THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS v. << (2016)

OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

Before this Court is Claimants amended complaint alleging breach of contract against the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (“University” or “Respondent”) where Claimant was employed as an Associate Professor at the College of Engineering. Claimants amended complaint essentially alleges that Respondent breached its contract with Claimant when it divested Claimant of his teaching responsibilities for a portion of an academic year without notice and a hearing prior to doing so. A hearing was held in this matter on December 3, 2014, before the assigned commissioner and the parties have fully briefed closing arguments before this Court.

This case has a long procedural history and was preceded by two actions in state and federal Court: Wozniak v. Corny, 288 Ill.App.3d 129, 679 N.E.2d 1255 (4th Dist. 1997) and Wozniak v. Cowry, 236 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2001). Claimants state court action, which alleged tortious interference with his employment contract, was dismissed by the court for lack of jurisdiction. Claimants federal court action, which was ultimately appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, alleged various constitutional violations, including a due process claim predicated on the allegation that the University deprived Claimant of his professorial responsibilities and privileges when it took away Claimant's teaching responsibilities without a hearing. The Seventh Circuit held that Claimant's due process rights were not violated due to the fact that Claimant was afforded a right to be heard, albeit without a formal hearing. Thus, Claimants complaint before the Seventh Circuit was dismissed. Wozniak, 236 F.3d at 890 - 891 (7th Cir. 2001).

Claimants claim before this Court alleges that Respondent breached Claimants contract on August 21, 1995, when Respondent unilaterally reassigned Claimants job duties from teaching as an Associate Professor in the Department of General Engineering to managing the website for the College of Engineering. Claimant's title as associate professor and salary and benefits were unaffected by the reassignment. Claimant alleges that the reassignment, which effectively stripped him of his teaching duties that he had previously enjoyed for a number of years, was a violation of Article X, §1(e)(8) of the University of Illinois Statutes (“University Statutes”), and thus a breach of his employment contract. Claimant maintains that under Article X, §l(e)(8), entitled “Reassignment of Duties,” his reassignment from teaching required the filing of charges and due notice and a hearing before the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (“CAFT”). Claimant also alleges that the refusal to permit him to instruct and teach students in the fall of 1995 ultimately resulted in him not being able to meet the requirements necessary for promotion to full professorship. Although Claimant's amended complaint requested compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000, at the hearing and in his post hearing brief, Claimant sought between $300,000 and $600,000 in damages, dependent upon whether he prevailed in his claim that he was deprived a promotion to full professor. Claimants damages are based upon his assertion that his salary suffered because of his 1995 administrative reassignment and, hence, he was not able to obtain the level of salary increases that he otherwise would have had if he were teaching. Claimant, who has subsequently retired, also asserts that his diminished salary negatively impacted his ultimate retirement benefits.

The University denies that Claimant suffered a breach of contract or any rights afforded to him and further denies that Claimant suffered any monetary damages by the temporary reassignment of job duties. The University takes the position that the Dean of the College of Engineering was totally within his rights to reassign Claimant and that Article X, § 1(e)(8) of the University Statutes, as in effect at the time of Claimants reassignment in 1995, did not apply in Claimants instance and as such, notice and a hearing were not required prior to removing Claimants teaching responsibilities.

FACTS

Claimant began his employment with the University as an assistant professor around 1967. Prior to that, Claimant was a student at the University and received his Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering, as well as his Master of Science and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering. Claimant progressed in his career and in 1974 was promoted to associate professor in the College of Engineering. In August of 1995, Claimant was removed from his teaching duties and was assigned computer programming duties to integrate the College of Engineering into the Worldwide Web. This reassignment was done without a hearing before the CAFT as, in Claimants position, is required by the University Statutes. The University maintains that a hearing was not required as the provision relied upon by Claimant only applies to dismissals from employment. It is undisputed that the University never dismissed Claimant from employment with the University and that Claimants title as associate professor and salary were unaffected by the reassignment.

The events leading up to the University's decision to remove Claimant's teaching responsibilities in 1995 center around his refusal to turn in his grade books for a general engineering course section taught by him, GE 103, which course had multiple sections, taught by various professors. Professor Michael Pleck was the lead instructor for the course. Professor Pleck noticed irregularities in the administration of Claimant's class section and requested several times that Claimant turn in his grade books for the class section taught by Claimant by the end of the 1994 fall semester. Although Claimant turned in the actual grades assigned for his students, Claimant denied the request to turn in his grade books because he maintained that the grade books were not University property but were his personal notes.

Claimant persisted in his refusal despite numerous demands from increasingly high authorities of the Universitys hierarchy. Specifically, the head of the Department of General Engineering, Thomas Conry, advised Claimant that the refusal to turn over the grade books would be considered insubordination and would be taken into account in Claimants annual evaluation and performance. In addition, the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs for the College of Engineering, Rosco Pershing, directed Claimant to submit information regarding the grade book record request, but Claimant refused on the grounds that he had requested the intervention of the University Chancellor, Michael Aiken. However, Chancellor Aiken advised Claimant on June 20, 1995, that he did not agree with Claimants position and refused to intervene. The Dean of the College of Engineering, Professor William Showalter, as well as the Faculty Advisory Committee, instructed Claimant to turn in the grade books and gave Claimant one last deadline to turn in the grade materials or explain himself. Claimant let the deadline pass in silence and failed to provide the grade books. Accordingly, on August 21, 1995, Claimant was notified that, commencing the 1995 fall semester, he was being reassigned from his teaching duties to certain computer programming duties associated with the College of Engineering Worldwide Web and other duties in connection with laboratory safety. Although his duties were reassigned, his title of associate professor remained unchanged.

Before the August 21, 1995 decision, Claimants department head, Thomas Conry, recommended a zero percent salary increase due to Claimants insubordination surrounding the gradebooks and Claimants subsequent conduct involving Claimants disclosure of the dispute to University students enrolled in his class in the spring semester of 1995. The zero raise recommendation was accepted by the Dean of the College of Engineering. As such, Claimant maintained his preceding salary for the subsequent academic year.

On October 20, 1995, Claimant filed a complaint before the CAFT, a recommending body of the University, regarding the Deans mandate that he turn over his grade books and decision to assign Claimant to non-teaching duties. Claimant argued before the CAFT that the demand to turn over his grading materials was a violation of the Universitys policy of academic freedom and further argued that his reassignment was done in violation of the University Statutes, specifically the requirement that a hearing be held prior to reassignment. On March 19,1996, the CAFT issued a report concluding that Claimants right to academic freedom was not violated by the Deans requirement that Claimant turn in his grading materials. The CAFT also concluded that, although the provision for “Reassignment of Duties” as set forth in the University Statutes only applied in the context of dismissal proceedings, Claimant should have been afforded due process prior to his reassignment. Essentially, the CAFT concluded that the only way to effectuate a reassignment from teaching and afford due process was to initiate dismissal proceedings. Accordingly, the CAFT recommended that the University either reinstate Claimant to a suitable teaching assignment or initiate dismissal proceedings against him. On June 13, 1996, the President of the University issued his written disposition on the CAFTs report whereby he declined to accept the CAFTs conclusion surrounding the issue of Reassignment. Nevertheless, thereafter, in July of 1996, Claimant was reassigned back to teaching duties commencing the spring term of the 1996-1997 academic year.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Claimant asserts that the temporary reassignment that removed him from his teaching role was a violation of Article X, §1(e)(8) of the University Statutes, and thus a breach of his employment contract. In order for Claimant to prevail in his breach of contract claim, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following: (1) the existence of a contract; [2] the Claimants performance of all contractual conditions required of him; (3) the Respondents breach of the contract; and (4) damages that resulted from the breach. Finch v. Illinois Community College Board, 315 Ill.App.3d 831, 836, 734 N.E.2d 106, 110 (5th Dist. 2000), citing Nuccio v. Chicago Commodities, Inc., 257 Ill.App.3d 437, 628 N.E.2d 1134 (1993).

It is undisputed by the parties that the University Statutes, as written in 1995, create an employment contract with Claimant and govern the matter at hand. As such, Claimant has established the existence of a contract and has proven the first element of a contract claim. However, although Claimant has established the existence of a contract, Claimant has failed to establish the remaining elements of a contract claim.

Specifically, Claimant has failed to establish that the University breached the contract. The parties agree that the interpretation of Article X, §1(e)(8) of the University Statutes, as written in 1995, is central to the resolution of this issue. Claimant asserts that Article X, §1(e)(8) of the University Statutes required that notice and a hearing be held prior to his temporary reassignment to non-teaching duties. This Court does not agree with such an interpretation.

The 1995 version of Article X, §1(e)(8) of the University Statutes reads as follows:

e. Proceedings seeking the dismissal before the expiration of the term of appointment of an appointee to the academic staff who is on definite tenure or of an appointee to the academic staff who is on indefinite tenure, shall comply with the procedures described in the following provisions of this section:

*

(8) Reassignment of Duties. Under exceptional circumstances, and when such action is clearly necessary and justified, the president may direct that a faculty member be relieved of some or all of the faculty members University duties and reassigned to others, without prejudice, and without loss of compensation, pending the final decision of the case, subject to the following provisions: (a) the president may reassign duties before the filing of any charges only after giving notice to the chair or, in the absence of the chair from the University, to some member of the Faculty Advisory Committee, that the president believes that cause for dismissal may exist; (b) if the president reassigns duties after so giving notice to the chair or some member of the Faculty Advisory Committee, such reassignment shall terminate within thirty days after that committee has made its recommendations to the president unless the president initiates dismissal proceedings by the filing of charges for dismissal within that thirty-day period; and (c) if the president initiates dismissal proceedings by filing charges for dismissal, the president may reassign duties or extend a previous dismissal if proceedings should result in dismissal.

A plain reading of Article X, §1(e)(8), illustrates that the procedural requirements for a reassignment of duties was limited to circumstances involving pending actions for the dismissal or discharge of an employee. This provision is not broadly applicable, as argued by Claimant, to a reassignment of duties where the continued employment of the employee is not at issue. In this case, it is undisputed that the University never attempted to dismiss Claimant. As such, the due process provisions contained in Article X, §1(e)(8), did not apply in Claimant's case and the University was not required to afford Claimant written notice or a hearing prior to the Deans decision to temporarily reassign him from teaching.

Moreover, the Court concludes that the Dean of the College of Engineering was acting within his authority under Article III of the University Statutes when he made the decision to reassign Claimant. Article III recognizes the Dean as the chief executive officer of his or her respective College with full responsibility for its administration. As such, the Dean maintained the authority to assign professors as he sought fit.

The evidence before the Court confirmed that although a tenured professor has a right to employment, a professor has no right, per se, to teaching duties. Some professors teach, some research, some perform administrative tasks, and some perform a combination of all duties. The undisputed evidence illustrates that throughout Claimant's employment, even during his period of reassignment, he maintained his professorial title and his salary was not reduced nor were any benefits taken away. The University maintained the right to reassign Claimant and to effectuate that right without affording Claimant notice and a hearing. Accordingly, Claimant has failed to prove that the University committed a breach of his contractual rights.

In addition to our conclusion that the University did not breach the contract and that a hearing was not required, the Court further concludes that Claimant, by his refusal to turn over the grading materials, failed to perform all of his obligations of employment. It is undisputed that Claimant did not submit the grade books as directed by his academic superiors, which direction was both lawful and reasonable. Thus, Claimant did not meet all of the employment conditions required of him and such conduct defeats Claimants contention of breach of contract.

Since the Court has concluded that no breach of employment contract can be found on the facts before this Court, damages need not be considered. However, this Court notes that even if Claimant prevailed on his breach of contract claim, Claimant failed to sufficiently prove damages. The evidence before this Court is entirely speculative as to whether or not Claimant would have ever become a full professor but for the temporary reassignment, especially in light of the fact that Claimant failed to achieve such a distinction for 28 years prior to his reassignment in 1995, as well as after he recommenced his teaching duties in 1996. Further, Claimant failed to present reliable evidence that he would have, in fact, received raises for the time period in question as raises are discretionary. Thus, even if Claimant could have established a breach of contract claim, Claimant failed to sufficiently prove that he suffered damages.

CONCLUSION

While Claimant was not entitled to notice and a hearing under the University Statutes and the Dean of the Universitys College of Engineering was within his authority to temporarily reassign Claimant from teaching duties, Claimants breach of contract claim fails. Wherefore, for the above and foregoing reasons, the Court denies Claimants claim in its entirely and dismisses this matter with prejudice.

STORINO, J.