Opinion ID: 514825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mutually Explicit Understanding Implied From Gryzb Policy

Text: 14 Ms. Lee also asserts that the alleged policy promulgated by Mr. Gryzb was the basis of a mutually explicit understanding protected by the due process clause. Again, assuming arguendo that Mr. Gryzb was vested properly with policy-making authority, we do not believe that a mutually explicit understanding has been alleged adequately here. 15 In Perry, the Supreme Court noted that the absence of an explicit contractual provision may not always foreclose the possibility that a teacher has a 'property' interest in re-employment.... Explicit contractual provisions may be supplemented by other agreements implied from 'the promisor's words and conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances.'  408 U.S. at 601-02, 92 S.Ct. at 2700 (quoting 3A Corbin on Contracts Sec. 562 (1960)). One recognized means of establishing the existence of such a mutually explicit understanding is to point to an employer's custom or policy. As this court noted in Davis v. City of Chicago, 841 F.2d 186, 188 (7th Cir.1988): 16 An established custom or policy may be used as evidence that a mutually explicit understanding exists. For example, in Perry v. Sindermann, the Supreme Court held that an untenured professor at a state junior college may have a protected property interest in continued employment if the college utilizes a de facto tenure system. 408 U.S. at 602, 92 S.Ct. at 2700. However, a merely subjective and unilateral expectancy is not protected by due process. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709. It must be established that the custom was indeed practiced. See Auriemma v. Chicago, 601 F.Supp. 1080, 1083 (N.D.Ill.1984). 17 841 F.2d at 188-89; see also Common v. Williams, 859 F.2d 467, 470-71 (7th Cir.1988). 18 As expressed in the third amended complaint, Mr. Gryzb's disciplinary policy cannot be characterized as an implied terminable-only-for-cause employment contract. Whatever expectations were created by the policy were patently unilateral. Ms. Lee fails to allege, either explicitly or by reasonable inference, that a mutual understanding arose. Thus, Mr. Gryzb's alleged policy does not amount to a mutually explicit understanding that can be characterized as a property interest; it amounts to nothing more than a statement that he will deal with employee disciplinary matters on a case-by-case basis. 19