Opinion ID: 477821
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contractual Entitlement

Text: 12 Plaintiff's second basis for his claim of a property interest is contractual. Plaintiff alleges in Count I, paragraph 1, of his complaint that he was hired on [sic] or about September 1971 by Defendant School Board as a guidance counselor and held that position until his honorable discharge on [sic] or about June 1983. Plaintiff argues that this suffices as a short and plain statement under Rule 8(a) to give notice of plaintiff's claim of contractual entitlement. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). 13 Plaintiff's allegation may be sufficient notice of the claim, but the mere allegation that plaintiff was hired as a guidance counselor and retained in that position for a number of years does not provide sufficient facts to support a claim of contractual entitlement and avoid summary judgment on this issue. Rule 56(e) states that [w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The mere allegation that plaintiff was hired as a guidance counselor does not establish a contractual entitlement, nor does it even contain sufficient facts to establish that a genuine issue exists. 14 Furthermore, the relevant contract, the collective bargaining agreement between plaintiff's union and the school district for the years 1980 to 1984, specifically provides: All extra-pay assignments shall be contracted with the individual on an annual basis and shall not be subject to the tenure laws of the State. Extra-pay assignments will be posted as vacancies as needs are determined by the administration.