Court rejects plaintiff's claim of de facto tenure, disagreeing with her interpretation of regulation that faculty rendering satisfactory service for five years shall receive tenure. Genuine issue of material fact precluded grant of summary judgment against professor's claim to de facto tenure under regulations, later amended for tenure at end of seven years, that were in effect at time of his initial appointment. Where written system exists of which employee is aware, employee generally may not rely on assurances outside formalized system to establish property interest. Faculty manual adopted subsequent to plaintiff's appointment explicitly provided that tenure would be granted only upon affirmative action by governing board and would not be granted automatically. Fact question existed as to whether plaintiff had rights under earlier manual that administrator testified provided for tenure by default through length of service.
Court denies university's motion for summary judgment.
Because no entitlement to continued employment existed, no property or liberty interest existed. Court acknowledges possibility of automatic tenure by length of service based on terms of contract existing alongside more formal tenure system. Faculty member who was denied tenure claimed entitlement to tenure on basis of tenure policy in effect at time of her appointment. Court rejected claim, pointing out that de facto tenure is not available if institution has formal written tenure policy. An earlier policy providing for tenure after completion of seven years of service had been changed before plaintiff completed requisite service.