 64;

accord Greene v. Howard Univ., 412 F.2d 1128, 1135 (D.C.

Cir. 1969). Accordingly, we may look to the decisions of the

Grievance Panel and Grievance Code Committee to gain an

understanding of the issues before us, just as we must give

due weight to the decision of the President of the University--the ultimate and final authority in the Grievance Procedure. In the end analysis, however, it is the Faculty Handbook that controls. See McConnell, 818 F.3d at 62-63. And

in this case, the Faculty Handbook is unambiguously clear

that a tenured faculty person may be terminated for "just

cause" without one-year's notice.

On this record, we conclude that there is no merit whatsoever to Dr. Katz's claim that he was entitled to one-year's

notice before being terminated for just cause. We therefore

affirm the District Court's denial of Dr. Katz's request for

preliminary injunction.

So ordered.

USCA Case #00-7265 Document #590237 Filed: 04/17/2001 Page 9 of 9