Court held that legitimate claim of entitlement to tenure in state university is defined solely through application of state contract and employment law. On remand, district court certified to state supreme court question of whether claim for tenure could arise from informal, unwritten tenure policy purportedly existing alongside contrary written formal tenure policy. State supreme court ruled that under Oklahoma law, if formal written policy constitutes express contract between parties, contract covering same subject cannot be implied, because implied agreement cannot coexist with express contract. Faculty members had no property interest in tenure under de facto system that they concede did not exist. Where there was a formal tenure system, it was unlikely that they could reasonably have relied on assurances that they would be reappointed.
Court declines to recognize de facto tenure.
Tenure could be granted only through affirmative vote of majority of Board of Regents. Board did not ratify any contract stating that professor had tenure where Board never voted to grant tenure. Court rejects plaintiff's claim of de facto tenure for clinical professorship, despite University's failure to give timely notice of nonrenewal. Professor denied tenure unsuccessful in contention that satisfactory annual evaluations and informal understandings with department head gave rise to de facto tenure, of which he was allegedly deprived in violation of Fourteenth Amendment when University denied de jure tenure. 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.