Kish v. Iowa Central Community College

District Court, N.D. Iowa
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7929, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 2001 WL 589401 (2001)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A public employee under an 'at pleasure' employment contract lacks the protected property interest necessary for a due process claim, and an employee who voluntarily abandons their position after being reinstated cannot claim breach of contract based on discharge.

Facts:

In September 1999, Plaintiff Kish signed two contracts with Iowa Central Community College: one as Women’s Basketball Coach (terminable 'at the pleasure of the Board') and one as Retention Coordinator (terminable only for 'just cause').
Throughout the fall of 1999, college administrators received complaints regarding Kish’s coaching and met with him to discuss these issues.
On November 4, 1999, administrators met with Kish, where he contends he was terminated from all duties and told to remove his personal belongings.
The following day, a local newspaper published a statement from the Athletic Director stating Kish had been 'released from all duties' because the program was not going in the desired direction.
On November 10, 1999, administrators met with Kish and issued a letter suspending him with pay from coaching duties but instructing him to continue his duties as Retention Coordinator.
Kish accepted this arrangement and performed his Retention Coordinator duties for two days.
On November 13, 1999, Kish sent a letter refusing the arrangement, claiming his position had changed drastically, and he subsequently ceased going to work.
The college notified Kish by letter on November 16 that he had five days to return to work or it would be considered a voluntary resignation; Kish did not return.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff Kish filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa alleging breach of contract, § 1983 due process violations, and false light torts.
Defendant Iowa Central Community College answered the complaint, denying claims and asserting affirmative defenses.
Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of all claims.
Plaintiff filed a resistance to the motion, and the court held oral arguments.

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 public employee retain valid claims for breach of contract, due process violations, or false light invasion of privacy when he voluntarily resigns after being reinstated with pay to his positions?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge Bennett

No, the court holds that the plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment because he voluntarily abandoned his employment and lacked the necessary property interest for a constitutional claim. The court reasoned that although there was a dispute about the initial termination on November 4, Kish was indisputably reinstated with pay on November 10. By refusing to return to work after reinstatement, Kish voluntarily resigned, defeating his breach of contract claim. Regarding the Due Process claim, the court cited precedent establishing that 'at pleasure' employment contracts do not create a protected property interest. Furthermore, because Kish was reinstated with full pay and benefits to the Retention Coordinator position, he received all the process he was due. Finally, regarding the 'false light' claim, the court noted that Kish admitted in deposition that he had no evidence the newspaper article caused him actual damage.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high bar for public employees attempting to assert constitutional property interests in their employment. By strictly interpreting 'at pleasure' contract language, the court limits the scope of Due Process protections to situations where there is a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment, typically requiring 'for cause' termination provisions. The ruling also clarifies that an employee cannot maintain a wrongful discharge claim if they reject an employer's offer to cure a procedural error (reinstatement) and subsequently abandon the job. Additionally, the dismissal of the false light claim underscores the necessity of proving actual, causal damages in tort actions rather than relying on speculative harm.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kish v. Iowa Central Community College (2001)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"