Opinion ID: 2109211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: At Large Tenure

Text: Dr. Hahn next argues that he was improperly subjected to the 1999 RIF because his seniority was miscalculated as a result of a disagreement over the scope of his tenure grant. Pointing to the letter giving him tenure as a full professor in the College of Business and Public Management when he was appointed dean in 1993, he maintains that his tenure was at large within the college and not specific to any department. The University president ruled that this claim was also barred by the tenure nullification provision in the CBA. Dr. Hahn's contention about the scope of his tenure, however, seems to relate more to his seniority on the retention list than to any privilege of his tenured position. [7] The gist of his argument is that because he was given tenure while he was dean of the college, his seniority should be determined in relation to the college as a whole, not just to the department in which he was teaching. At best, the scope of Dr. Hahn's tenure appointment is ambiguous. The letter granting him tenure also noted that [u]pon termination of this executive appointment, you have the right to remain at the University as a member of the faculty... in the appropriate department  (emphasis added). Additionally, the regulation under which he was given tenure states, A person newly hired for the position of Provost or academic dean may be granted academic title and rank with tenure in the department in which he or she is qualified. 8 DCMR § 212.4 (emphasis added). Dr. Hahn interprets the letter and the regulation to mean that because he was dean of the entire college, his grant of tenure enabled him to teach in any department in the college in which he was qualified. The difficulty with this argument is that the record does not tell us whether or not Dr. Hahn was qualified to teach in any other department. [8] Further complicating the matter is the fact that Dr. Hahn was given tenure as the dean of the College of Business and Public Management, not the College of Professional Studies, into which the College of Business and Public Management later merged. At the time of the merger he received an offer to remain as a faculty member in the College of Professional Studies, but he was never dean of that college, which appears to have a much broader educational reach. Although Dr. Hahn's claim to at large seniority is dubious, he may be entitled to a position if the University were to find that his tenure was granted at large and that he was qualified for another position within the College of Professional Studies. Because the record is silent as to his claim for at large seniority and his qualifications to teach in other departments, the case must be remanded to the University so that it, in the first instance, may make those determinations.