Opinion ID: 1907936
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Custom and Practice.

Text: According to the University, [i]t is well-settled law in this jurisdiction that the custom and practice of a university is to be taken into account when interpreting any contract between the university and a faculty member. (Citing Howard Univ. v. Best, 547 A.2d 144, 149 (D.C.1988) ( Best II )). The University contends that the notice provision in the Faculty Code should be read in light of the University's usual custom and practice [of giving] faculty members notice that they will not be granted tenure without any prior review of the matter by the Board of Trustees. We do not agree that the University's allegations as to custom and practice entitle it to summary judgment. The University claims that the Board of Trustees becomes involved in very few cases in which the administration has recommended denial of tenure. Specifically, the Board considers tenure applications only in cases like this one, in which the faculty and the administration make conflicting recommendations. This means, according to the University, that its usual custom and practice is to send a notice of denial to an unsuccessful applicant for tenure without any prior action by the Board of Trustees. But if any custom is relevant to this case, it must be the University's procedure where there is a difference of opinion between the faculty and the administration. In that situation, the University concedes, the Faculty Code provides that variant recommendations shall be transmitted to the Board of Trustees, evidently for the Board's decision. The University's practice in other situations is of questionable relevance. The University's custom and practice are not necessarily irrelevant. Procedures utilized by the University with respect to cases in which the faculty and the administration have made conflicting recommendations may properly be considered to resolve any ambiguity in the Faculty Code, in the event that the trial court concludes that such an ambiguity exists. See Howard Univ. v. Best, 484 A.2d 958, 967-68 (D.C.1984) (Best I) ; see also Best II, 547 A.2d at 149. [9] The proffered evidence will not, however, support summary judgment in favor of the University.