EDMS 550 - Legal Brief

LEGAL BRIEF

Citation: Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564  (1972)

Topic:  Procedural due process

Issue: Does a non-tenured professor have rights to procedural due process, as granted by the Fourteenth Amendment, after employment at a university has been terminated?

Facts:  Mr. Roth was hired in 1968 by Wisconsin State University–Oshkosh as a non-tenured professor of political science for one academic year. After Mr. Roth completed the academic year for which he was hired, the university did not rehire him for the next academic year. Mr. Roth brought legal action alleging that his Fourteenth Amendment Rights were deprived on two grounds. First, Mr. Roth claimed the university did not rehire him because he criticized administrators at the university during his year of employment. Second, Mr. Roth claimed the university was either required to provide him a reason for not rehiring him or was required to hold a hearing with Mr. Roth prior to deciding not to retain him. A district court granted summary judgment on the procedural due process issue and remanded the case to the Supreme Court.

Findings: The Supreme Court ruled the Fourteenth Amendment did not entitle Mr. Roth to an explanation from the university or to a hearing regarding his employment with the university.

Rationale:  The Fourteenth Amendment provides rights to due process for instances in which “liberty” or “property” interests are infringed. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Roth’s “liberty” interests were not infringed because the university, in deciding not to rehire Mr. Roth, did nothing to harm or prevent him from future employment opportunities. Mr. Roth’s inability to successfully prove the university did not rehire him because of critical remarks he made about the university influenced the conclusion by the Supreme Court that Mr. Roth’s right to free speech had not been deprived. The Supreme Court also ruled Mr. Roth’s “property” interests were not infringed because the university created his employment and the terms of his employment provided no benefit other than employment for one academic year. Since Mr. Roth was employed for the full academic year, his “property” interests to employment at the university were not deprived. The Supreme Court referenced a state law providing for protections for professors employed at state universities. The state law provided due process protections for tenured professors. Mr. Roth, a non-tenured professor, was not entitled to the same protections afforded tenured professors. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Roth had no recourse, via a hearing or receiving explanations, against the university.

Implications: Several cases have decided issues of procedural due process and the decisions have varied depending on the specific circumstances of each case. The Court did address and define terms such as “liberty” and “property” interests as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bibliography:  http://supreme.justia.com/us/408/564/case.html