Opinion ID: 1964882
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Breach of ContractThe Faculty Handbooks

Text: Dr. Paul's principal claim is that the University breached an employment contract when it failed to grant her a permanent tenured position. She asserts that the faculty handbooks gave her contractually enforceable rights as an employee of the University [14] and that the University infringed these rights in two respects. First, she maintains that the University violated her right to receive tenure automatically upon completion of her seven-year probationary term as an associate professor. Second, she contends that the University violated her procedural rights under the handbooks throughout the process of considering her applications for tenure. [15] We address Dr. Paul's first argument only briefly. She contends that the completion of her tenure track appointments as an associate professor automatically entitled her to tenure. [16] There is absolutely nothing in the record to support this allegation. Both applicable faculty handbooks provide that an appointee may apply for tenure upon completion of a probationary appointment, but it is absolutely clear that the appropriate University officials make the final decision on whether to award tenure to any applicant. The University was thus entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to this aspect of Dr. Paul's claim. [17] The second part of Dr. Paul's breach of contract claim warrants a bit more discussion. She contends that her first tenure application, submitted in 1992, should have been forwarded to the School Committee immediately upon the Department Committee's decision not to recommend her for tenure. Instead, the Department Committee did not forward the application until 1994, after she filed a complaint with the Faculty Grievance Commission. As we have said, the 1980 Handbook was applicable to Dr. Paul's 1992 tenure application. The relevant provisions of that handbook state: 1. The holding of tenure shall be limited to the ranks of Professor and Associate Professor; and ... Assistant Professors may be granted tenure in exceptional cases.       3. The probationary period for the awarding of tenure, in all schools and colleges, shall be not more than seven (7) years and not less than three (3) years ....       5. All recommendations for tenure, at the departmental level, shall have the support of the majority of the members of the departmental Committee on Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure ... and ... the recommendations of the departmental committee, together with the judgment of the departmental chairman, shall be forwarded to the school or college committee in the care of the Dean of the school or college. 1980 Handbook, Policy on Tenure, § C. The handbook thus requires that recommendations of the Department Committee be sent to the School Committee and defines a recommendation as a majority decision to support the application. After reviewing Dr. Paul's 1992 tenure application, the Department Committee unanimously voted not to support it. There was thus no departmental recommendation for tenure, and for that reason the Department Committee was not obligated to forward her application to the School Committee. In any event, Dr. Paul does not explain how any perceived procedural deficiencies in the University's handling of her first tenure application prejudiced her second application, which was considered and rejected on the merits. Dr. Paul also asserts various procedural errors in the University's consideration of her 1993 tenure application, which was governed by the 1993 Handbook. Under that handbook, Dr. Paul had no contractual right to re-apply for tenure because she held a lecturer position rather than a probationary appointment. According to the handbook, lecturer positions are temporary appointments for a specific term. Since these appointments are not tenure track positions, persons holding such appointments are not eligible for tenure, educational leave, or sabbatical leave. 1993 Handbook, § 2 .5.4. [18] Nevertheless, the University gave her application full consideration, actually according her more process than she was entitled under the 1993 Handbook to receive. Any procedural defect in that consideration cannot support her breach of contract claim because she had no contractual right to consideration of any kind.