Opinion ID: 396536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The parties and prior developments.

Text: 2 East Carolina University (the University) is a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, and, as such, is a state agency. MacDonald v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 299 N.C. 457, 263 S.E.2d 578 (1980). The University employed Robert J. Mayberry, the holder of a Ph.D. degree, 1 as an assistant professor of romance languages 2 commencing in the fall of 1967. His was a probationary status, the initial appointment being for a period of one year, 3 with successive automatic renewals for one year in the absence of notice of termination given no less than one full academic year prior to the commencement of any school year. 4 3 As was the customary approach in the case of full time academic faculty members at the University, it was expected that, during the fifth year in probationary status, i. e., during 1971-72, Mayberry would be considered for tenure. If tenure were granted, Mayberry would achieve essentially permanent status, to last until retirement unless interrupted by his death, incapacity or resignation. If tenure should not be conferred following consideration in the fifth year, upon expiration of the sixth year, allowed in compliance with the one-year notice provision, his employment by the University would be without possibility of renewal or extension and would inevitably terminate. 5 4 During the fifth year, tenure was not granted to Mayberry. 6 On September 13, 1973, he sued, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the denial of tenure was retaliatory, to punish him for exercise of protected rights of free expression guaranteed to him by the First Amendment. 7 The defendants included an academic, administrators and governors or trustees. 5 We have held in a prior opinion, Mayberry v. Dees, 638 F.2d 690 (4th Cir. 1981), 8 reheard, and now reconsidered, by a reconstituted panel, that no defendant, save Dr. Joseph F. Fernandez, was liable, officially or individually, because of Eleventh Amendment immunity, on the one hand, and because of the defense of good faith immunity, on the other. 9 For the additional considerations which we here elaborate, we approve those holdings of non-liability. 10 Moreover, we have decided that the judgment in favor of Mayberry, against Fernandez, should be reversed, the claim of retaliation as punishment for First Amendment exercise not having been established. The reasons applicable to the case of Fernandez apply a fortiori to all other defendants. In view of those conclusions, there is no basis for granting reinstatement. The district court had denied relief of that nature, and we now affirm that aspect of the decision. 6