Opinion ID: 488009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contractual Limitation of Judicial Review

Text: 44 The District Court seized on language in the section of the Faculty Handbook dealing with the dismissal procedures stating that [t]he decision of the Board of Trustees shall be final. Faculty Handbook, reprinted in McConnell v. Howard Univ., 621 F.Supp. at 335. It assumed that the decision referred to is the decision whether to terminate the services of the faculty member. The court then concluded: 45 The plaintiff having agreed to accept employment on those terms, this Court should uphold the Board's decision and grant defendant's motion for summary judgment, unless the Board's decision was arbitrary, or plaintiff has proffered evidence of improper motivation or irrational action. 46 621 F.Supp. at 331. 47 In other words, according to the trial court, any Trustees' decision to fire a tenured faculty member is largely unreviewable, with judicial scrutiny limited to a modest inquiry as to whether the Trustees' decision was arbitrary, irrational or infected by improper motivation. Such a reading of the contract renders tenure a virtual nullity. Faculty members like Dr. McConnell would have no real substantive right to continued employment, but only certain procedural rights that must be followed before their appointment may be terminated. We find this to be an astonishing concept, and one not compelled by a literal reading of the Faculty Handbook. 48 We begin with the language from the Faculty Handbook relied on by the District Court. It is clear to us that the language in the contract is not intended to shield decisions of the Board of Trustees from judicial scrutiny, but is designed to indicate the endpoint of the internal grievance procedures. When viewed in context, the decision referred to could well be the Board's decision either to review the case or to accept the recommendations of the Grievance Committee without review. This can be easily seen by reading the sentence in the context of the complete paragraph in which it appears: E. CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 49 The Dean shall transmit the full report of the Grievance Committee and its recommendation to the President for presentation to the Board of Trustees or its Executive Committee. If the Board of Trustees or its Executive Committee chooses to review the case, its review shall be based on the record of the hearing. The decision of the Board of Trustees shall be final. 50 Id. at 335. Alternatively, the decision could be the action taken by the Board of Trustees with respect to the faculty member. Under either view, the final nature of the Board's decision has nothing to do with whether the parties have attempted to limit the power of courts to engage in a review of the contractual claims. It speaks only to further avenues of review within the University. 51 Given the structure of the prescribed procedures, it appears that the Board of Trustees has tremendous leeway to reject findings of the Grievance Committee. If we were to adopt a view limiting judicial review over the substance of the Board of Trustees' decision, we would be allowing one of the parties to the contract to determine whether the contract had been breached. This would make a sham of the parties' contractual tenure arrangement. 11 52 On remand, the trial court must consider de novo the appellant's breach of contract claims; no special deference is due the Board of Trustees once the case is properly before the court for resolution of the contract dispute. 12