Chronopoulos v. University of Minnesota
| Decision Date | 16 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. C1-94-647,C1-94-647 |
| Citation | 520 N.W.2d 437 |
| Parties | 93 Ed. Law Rep. 892 Tony CHRONOPOULOS, Relator, v. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The University of Minnesota did not arbitrarily deny tenure to Anthony Chronopoulos based on a violation of its internal grievance rules. The university complied with tenure regulations in its decision not to renew Chronopoulos's probationary appointment.
2. The University of Minnesota did not violate procedural due process when it denied tenure to Anthony Chronopoulos. The university's internal grievance rules afford non-tenured faculty procedural due process, and the university complied with those rules in its decision not to award tenure to Chronopoulos.
3. The University of Minnesota did not violate substantive due process by arbitrarily dismissing Anthony Chronopoulos. Substantial evidence supports the academic judgment that Chronopoulos did not meet the level of excellence as required as a prerequisite to tenure.
4. The University of Minnesota's internal summary judgment standard of "no substantial need for a hearing" comports with due process requirements.
5. Anthony Chronopoulos was not improperly denied a hearing based on a First Amendment claim. Substantial evidence supports the University of Minnesota's determination that personal or political factors did not significantly affect its decision to deny tenure.
Stephen W. Cooper, Kathryn J. Cima, The Cooper Law Firm, for relator.
Mark R. Rotenberg, Gen. Counsel, Julie A. Sweitzer, Associate Gen. Counsel, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by PARKER, P.J., and RANDALL and SHORT, JJ.
The University of Minnesota denied tenure to Relator Anthony Chronopoulos. He appealed the administrative decision to the university's Senate Judicial Committee. The committee found no substantial need for a hearing and granted the university summary judgment. Chronopoulos obtained a writ of certiorari. On appeal, he argues that the decision to deny tenure violated university tenure rules and deprived him of his constitutional right to a hearing. We affirm.
The University of Minnesota (university) hired Anthony Chronopoulos in 1987. He served in a probationary tenure-track position as an assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science. The department experienced internal conflicts during Chronopoulos's appointment. A Computer Science review committee found, in April 1990, that a "political struggle" had existed since 1988. One member of the committee stated that the department was divided into two blocks, with Chronopoulos (and two professors who have since resigned) aligned against six other professors. Chronopoulos and two professors within the department, Ravi Janardan and Haesun Park, were considered for tenure during the 1992-93 academic year.
Chronopoulos received annual performance appraisals throughout his six years as an assistant professor. Appraisals for the first two years described his reputation as a teacher as "not very good" and his research record as "modest." Later appraisals stated that his teaching had improved and that his publication record had "grown and strengthened." He was commended for his serious efforts and advised to put great emphasis on improving his teaching skills. Each annual evaluation recommended that Chronopoulos's probationary appointment be continued.
The computer science faculty considered Chronopoulos's candidacy for tenure in December, 1992. The faculty voted in favor of tenure by a vote of ten to three, with four abstentions. K.S.P. Kumar, head of the Computer Science Department, enthusiastically recommended that Chronopoulos be promoted and tenured. He also noted some faculty members' reservations, including ambivalence expressed in some letters of recommendation, a lack of federal grants, and average quality of research.
Chronopoulos's candidacy for tenure was then considered by the Institute of Technology's Promotion and Tenure Committee (P & T Committee). The P & T Committee recommended a denial of tenure, with four "no" votes and three "yes" votes. It sent an advisory recommendation to the dean of the Department of Computer Science, Gordon Beavers. Beavers sent Chronopoulos a letter agreeing to accept written comments regarding the P & T Committee findings. Chronopoulos responded with a written rebuttal to the P & T Committee's recommendation, claiming omissions, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of his record, along with the claim that some of the department votes were politically motivated. On Beavers' request, the P & T Committee re-examined its findings in light of the new information provided by Chronopoulos and reaffirmed its earlier decision to deny tenure. Beavers then recommended to Ann Hopkins, vice president of Arts, Science and Engineering, that Chronopoulos be denied tenure.
Hopkins reviewed Chronopoulos's file. In a letter to senior vice president and provost Ettore Infante, Hopkins stated that she "carefully reviewed the full augmented dossier" of Chronopoulos and found no evidence of political bias. She stated that his teaching and service were adequate, but that his research was questionable. Her letter to Infante recommended against tenure based on the failure to meet Institute of Technology tenure standards of "a record of excellence and creativity in scholarly research and its dissemination."
Infante independently reviewed the case. He compared Chronopoulos's file with those of Janardan and Park, who were granted tenure. Infante also telephoned two of Chronopoulos's references, one of whom expressed reservations about promoting him. Infante concluded that while Chronopoulos's teaching and research are adequate and have improved, they fail to meet the expected level of excellence required for tenure.
Chronopoulos appealed Infante's decision to the university's Senate Judicial Committee. He alleged that tenure was improperly denied due to gender discrimination, violations of his right to academic freedom, mistakes of fact, a lack of independent review, and a failure to apply required criteria. The Judicial Committee held a pretrial conference, at which time the university moved for summary judgment pursuant to committee rules. Each party submitted briefs. The panel found that the case did not merit further investigation and granted the university's request for summary judgment.
Chronopoulos appealed the Judicial Committee's decision to University president Nils Hasselmo. Hasselmo concurred with the panel's findings and dismissed Chronopoulos's complaint. Chronopoulos appeals, arguing that this denial of tenure is based on a violation of university tenure regulations and that it violates his due process and First Amendment rights to a hearing.
I. Did the University of Minnesota arbitrarily deny Chronopoulos tenure by violating its internal grievance rules?
II. Did the University of Minnesota violate Chronopoulos's due process rights by granting summary judgment without affording him a testimonial hearing?
III. Did the University of Minnesota violate Chronopoulos's First Amendment rights by denying him a testimonial hearing?
Chronopoulos appeals to this court by writ of certiorari pursuant to Minn.Stat. Secs. 606.01-.06 (1992). Review by certiorari is limited to an inspection of the record of the administrative tribunal, and this court is confined to questions affecting the regularity of the proceedings and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the determination was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, made under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it. Ganguli v. University of Minnesota, 512 N.W.2d 918, 921 (Minn.App.1994) (citing Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn.1992)). A reviewing court may reverse a university's decision to terminate an employee only if it finds a lack of substantial evidence to support that ruling. Harford v. University of Minnesota, 494 N.W.2d 903, 909 (Minn.App.1993), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 1993). Academic judgments are afforded great discretion, since decisions regarding a person's scholarship require expert evaluations that are not readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial decision-making. Board of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 90, 98 S.Ct. 948, 955, 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978).
The University of Minnesota holds a constitutional grant of power. Minn. Const. art. XIII, Sec. 3. Pursuant to this power, the Board of Regents enacted binding rules governing their internal grievance system. Univ. Charter, Laws 1851, Ch. 3, Sec. 9. The university may not act beyond the scope of its power. Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. Lord 257 N.W.2d 796, 798 (Minn.1977). Chronopoulos argues that several violations of university tenure regulations render the denial of tenure arbitrary. The Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure is a contract between the university and its faculty. Univ. Regs. Sec. 2.1; Ganguli, 512 N.W.2d 921 (Minn.App.1994). It provides in relevant part:
7.7 Improper Termination of Probationary Appointments. A person holding a regular probationary appointment who has been given notice of termination may petition the Judicial Committee to review the action. The Judicial Committee will not base its ruling on the merits of the decision itself, but will review allegations that the decision was based in significant degree upon any of the following:
(a) Personal beliefs, expressions or conduct which fall within the liberties protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom as established by academic tradition and the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota;
(d) Failure to consider data available at the time of decision bearing materially on the faculty member's performance.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephens v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF U. OF M., C1-99-2109.
...rules governing employee grievances are enacted pursuant to this constitutional grant of authority. Chronopoulos v. University of Minnesota, 520 N.W.2d 437, 441 (Minn. App.1994),review denied (Minn. Oct. 27, 1994); see Winberg, 499 N.W.2d at 803 n. 3 (stating that "the internal management o......
-
Kumbhojkar v. University of Miami, No. 97-1112
...505 (Idaho App.1994),review denied (March 9, 1994); Taggart v. Drake University, 549 N.W.2d 796 (Iowa 1996); Chronopoulos v. University of Minnesota, 520 N.W.2d 437 (Minn.App. 1994),review denied (No. C1-94-647, October 27, 1994); Kirsch v. Bowling Green State University, No. 95 AP 111-1476......
-
Zahavy v. University of Minnesota
...require expert evaluations that are not readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial decision-making. Chronopoulos v. University of Minn., 520 N.W.2d 437, 441 (Minn.App.1994) (citing Board of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 90, 98 S.Ct. 948, 955, 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (19......
-
Phillips v. State
...judgment. Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225, 106 S.Ct. 507, 513, 88 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985); Chronopoulos v. Univ. of Minn., 520 N.W.2d 437, 445 (Minn.App.1994), review denied (Minn. Oct. 27, 1994). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that this level of arbitrar......