Tuesday, August 7, 2012
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit yesterday affirmed the district court's ruling that the termination of Lynn S. Branham, former associate dean and tenured professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School, was not improper. Branham v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, No. 10-2305 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012):
Branham was a tenured law professor at Cooley at the time of her termination. She began teaching there in 1983, and primarily taught courses in criminal law. She suffered from seizures on occasion. She signed an employment contract dated December 21, 2005, for a twelve-month employment period beginning January 1, 2006. For the spring semester of 2006, Branham was assigned to teach classes in constitutional law and torts. Branham told Cooley Dean Donald LeDuc that she did not want to teach either class, citing health reasons and her preference for, and greater experience with, teaching criminal law-related courses. Despite her complaint to LeDuc, she taught the courses she was assigned through the spring semester of 2006. During the summer of 2006, Branham sold her house in Michigan, moved to Champaign, Illinois, and requested and was granted a leave of absence from Cooley. Though she was assigned to teach constitutional law after her return from leave, she refused to do so, instead asking to be assigned a criminal law class. LeDuc dismissed Branham from her position in December 2006.
Branham’s contract ... does not create an obligation of continuous employment: her contract expressly limits its term to a single year. While Branham may have had “tenure” in the sense that she had academic freedom, and that she and Cooley generally expected that they would enter a new employment contract in subsequent years, nothing in her employment contract, or the documents incorporated by reference therein, provides for a term of employment greater than one year. The district court did not err in concluding that Branham is due only the employment protection and process specified in her contract. ...
Branham’s tenure does not provide additional privileges or protections other than those specified in her employment contract. The process by which the faculty conference reviewed and concurred in LeDuc’s dismissal of Branham was sufficient to comply with Branham’s employment contract and federal and Michigan law.
- ABA Journal, 6th Circuit Rules Tenure Didn’t Protect Fired Cooley Law Prof, Cites One-Year Contract Term
- Chronicle of Higher Education, Court Rejects Law Professor's Assertion That 'Tenure' Means Continuous Employment
- National Law Journal, Tenure Didn't Protect Law Professor's Job, Sixth Circuit Rules
- Thomas Cooley Press Release, U.S. Court of Appeals Finds in Favor of Cooley Law School
Prior TaxProf Blog coverage:
- Former Associate Dean Sues Law School for Switching Her Course Assignments (July 6, 2007)
- Nepotism Allegations Dog Cooley Law School (July 26, 2007)
- Federal Court Orders School to Give Tenure Hearing to Fired Law Prof (Sept. 9, 2009)
- Judge: 'Insubordination Necessarily Has Real Consequences in the Workplace, Even for Tenured Faculty' (Sept. 14, 2010)