Endress v. Brookdale Community College

• Citation: 144 N.J.Super. 109,364 A.2d 1080
• Parties: Patricia H. ENDRESS and Brookdale Community College Faculty Association, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, a public institution of higher education of New Jersey, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Decision Date: 27 August 1976
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

Page 109

144 N.J.Super. 109

364 A.2d 1080

Patricia H. ENDRESS and Brookdale Community College Faculty

Association, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, a public institution of higher

education of New Jersey, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Appellate Division.

Argued April 5, 1976.

Decided Aug. 27, 1976.

Charles L. Morgan, W. Long Branch, for appellant Brookdale Community College (Morgan & Falvo, W. Long Branch, attorneys)

John Warren, Jr., Red Bank, for appellant Donald H. Smith (Parsons, Canzona, Blair & Warren, Red Bank, attorneys).

James D. Carton, III, Neptune, for appellants Marvin A. Clark et al. (Carton, Nary, Witt & Arvanitis, Neptune, attorneys, Robert V. Carton, Neptune, of counsel and on the brief).

Richard H. Mills, Deputy Atty. Gen., for amici curiae Departments of Ed. and Higher Ed., State of N.J. (William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., attorney; Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel).

Garrett M. Heher, Trenton, for amici Atlantic Community College et al. (Smith, Stratton, Wise & Heher, Trenton, attorneys, Ann Reichelderfer, Trenton, on the brief).

William S. Greenberg, Trenton, for respondents (Sterns & Greenberg, Trenton, attorneys, William Bigham and Frank J. Petrino, on the brief).

Cassel R. Ruhlman, Jr., Trenton, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Nat. Ed. Ass'n (Jerry D. Anker, Robert E. Nagle and David Rubin, Washington, D.C., bar, on the brief).

Before Judges FRITZ, SEIDMAN and MILMED.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SEIDMAN, J.A.D.

These consolidated appeals are from a judgment in favor of plaintiff reinstating her as a member of the faculty of defendant college with back pay and other benefits, and awarding her damages, both compensatory and punitive, plus counsel fees and costs.

I

On June 27, 1974 plaintiff Patricia H. Endress, an Assistant Professor of Journalism at Brookdale Community College, a public institution of higher learning located in Lincroft, Monmouth County, was discharged from her employment and her contract for the next academic year was rescinded ¹ by resolution adopted by the college board of trustees upon the recommendation of the president.

The controversy which led to Professor Endress' dismissal and this litigation had its origin in an editorial written by her which appeared in the April 26, 1974 edition of The Stall, the student newspaper of which she was the faculty advisor. In substance, it accused the chairman of the board of trustees of a conflict of interest in allegedly making 'a deal' whereby his nephew's company received a contract from the college for the furnishing of audio-visual equipment.

An accompanying article on the same subject was written by her assistant, a 'journalism intern.'

In recommending the dismissal to the board of trustees the president of the college asserted as the alleged causes for such action plaintiff's violation of 'both the tradition established under Board policy, and the philosophical platform and goals of the College as the same pertain to freedom of the press and student responsibility for the college newspapers,' and of the 'editorial prerogatives of the student editor and the student staff,' in ordering and directing the editor of the newspaper 'to publish certain material without his approval,' and in causing the publication of 'libelous matter contrary to accepted journalistic standards.'

Professor Endress thereupon filed a multi-count complaint, in which the Brookdale Community College Faculty Association joined as plaintiff, ² against the college; and also, in both their official and individual capacities, against W. P. Corderman, chairman of the board of trustees; Donald H. Smith, president of the college, and the other members of the board of trustees. The complaint charged, among other things, that her employment had been wrongfully terminated, that Corderman and Smith had wrongfully and maliciously interfered with her existing contractual relationship, and that they had conspired among themselves and the other board members to breach that contract; that Smith and the members of the board of trustees had libeled her by the publication of a letter charging her with violating her duties and responsibilities, ³ and that she was Defendants contended generally that the discharge of Professor Endress and the rescission of her new contract were (we quote from the oral decision of the trial judge) 'all due and proper actions incumbent upon them in the exercise of their duties in their respective capacities, were in no way arbitrary, capricious or conspiratorial, and that the action did not breach any of their respective contractual obligations (with plaintiff).' President Smith asserted, additionally, that he had determined that Professor Endress had violated her duties and obligations as a member of the faculty and as advisor to the college newspaper, and, in accord with his duties and responsibilities, had recommended to the board of trustees the termination of her employment. He denied the existence of any conspiracy, as did Corderman, who also contended that he was not present at the June meeting of the board of trustees and did not participate in the action taken. Leon Zuckerman, one of the trustees, also disclaimed individual responsibility for the action of the board, in that he was absent at the time. Another board member, Joseph E. Clayton, contended that although he attended the board meeting he did not vote affirmatively for the termination and therefore could not be held liable therefor.

discharged solely by reason of her exercise of her constitutional right of 'freedom of the press, association and speech.'

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge below, sitting without a jury, entered the following judgment:

1. Defendant, BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, shall forthwith pay to the plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, the sum 2. Defendant, BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, shall forthwith pay to the appropriate trustee or agency all pension or retirement contributions, in such amount as would have been paid on behalf of plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, had she been employed at BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE between July 1, 1974 and June 30, 1975 at an annual salary of $19,121.00.

of $14,121.00 as back pay for the period of July 1, 1974 through June 30, 1975.

3. Defendant, BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, shall forthwith issue plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, an employment contract for the period July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1976, as an Assistant Professor of Journalism in the faculty of BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, which contract shall have the same force and effect as though issued for the period July 1, 1974 through June 30, 1975.

4. The aforesaid employment contract for 1975--1976 shall contain compensation for plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, in the amount she would normally have received had she been continuously employed from and after June 27, 1974, including all normal increments, fringe benefits, and contributions to pension or retirement funds.

5. By reason of the violation of the constitutional rights of plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, damages are awarded as follows:

(A) $10,000.00 compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, against individual defendants, Smith, Clark, Doremus, Fleckenstein, Garrison, Hannah and McAfee, jointly and severally; and

(B) $10,000.00 punitive damages in favor of plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, against each of the defendants, DONALD H. SMITH, MARVIN A. CLARK, MRS. T. PETER DOREMUS, WILLIAM O. FLECKENSTEIN, EARL B. GARRISON, ELLEN HANNAH and WALTER S. McAFEE, individually for a total of $70,000.00.

6. By reason of the violation of the constitutional rights of plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, attorneys' fees are awarded to WILLIAM S. GREENBERG, ESQ. in the amount of $10,000.00, and shall be paid by all individual defendants named in the preceding paragraph, jointly and severally.

7. Costs are awarded to plaintiff Endress against defendants except Corderman, Clayton and Zuckerman.

8. By reason of the interference with the contractual relationship of plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, and the prospective professional and economic advantage of plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS with BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE by defendant, DONALD H. SMITH, there shall be judgment for plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, against defendant, DONALD H 9. With respect to the claims of BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY ASSOCIATION there shall be judgment for defendants.

SMITH, with no additional money damages; provided, however, in the event the award of damages under Paragraph Five hereof is reversed on appeal, then there shall be an award of $10,000.00 compensatory damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages in favor of plaintiff, PATRICIA H. ENDRESS, against defendant, DONALD H. SMITH, individually.

10. With respect to the claims against defendants, W. PRESTON CORDERMAN and DONALD H. SMITH, as to allegations of conspiracy, there shall be judgment for said defendants.

11. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants Corderman, Clayton and Zuckerman, individually.

The grounds of appeal asserted by Brookdale Community College are that (1) the 'termination of the plaintiff, Patricia H. Endress, did not violate any constitutionally protected right,' (2) just cause existed for the termination, and (3) specific performance of plaintiff's contract of employment cannot be adjudged. President Smith contends that (1) there was no 'legal issue resolved by the court imposing any responsibility' upon him, (2) the assessment against him of additional damages in the event of appellate reversal was without validity, and (3) he 'acted in good faith upon facts he believed to be true in the exercise of his discretion and judgment' in recommending the...