Kakaes v. George Washington University
2002 D.C. App. LEXIS 22, 790 A.2d 581, 2002 WL 122146 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts will generally not grant the equitable remedy of specific performance for a breach of a personal services contract, such as an employment agreement, even if the contract specifies that remedy. Public policy disfavors compelling an employer to maintain an employment relationship, especially in academic tenure decisions, when an adequate remedy at law, such as monetary damages, is available.
Facts:
- Professor Apostólos K. Kakaes was an Assistant Professor at George Washington University (the University) on a tenure-accruing track since his appointment in 1987.
- The University's Faculty Code, which constituted the contract between the parties, required the University to notify a professor in writing by June 30 of the preceding year if they would not be granted tenure at the end of their term.
- The Faculty Code further stipulated that any such faculty member who is not so notified 'shall acquire tenure at the end of the term.'
- On June 28, 1993, the University's vice president sent Kakaes a letter stating that he 'will not be granted tenure at the conclusion of your current appointment.'
- However, the same letter also stated that the matter was still being transmitted to the Board of Trustees for its consideration and that Kakaes would be 'notified of the outcome as soon as possible.'
- In a separate letter to the department chairman, the vice president confirmed that Kakaes's 'ultimate tenuring or termination remains to be resolved.'
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Kakaes sued George Washington University in the Superior Court for breach of contract.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the University.
- Dr. Kakaes (appellant) appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial (in a decision known as Kakaes I).
- On remand, a non-jury trial was held in the Superior Court.
- The trial judge found that the University had breached its contract but awarded Dr. Kakaes $75,018 in monetary damages instead of ordering specific performance (tenure).
- Dr. Kakaes appealed the trial court's judgment regarding the remedy to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract provision stating that a faculty member 'shall acquire tenure' if not properly notified of denial require a court to grant specific performance (the award of tenure) as a remedy for the employer's breach, or may the court exercise its discretion and award monetary damages instead?
Opinions:
Majority - Schwelb, J.
No. A contract provision stating that an employee 'shall acquire tenure' does not bind a court to grant specific performance as a remedy. The court retains its equitable discretion to award monetary damages where that remedy is adequate, particularly for personal services contracts, due to a strong public policy against compelled employment. The court reasoned that specific performance is an extraordinary remedy disfavored when an adequate remedy at law, like damages, exists. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that personal service contracts, especially for university teachers, are not enforceable by specific performance because it would be 'intolerable for the courts to interject themselves' into the academic employment relationship. Furthermore, there is a significant public policy concern against allowing tenure to be granted by default due to administrative neglect or oversight. The court concluded that a contractual clause providing for a specific remedy does not strip the court of its discretion to weigh these policy concerns and choose a more appropriate remedy.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the long-standing judicial reluctance to order specific performance for personal services contracts, particularly in the sensitive area of academic tenure. It clarifies that even explicit contractual language specifying an equitable remedy (like the grant of tenure) does not override a court's inherent equitable discretion. The case establishes a strong precedent that public policy concerns, such as maintaining academic standards and avoiding forced employment relationships, can outweigh the parties' bargained-for remedies. Consequently, future plaintiffs in similar breach of contract cases against universities are far more likely to receive monetary damages than court-ordered reinstatement or tenure.
Unlock the full brief for Kakaes v. George Washington University