Board of Regents of State
Colleges v. Roth case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct.
2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548, 1 IER Cases 23 (1972)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner,
a board of regents of state colleges, sought review of a decision
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
which held that respondent professor was wrongfully terminated from
his teaching job in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to
due process.
FACTS: The professor was hired for his first teaching job as an assistant professor at a state-run university. He was hired for a fixed term of one year and was not re-hired the following year. The professor brought suit against the university alleging that he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process because the university never gave him a reason for their decision not to re-hire him and further he had no opportunity to challenge their decision at a hearing. The lower court granted summary judgment on the procedural issue and ordered the university to provide the professor with reasons and a hearing. The appellate court affirmed and the board of regents sought review. On review, the Court held that the professor had no protected interest in continued employment, as he had completed his contracted for term, therefore, there could be no Fourteenth Amendment protection. The decision of the lower court and the appellate court was reversed and the case was remanded.
CONCLUSION: The Court reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in the professor's favor.
FACTS: The professor was hired for his first teaching job as an assistant professor at a state-run university. He was hired for a fixed term of one year and was not re-hired the following year. The professor brought suit against the university alleging that he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process because the university never gave him a reason for their decision not to re-hire him and further he had no opportunity to challenge their decision at a hearing. The lower court granted summary judgment on the procedural issue and ordered the university to provide the professor with reasons and a hearing. The appellate court affirmed and the board of regents sought review. On review, the Court held that the professor had no protected interest in continued employment, as he had completed his contracted for term, therefore, there could be no Fourteenth Amendment protection. The decision of the lower court and the appellate court was reversed and the case was remanded.
CONCLUSION: The Court reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in the professor's favor.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment