Opinion ID: 62013
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: De Facto Tenure Claim

Text: Next, we hold that the district court also erred by not dismissing Hartz’s de facto tenure claim. While we agree with the district court that Louisiana courts have never adopted a per se rule which establishes that faculty handbooks are not contracts, see Wallace v. Shreve Memorial Library, 79 F.3d 427, 431 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Oyefodun v. Dillard Univ., No. 03-0115, 2003 WL 21634305, at  3 (E.D. La. June 26, 2003), Louisiana courts have held that the Tulane faculty handbook—the handbook at issue in this case—is not a contract. See, e.g. Stanton v. Tulane Univ. of La., 777 So. 2d 1242, 1249-51 (La. Ct. App. 2001); Schwartz v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 699 So. 2d 895, 897-99 (La. Ct. App. 1987). Not only did those courts find that the faculty handbook to be merely an expression of policy, Id., but the court in Stanton went on to state that “Louisiana jurisprudence clearly and unequivocally upholds the principle that this sort of employment handbook is not a contract such as would eliminate application of the employment at will doctrine.” 777 So. 2d at 1251. In light of this precedent it was unnecessary for the district court to deny Tulane’s motion on the basis that the determination of Hartz’s de facto tenure claim “will require an in-depth analysis of the entire document;” it is untenable to conclude that Hartz’s handbook contains language that would convert it into a binding policy. Once again, we repeat that it is well established that this Court need not accept as true conclusory allegations or unwarranted factual inferences when reviewing a district court’s ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion. Southland Securities, 365 F.3d at 361.