Implications of Non-Renewal for a Faculty Members Career Path - Case Study Example

Paper Question In Roth, the Court refuses to find a protected liberty interest because the plaintiff was "simply not rehired." Does the Court mean to suggest that the plaintiff was not injured by the non-renewal What are the implications of non-renewal for a faculty member's career path P.242 In Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, the Supreme Court held that a non tenured teacher does not have a property interest in his or her teaching position. Likewise, the Supreme Court also found that a public college professor dismissed from an office held under tenure provisions, and college professors and staff members dismissed during the terms of their contracts, have property interests in continued employment. Thus because the public college professors and staff members dismissed from an office held under tenure have a property interest in their jobs, the property interest is safeguarded by due process. Thus, the Court made it clear that due process is required when depriving an individual of his property right, including a public employee's earned tenure. Additionally, the court has also made it clear that the property interest must be a present one and not one perceived or one that a person might have in the future. Here, the court is not saying that Roth was not injured. Indeed the question is not actually answered because the court's examination ends once they conclude that that Roth's position is not one that is a vested property right and therefore not subject to constitution protection. As the court noted: "In these circumstances, the respondent surely had an abstract concern in being rehired, but he did not have a property interest sufficient to require the University authorities to give him a hearing when they declined to renew his contract of employment." Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide what if an injury was suffered by Roth, because his constitutional rights have not been affected. Once the federal court concludes that there is no jurisdiction, that is the end of the inquiry. As to" implications of non-renewal for a faculty member's career path" I think that the implications are rather clear. If one in applying for a position at a public school or university, they are best advised to learn first what the tenured track is, and further to understand that without tenure, there is not a property right thus no protectionsat least on a constitutional level. Question 2 - What institutional practices or policies may create a constitutionally -protected property interest in one's job May faculty members in private institutions have such a property interest in their jobs Board of Regents v Roth demonstrates the Federal Courts' definition of property for constitutional purposes and due process protection examination. Against that backdrop, I would say that a public facility such as a state hospital, public school or library that has the offering of a position which can be substantially likened to the tenure track of a public university is one that could create a constitutionally protected property right. A crucial point to remember though is that the Court concluded that Roth had no "liberty" interest in any specific teaching job, and that he had no "property" interest in his job because he lacked "a legitimate claim of entitlement" under state law to his job. Property interests, the Court stress, must be found in the statutory or common law of the jurisdiction. Thus if there is no statutory or common law authority regarding the position, there is no constitutional protection to be afforded. Without a legitimate claim of entitlement to his job, the Court reasoned, there is nothing to have a hearing about. Faculty members in the private sector do not have any constitutional protections in a privately held university. The United States Constitution does not apply to every form of employment in the United States. The first issue with any federal claim is that it had to have been committed by a state actor and under color of state law. The federal courts do not have constitutional jurisdiction therefore over the acts of a private college or university. Their jurisdiction is limited to the examination of state actors. Accordingly, faculty members in private institutions do not have a property interest in their jobs. Problem 6 Question 2 What factual information does the administration need before making the decision The administration must firstly decide whether professor Gemi is the only female professor available to the school at the salary that the school can pay. Secondly the administration should also be evaluating whom if any, faculty would be eligible for a merit raise next year. Additionally, the university should scale the pay progression of the proposed professor to their university as against that which the other university is offering because while they may be able to match the university pay for now, down the line, they may not be able to. Moreover, the question arises as to whether the professor would eventually be on the tenure track and if that does happen, will the university be able to afford it. What legal information does it need Although elite university is a private institution and not subject to constitutional confines, it must be noted that naturally, faculty members cannot be expected to sit back and not be entitled to merit pay because the administration had to satisfy a quota. The university needs to know what searches and the results therefrom of equally qualified applicants. They must also be able to demonstrate the diligent searches that have they endeavored in which to find appropriate female faculty members. I think that it will be crucial to demonstrate to the affirmative action committee that efforts have been made to find the scholarly equivalent to this female applicant and that ultimately the school is acting against its' interests in foregoing earned merit pay to professors in favor of satisfying a bald affirmative action requirement. Simply stated, if the diligent efforts have indeed been made to find a female faculty member without putting the university's other professors at risk, than there is no affirmative action violation. Problem 6 Question 5 Would the legal issues change if Dr. Gemini had not received an outside offer, but merely demanded a bigger salary and threatened to leave if the university didn't comply I think that the issues would still be very much the same. As I noted earlier, this is a private university so the issues are not so cut and dry as they would be if it was a public university. If Dr. Gemini wants to leave the university , she is certainly welcome to. . Read More