Court Declines Interfering in Yale University's Tenure Process

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Neiman v. Yale University, a professor sued a university alleging breach of his employment contract and an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing  arising from the university’s denial of tenure to the professor. A breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which an agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties by their non-performance or interference with the other party’s performance. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general understanding that parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as not to infringe on the right of the other party to enjoy the contract.

An advisory committee turned down the professor's first application for tenure. When the professor received an offer for a tenured position in Germany, she again requested tenure. After some time had passed and the professor had not received a response to her renewed request for tenure, she learned that the department chairman had not told the advisory committee of her offer, nor of her request to be considered for tenure. Her request was again denied, and the professor accepted employment elsewhere. The professor claims that her repeated denial of tenure was wrongfully breached, because the school was inconsistent and misleading during her process. A Connecticut court must be careful not to substitute its judgment improperly for the academic judgment of the school. A university's prerogative to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach is an important part of our long tradition of academic freedom. This academic freedom is rooted in the First Amendment. First Amendment protection of academic freedom prevents courts from substituting their judgment for the judgment of the school. In other words, courts should not become Super-Tenure Review Committees.

The appellate court held that the professor was estopped, or legally barred, from denying that the university's handbook constituted a contract and the trial court properly determined that a contract existed as a matter of law. Yale University’s handbook contained specific procedures and provisions to the tenure and appeal process. The appellate court further held that the exhaustion of remedies doctrine applied to the internal grievance processes provided by academic institutions. The professor did not pursue any of the internal grievance procedures provided in the handbook before seeking other employment. Furthermore, the professor failed to show that it would have been futile to attempt to exhaust her administrative remedies.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Neiman v. Yale Univ., 270 Conn. 244, 851 A.2d 1165, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 297, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1078 (Conn. 2004)