Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractstatutehearingsummary judgmentdue process
contracthearingsummary judgmentdue processrespondent

Related Cases

Wright v. Bonds, 117 F.3d 1427, 1997 WL 377111 (Table)
View Case »
Dontae Scott v. State of Hawaii Dept. of Educ., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 564709
View Case »
Jones v. Childers, 18 F.3d 899, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 8529, 40 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 843
View Case »
Frye v. Yasi, 327 Mass. 724, 101 N.E.2d 128
View Case »
Evans v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC, 231 F.Supp.3d 342, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 12,830
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

The Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 1 IER Cases 23

Facts

David Roth, an assistant professor at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh, was hired for a fixed term of one academic year and informed that he would not be rehired for the following year. Roth had no tenure rights and was not provided with a reason for his non-retention. He alleged that the decision not to rehire him infringed his Fourteenth Amendment rights, claiming both a violation of his free speech rights and a lack of procedural due process. The District Court granted summary judgment in his favor on the procedural issue, requiring the university to provide reasons and a hearing.

In 1968 the respondent, David Roth, was hired for his first teaching job as assistant professor of political science at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh. He was hired for a fixed term of one academic year. The notice of his faculty appointment specified that his employment would begin on September 1, 1968, and would end on June 30, 1969. The respondent completed that term. But he was informed that he would not be rehired for the next academic year.

Issue

Did the university's decision not to rehire Roth violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty and property without due process?

Did the university's decision not to rehire Roth violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty and property without due process?

Rule

The Fourteenth Amendment's procedural due process protections apply only to the deprivation of interests that are encompassed by its protection of liberty and property. A person must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to a benefit to have a property interest protected by due process. The state must provide a hearing when a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake due to government action.

The requirements of procedural due process apply only to deprivation of interests encompassed by Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property, and when protected interests are implicated the right to some kind of prior hearing is paramount. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

Analysis

In this case, the court found that Roth was not deprived of a protected liberty interest because the university did not make any charges against him that would damage his reputation or foreclose future employment opportunities. Additionally, Roth's employment terms did not create a property interest in reemployment, as there were no statutory or university rules securing such an interest. Therefore, the university was not required to provide a hearing or reasons for its decision not to rehire him.

To determine whether due process requirements apply in the first place, court must look not to the 'weight' but to the nature of the interest at stake and must look to see if the interest is within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, concluding that Roth did not have a protected liberty or property interest that required the university to provide a hearing before deciding not to renew his contract.

We must conclude that the summary judgment for the respondent should not have been granted, since the respondent has not shown that he was deprived of liberty or property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case was the Wisconsin State University. The Supreme Court held that Roth did not have a protected property interest in his employment, as his contract did not guarantee reemployment and there were no state statutes or university policies that created such an interest. The court emphasized that the absence of charges or stigma against Roth meant that his non-renewal did not implicate his liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court has held that a public college professor dismissed from an office held under tenure provisions, Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692, and college professors and staff members dismissed during the terms of their contracts, Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 97 L.Ed. 216, have interests in continued employment that are safeguarded by due process.

You must be