Court Opinion

ID: 9758401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:27:43.567389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:50.891987
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 1 I join in the result of the majority, and write separately merely to highlight a few of the principles applicable to this complicated situation.
¶ 2 1. The binding document in tenure determinations is the contract between the applicant and the university, usually a union contract. A faculty handbook does not override the underlying union contract when it comes to tenure decisions.
¶ 3 2. A university is not bound to follow the same tenure requirements that are in place when a faculty member takes employment in a tenure track position. The faculty member takes the risk that the requirements will change before he or she achieves tenure.
¶4 3. The mere fact that the department recommends tenure is not binding on the ultimate decision maker, in this case, the university president.
¶ 5 4. If the president makes the decision and there is an appeal procedure, that procedure must be followed. While there was some indication in this case that on appeal the president’s decision was not *859supported, a review of the record shows that this was not the case.
¶ 6 Therefore, I fully agree with the decision of the majority.