Opinion ID: 488009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Breach of the Contract by the University's Inaction

Text: 28 Dr. McConnell also presents an alternative theory supporting his decision not to teach the classes. He claims that Howard University had a duty to act to rectify incidents such as the September 6 incident involving Ms. McNeil. Dr. McConnell maintains that if the University was in breach of its obligations to him as a result of its actions (or inaction) in the wake of the McNeil incident, it cannot terminate his appointment for his subsequent decision not to teach the classes. 29 There is no specific language in the Faculty Handbook regarding the University's role in resolving student/teacher grievances. However, Dr. McConnell argues that this duty is implied by the nature of the University setting and the existence of the Howard University Code of Conduct and of the System of Judiciaries that has been set up to enforce the code. The Code of Conduct states that [a] student may be disciplined for ... '[the] [o]bstruction or disruption of teaching ... or [of] other University activities.'  8 The Grievance Committee agreed with Dr. McConnell. It found that [t]he right to teach and the responsibilities associated with it are deeply rooted in academic tradition and re-inforced by various organizational structures in the academy. Report of the Liberal Arts Grievance Committee dated December 21, 1983 at 7, reprinted in Appellant App. 67. The Committee believed that [a] teacher has the right to expect the University to protect the professional authority in teacher-student relationships. Id. at 8, reprinted in Appellant App. 68. 30 At trial, Dr. McConnell should be allowed to demonstrate that the University owed him a contractual duty to protect his professional authority in the classroom and that the University's actions constituted a breach of that duty. In this regard, we find it notable that, although Dean Lane stated that [t]he University strongly disapproves of the type of behavior attributed to Miss McNeill and that repetition of a similar incident on the part of the student [would not] be tolerated, 9 the University apparently took no steps to address the incident. If it was powerless to do so, Dean Lane's statement that repetition of a similar incident would not be tolerated is curious. Furthermore, although Elementary Functions I was offered in multiple sections, the University evidently took no steps either to transfer Ms. McNeil to a different section, or to assign Dr. McConnell to a different section. The Grievance Committee's evaluation of the University's actions was blunt and damning: No one representing the University seemed inclined to do anything except to prefer charges against Dr. McConnell. Report of the Liberal Arts Grievance Committee dated December 21, 1983 at 7, reprinted in Appellant App. 67. 31 If Dr. McConnell can show that the University owed him a duty to protect his professional authority, there is still an additional showing that must be made. He must also prove that, under the contract, the breach either relieved him of his obligation to teach or that the breach itself constituted a mitigating factor precluding the University from terminating his appointment for cause. 32 We cannot at this point offer a final assessment of the appellant's position with respect to the University's alleged inaction. But we find that he has presented a claim that easily withstands summary judgment. As this court noted in Greene v. Howard University, 412 F.2d at 1135, [c]ontracts are written, and are to be read, by reference to the norms of conduct and expectations founded upon them. This is especially true of contracts in and among a community of scholars. Surely, among a community of scholars, one who is assigned to teach must have some semblance of control over the classroom. If control is lost, learning invariably will be obstructed and the teacher will be unable to fulfill a professional responsibility. In such a situation, it seems quite clear that there are a number of issues to be resolved: (1) Has there been a significant breakdown in classroom discipline, i.e., such that teaching and learning are or may be impaired? (2) If so, does the fault lie with the students, the instructor, or both? (3) What is the role of the University in such a situation? and (4) If it has a role to play, has the University acted to protect the professional authority of the teacher and/or to restore order to the classroom? 33 On the facts of this case, the District Court must consider whether Dr. McConnell was due some support from the University that he did not receive in connection with a student disciplinary matter. This matter could not be resolved on summary judgment because the parties have vastly different views about the responsibility of the University under the contract to protect Dr. McConnell's professional authority in the classroom. The resolution of this issue--along with the resolution of the issues pertaining to reasonableness and mitigating circumstances--is essential to any determinations regarding neglect of professional responsibilities and cause to justify the termination of a tenured appointment. 34