Leon v. Boise State University

• Decision Date: 21 March 1994
• Docket Number: No. 20491,20491
• Citation: 125 Idaho 365,870 P.2d 1324
• Parties: , 90 Ed. Law Rep. 456 Manuel LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY; and Linda Anooshian, individually and in her official capacity as Chair of the Psychology Department at Boise State University, Defendants-Respondents. Boise, January 1994 Term
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 1324

870 P.2d 1324

125 Idaho 365, 90 Ed. Law Rep. 456

Manuel LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY; and Linda Anooshian, individually and in her official capacity as Chair of the Psychology Department at Boise State University, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 20491.

Supreme Court of Idaho,

Boise, January 1994 Term.

March 21, 1994.

Skinner, Fawcett & Mauk, Boise, for appellant. Chris Kronberg, argued.

Hall, Farley, Oberrecht & Blanton, P.A.; and Lojek, Gabbert & Strother, Boise, attys. for respondents. Donald J. Farley and Donald W. Lojek, argued.

JOHNSON, Justice.

This is a public employment case, arising out of the decision of Boise State University (BSU) to issue a "terminal contract," rather than a "renewal contract," to a faculty member.

We conclude that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment dismissing the faculty member's claims for breach of contract, denial of due process of law, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional interference with contract.

I.

THE BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS.

In August 1985, Manuel Leon was hired by BSU as an assistant professor in the psychology department (the department) pursuant to a one year contract. BSU renewed Leon's employment each year, through the 1990-1991 school year, by means of a one-year contract.

The BSU faculty handbook (the handbook) provides that the department chair shall provide for an annual performance evaluation of all official faculty members of the department. The chair must send a copy of the final evaluation to the faculty member by April 1, covering the faculty member's performance during the previous calendar year.

The handbook also provides that faculty members become eligible to apply for tenure during the fifth year of service, and that all faculty members must apply for tenure no later than during the seventh year of service. The state board of education (the state board) policies require that no later than the seventh full year of a faculty member's employment, the faculty member must be evaluated for tenure. IDAPA 08.00.B.10,1.

The "tenure guidelines" that applied to the department in 1990 provided that faculty members were required to apply for tenure no later than during their sixth year of employment.

In the summer of 1990, Dr. Linda Anooshian, chair of the department, sent a memorandum to Leon suggesting that he submit tenure materials that fall for consideration by the department. Anooshian said in this memorandum:

In putting these materials together for you, I was surprised to find that, in the 1984 guidelines, application for tenure was not required until the seventh year (rather than the sixth year, as in current policy). Hence, although I would not recommend it, you could technically delay your application for tenure until your seventh year. Also, although the 1984 policy suggests other options, you should understand that a failure to achieve tenure would lead to a terminal contract for the following year.

In an affidavit submitted in this lawsuit, Leon states that following receipt of this memo, he met with Anooshian to discuss the timing of his tenure application and that he informed Anooshian that for "personal and professional" reasons he did not want to submit his tenure materials until the fall of 1991. Leon further states: "I believe Dr. Anooshian understood my intention regarding my application for tenure because she specifically agreed that I could wait until the Fall of 1991 to apply for tenure; she clearly understood and agreed that I would submit my tenure materials at that time."

In a deposition taken in this lawsuit, Anooshian states that Leon indicated to her after receiving the memo that he planned to submit materials for tenure consideration. According to Anooshian, it was several months later when Leon communicated to her that he wished to delay his tenure application until the fall of 1991. Anooshian states that she cautioned Leon against such a delay and that she informed Leon she anticipated problems with his tenure application.

In late October or early November 1990, Anooshian met with the departmental personnel committee (the committee) to discuss Leon's performance and to consider issuing him a terminal contract. The committee reached a tentative decision to recommend that BSU issue a terminal contract to Leon for the ensuing academic year. On November 28, 1990, Anooshian advised Leon about the committee's tentative conclusions regarding his 1991-1992 employment contract. She also invited Leon to submit to her by January 10, 1991, any additional materials that he would like the committee to consider.

In his affidavit, Leon states that during the fall of 1990 he was not told that his performance was being reviewed or that a terminal contract was being considered. Furthermore, Leon states that he was not provided an opportunity to participate in the review process. Leon also notes that he was unable to provide Anooshian with any supporting materials during the fall "due to the demands of fulfilling my professional duties and due to health problems stemming from severe allergies."

In early January 1991, Leon wrote to Richard L. Hart, dean of the BSU college of education, expressing his displeasure with Anooshian's "unscheduled review" and asking Hart to mediate his dispute with Anooshian. Hart advised Leon that he was "completely willing to receive and carefully consider any materials which [Leon] wish[ed] to supply which would assist [Hart] in making a decision [regarding a terminal contract]." Leon subsequently submitted materials to Hart for this purpose. In late February, however, Hart advised Leon by written memorandum that, after considering Leon's materials and Anooshian's recommendations, he had chosen to recommend to BSU's executive vice president, Larry Selland, that Leon's 1991-1992 contract be a terminal contract.

Leon wrote to Selland expressing his concerns with the review process and met with Selland on April 9, 1991. According to Leon, Selland informed him that it would be difficult to overturn the negative recommendations from Anooshian and Hart. Several weeks later, Selland telephoned Leon and told him that he had spoken with Anooshian and had decided not to reverse Anooshian's recommendation to issue Leon a terminal contract. Selland forwarded his recommendation regarding the terminal contract to the BSU president for official action.

Leon subsequently received a terminal contract for the 1991-1992 academic year, which he signed under protest and returned to BSU along with a "Notice of Claim for Breach of Contract and Tort Damages."

Several months before the expiration of his terminal contract, Leon sued BSU and Anooshian, alleging: (1) BSU and Anooshian breached his employment contract by issuing a terminal contract; (2) BSU and Anooshian violated his civil rights by denying him equal protection, procedural, and substantive due process; (3) BSU and Anooshian breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by issuing a terminal contract motivated by personal antagonism or callous disregard of the truth; and (4) Anooshian, individually, intentionally interfered with Leon's employment relationship with BSU by conducting a "special review" in derogation of BSU's established employment policies and procedures.

Acting on a motion for summary judgment filed by BSU and Anooshian, the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Leon's claims. Leon appealed.

II.

THERE ARE NO GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LEON'S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM.

Leon asserts that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning whether BSU and Anooshian breached his employment contract by conducting a "special review" which resulted in a decision to issue a terminal contract. We disagree.

Leon focuses his argument on the following policy of the state board that governs faculty evaluations at BSU:

Each year the chairman of a department must submit to the dean of the chairman's college an evaluation of each faculty member in the department. This evaluation, together with the opinion of higher administrators, will be used as one basis for the final recommendation relative to reappointment [or] nonreappointment ...

IDAPA 08.00.B.13,1.

In Leon's view, this policy prohibited Anooshian from reviewing Leon's performance between annual reviews. This overlooks, however, the fact that the policies and procedures of the state board also require that a faculty member receive twelve months' notice of a contract non-renewal. IDAPA 08.00.B.12. Leon's interpretation would prevent BSU from making any employment decisions except in the context of an annual review. Additionally, the state board's policies and procedures also provide that the employment of a faculty member who has not attained tenure is subject to non-renewal with or without cause. Id. Pursuant to these state board policies and procedures, BSU had the authority to terminate Leon prior to his attaining tenure by giving him twelve months' notice.

Leon also contends that BSU breached a promise Anooshian made to him. He states in his affidavit that Anooshian "specifically agreed that [he] could wait until the Fall of 1991 to apply for tenure ..."

The fundamental problem with this claim is that the policies of the state board that apply to BSU provide: "Any commitment to employ a nontenured member of the faculty beyond the period of his or her current appointment is wholly ineffective without prior approval of the Board." IDAPA 08.00.B.10. There is no evidence that the state board approved employment of Leon beyond his annual contract. Therefore, even if Anooshian had promised Leon that he could defer his tenure application until the seventh year, this would have been an unauthorized act and wholly ineffective.

III.

THERE ARE NO GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LEON'S CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF...