Perry v. Sindermann 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. 593, 92 S. Ct.
2694, 33 L. Ed. 2d 570, 1 IER Cases 33 (1972)
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Petitioners, members of the Board of Regents and president of the
affected college, sought review of a decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that respondent, a
former college professor, was entitled to pursue a lawsuit against
the college for termination of his employment.
FACTS: Respondent was a teacher at a state college. Petitioners, the Board of Regents and the college president, hired him for four successive years under a series of one-year contracts. When respondent's last contract expired, the Board of Regents voted not to offer the teacher a new contract. The regents issued a press release setting forth allegations of the teacher's insubordination; however, they offered no official statement for the nonrenewal of his contract and they allowed him no hearing. The teacher brought suit, claiming that the nonrenewal of his contract was inappropriately based on his criticism of the regents and the college president and was therefore a violation of his right to free speech. The regents argued that a nontenured teacher had no right to continued employment. The Supreme Court held that the right to free speech was totally separate from the issue of tenure and that a factual determination was required. The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court that a mere subjective "expectancy" was protected by procedural due process but agreed that the teacher had to be given an opportunity to prove the legitimacy of his claim and a right to a hearing.
CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, which held that respondent, a former college professor, was entitled to pursue a lawsuit against the college for termination of his employment.
FACTS: Respondent was a teacher at a state college. Petitioners, the Board of Regents and the college president, hired him for four successive years under a series of one-year contracts. When respondent's last contract expired, the Board of Regents voted not to offer the teacher a new contract. The regents issued a press release setting forth allegations of the teacher's insubordination; however, they offered no official statement for the nonrenewal of his contract and they allowed him no hearing. The teacher brought suit, claiming that the nonrenewal of his contract was inappropriately based on his criticism of the regents and the college president and was therefore a violation of his right to free speech. The regents argued that a nontenured teacher had no right to continued employment. The Supreme Court held that the right to free speech was totally separate from the issue of tenure and that a factual determination was required. The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court that a mere subjective "expectancy" was protected by procedural due process but agreed that the teacher had to be given an opportunity to prove the legitimacy of his claim and a right to a hearing.
CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, which held that respondent, a former college professor, was entitled to pursue a lawsuit against the college for termination of his employment.
---
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