Brumbach v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
| Decision Date | 15 January 1987 |
| Citation | 126 A.D.2d 841,510 N.Y.S.2d 762 |
| Parties | , 37 Ed. Law Rep. 286 Hetty Jo BRUMBACH, Appellant, v. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Law Office of Robert E. Ganz (Robert E. Ganz, of counsel), Albany, for appellant.
Bond, Schoeneck & King (Richard C. Heffern, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before MAIN, J.P., and CASEY, YESAWICH, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Walsh, Jr., J.), entered December 17, 1985 in Schenectady County, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendant employed plaintiff in a temporary capacity as a research associate in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences from January 12, 1981 to May 5, 1981. That spring, defendant posted a job opening for a tenure-track position of assistant professor/contract archaeologist in the public archaeology program for which it sought an applicant with a doctorate degree. Previously, defendant had employed a non-tenure-track position of research associate or lecturer to teach archaeology, but changed the classification to a tenure-track position at the suggestion of the chairman of its department of science and technology studies, who believed that the change to a full-time faculty position would strengthen the public archaeology program. Eleven men and one woman, plaintiff, applied. The position was formally offered to plaintiff for a three-year period commencing September 1, 1981 and ending June 30, 1984, by letter dated July 27, 1981, which fixed the salary at $16,000 for the 1981-1982 academic year with future salary increases dependent on plaintiff's ability to obtain sufficient contracts. Plaintiff accepted the position on August 23, 1981 at the salary fixed and was increased to $19,000 for the 1982-1983 academic year and to $21,000 for the following year. For all three years, plaintiff received favorable faculty evaluations.
On May 2, 1984, at a meeting of all tenured faculty in the department of science and technology studies, continuation of plaintiff's position and her further appointment were considered. After due discussion of the question, the faculty unanimously voted not to continue the position of assistant professor/contract archaeologist, but rather to pursue a new direction. Plaintiff was notified of this decision and offered a one-year terminal appointment beginning July 1, 1984 and ending June 30, 1985. Plaintiff accepted this appointment on May 22, 1984. Thereafter, defendant determined that plaintiff's position should be replaced with a part-time tenure-track position, emphasizing computer archaeology. This newly created position was posted. Plaintiff did not apply for this position and another person was appointed for one academic year.
Plaintiff commenced this action on or about December 1, 1984 for breach of contract, fraud and sexual discrimination. After issue was joined, Special Term granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing all three causes of action for insufficiency, and plaintiff appeals. We agree with the determination of Special Term.
To sustain her cause of action for breach of contract, plaintiff relies on defendant's "Handbook for Academic Staff", in which it is stated, "If the result of the evaluation is satisfactory, it is normal for an assistant professor to be re-employed for a second three-year period." Despite the favorable evaluation received by plaintiff, the language of the handbook can in no way be construed as a contract binding defendant to renewal. Plaintiff was employed for the full time for which she had been hired and was paid accordingly. Defendant promised no more than that (see, O'Connor v. Eastman Kodak Co., 65 N.Y.2d 724, 492 N.Y.S.2d 9, 481 N.E.2d 549). At the expiration of her term, plaintiff became an employee at will. Significantly, defendant's handbook, in the same section on which plaintiff relies, also provides, "If such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kosowsky v. Willard Mountain, Inc.
...611, 763 N.Y.S.2d 360 [2003], lv. dismissed 1 N.Y.3d 566, 775 N.Y.S.2d 783, 807 N.E.2d 896 [2003]; Brumbach v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 126 A.D.2d 841, 843, 510 N.Y.S.2d 762 [1987] ). Here, however, the fraud claim is not wholly duplicative of the breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs d......
-
Romer v. Hobart & William Smith Colleges, 93-CV-6231L.
...in the handbook does not impose express limitations on defendant's right to terminate." Brumbach v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 126 A.D.2d 841, 843, 510 N.Y.S.2d 762 (3d Dep't 1987). See Townsend, 760 F.Supp. at 290 (statements in handbook that employees were entitled to "Protection from ......
-
Integrity Int'l, Inc. v. HP, Inc.
...induced plaintiff to suffer damages as a result of a promise collateral to the contract (compare Brumbach v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. , 126 A.D.2d 841, 843, 510 N.Y.S.2d 762 [3d Dept. 1987] ). In other words, whether defendants breached the parties' contract causing damage to plaintiff ......
-
Roufaiel v. Ithaca College
...226 A.D.2d 117, 118, 640 N.Y.S.2d 505; Meltzer v. G.B.G. Inc., 176 A.D.2d 687, 689, 575 N.Y.S.2d 485; Brumbach v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 126 A.D.2d 841, 843, 510 N.Y.S.2d 762). Lastly, our determination renders academic the appeals from the resettled ORDERED that the order entered Ju......