Opinion ID: 1224256
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the court err in granting summary judgment to Maniilaq on Chijide's due process claim?

Text: Chijide raises several due process arguments on appeal. Arguing that Maniilaq is a public entity under the rationale of Storrs v. Lutheran Hospitals & Homes Society of America, Inc., 609 P.2d 24, 28 (Alaska 1980), Chijide first claims that she had a property interest in her job and that Maniilaq therefore violated her due process rights by ending her employment without notice and a hearing. Assuming arguendo that Maniilaq is a public entity, we nevertheless disagree with Chijide's contention that she was denied due process. Chijide initially suggests that the rule established in Storrs required Maniilaq to give her notice and a hearing prior to ending her employment. In that case, we ruled that a quasi-public hospital had to comply with due process before terminating a doctor's hospital privileges. See Storrs, 609 P.2d at 28. Implicit in the reasoning of that decision was our view that when a quasi-public hospital that is the only hospital in a given location deprives a doctor of staff privileges and thus effectively prevents him or her from practicing medicine, the hospital is depriving the doctor of a valuable property interest. See id. at 28 (citing Anton v. San Antonio Community Hosp., 19 Cal.3d 802, 140 Cal.Rptr. 442, 567 P.2d 1162, 1174 (1977) (stating that the essential nature of a qualified physician's right to use the facilities of a hospital is a property interest which directly relates to the pursuit of his livelihood)). It is unclear from Chijide's briefing why she believes Storrs would require a hearing in this case. To the extent she argues that Storrs stands for the proposition that all doctors who work for quasi-public hospitals have a property interest in their job, she is incorrect. The Storrs opinion made no such assertion. Neither does Storrs stand for the view that all quasi-public hospitals are required to provide doctors with a hearing before terminating their employment, even when the doctors involved have no property interests in their jobs. Because we reject Chijide's suggestion that Storrs itself required Maniilaq to provide her with notice and a hearing in this case, we proceed to analyze our other decisions discussing employees' due process rights. Both the federal and state constitutions provide that the state cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. [2] However, the protections of due process apply only when an individual has a life, liberty, or property interest to protect. See, e.g., Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (stating that [t]he requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property); Szejner v. University of Alaska, 944 P.2d 481, 486 (Alaska 1997) (stating [f]or due process to be implicated, there must be a liberty or property interest sufficient to warrant constitutional protection). Under both federal and Alaska constitutional law, an employee has a property interest in his or her job only when he or she has a legitimate expectation of continued employment. See, e.g., Roth, 408 U.S. at 577-79, 92 S.Ct. 2701; Ramsey v. City of Sand Point, 936 P.2d 126, 131-32 (Alaska 1997). As a result, both our courts and federal courts have held that employees who have tenure or who can be fired only for cause have property interests in their jobs. See, e.g., Odum v. University of Alaska, Anchorage, 845 P.2d 432, 433 (Alaska 1993) (stating that tenured professor was entitled to due process); Storrs v. Municipality of Anchorage, 721 P.2d 1146, 1148 (Alaska 1986) (employee could be dismissed only for just cause); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538-39, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (employee could be dismissed only for just cause); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601-02, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972) (stating that tenure would provide employee with property interest in his or her job). Chijide did not have a property interest in her job per se because she had no legitimate expectation that her employment would continue indefinitely. First, her contract provided that Chijide could be fired at any time without cause. Second, unlike a tenured employee, Chijide worked under a year-to-year contract that Maniilaq could choose to renew or not renew for any reason. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 578, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (stating that employee whose contract ended at a fixed date and did not provide for renewal absent sufficient cause had no protected property interest in employment). The fact that Maniilaq had renewed the contract in past years is not enough to convert Chijide's concern that she be rehired into a legitimate expectation that she would be retained. See Martin v. Unified School Dist. No. 434, 728 F.2d 453, 455 (10th Cir.1984); see also Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (stating that for a benefit to be considered a property interest under the constitution an individual must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it). But, although Chijide did not have a property interest in her job per se, she did have a property interest in continued employment for the sixty and ninety days' notice periods incorporated into her contract. See Breeden v. City of Nome, 628 P.2d 924, 926 (Alaska 1981). Because we conclude below that Maniilaq complied with the notice requirements as a matter of law, we hold that it did not violate Chijide's rights by ending her employment. Chijide argues next that Maniilaq violated her due process rights by failing to follow its own procedures in resolving her grievances against Shackles. She appears to contend that the failure to resolve the difficulties between herself and Shackles resulted in her being terminated for cause upon Shackles's recommendation. Because Maniilaq did not provide her with a hearing prior to the termination, thus giving her the opportunity to contest Shackles's evaluation of her performance, Chijide claims that she was not afforded due process. We reject Chijide's argument because we disagree with her premise that Maniilaq fired her for cause. Chijide points to Shackles's July 9, 1993 letter to Carolyn Smith as evidence that her termination was for cause. The fact that Shackles provided a reason for her recommendation that the hospital decline to renew Chijide's contract does not convert the nonrenewal into a dismissal for cause. Shackles's letter was addressed to Maniilaq, not Chijide. The notification Maniilaq sent to Chijide was unambiguously a notice of non-renewal that gave no cause for ending Chijide's employment. We therefore affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment on Chijide's due process claims.