Perry v. Sindermann
408 U.S. 593 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public college teacher without a formal tenure provision in their contract has a constitutionally protected 'property' interest in continued employment, and is entitled to a procedural due process hearing upon non-renewal, if they can show a de facto tenure system based on the institution's official policies, rules, or mutually explicit understandings.
Facts:
- Robert Sindermann was a professor at Odessa Junior College for four consecutive years under a series of one-year contracts, after having taught in the Texas state college system for a total of ten years.
- During his fourth year, Sindermann, as president of the Texas Junior College Teachers Association, became publicly involved in disagreements with the college's Board of Regents.
- Sindermann publicly advocated for elevating the college to a four-year institution, a position the Regents opposed, and his name appeared on a newspaper advertisement critical of the Regents.
- The college's official Faculty Guide contained a provision stating the administration wished faculty to feel they had 'permanent tenure' as long as their performance was satisfactory and they were cooperative.
- The Board of Regents voted not to offer Sindermann a contract for the following academic year.
- The college provided Sindermann no official statement of reasons for the non-renewal and offered no opportunity for a hearing to challenge the decision.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Sindermann sued members of the Board of Regents and the president of Odessa Junior College in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The District Court, a trial court, granted summary judgment in favor of the college officials.
- Sindermann, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for a full hearing on the factual issues.
- The college officials, as petitioners, sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 college teacher who lacks a formal tenure contract have a procedural due process right to a hearing before their contract is not renewed if informal rules, policies, or understandings from the institution create a legitimate expectation of continued employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. A public college teacher has a procedural due process right to a hearing if they can demonstrate a 'property' interest in continued employment, which is not limited to formal tenure but can arise from an institution's rules or mutually explicit understandings that create a de facto tenure system. The court reasoned that 'property' interests protected by due process are not created by the Constitution but by 'existing rules or understandings' that stem from an independent source like state law or institutional policy. Sindermann's allegations of a de facto tenure system, supported by the Faculty Guide's language and his long service, were sufficient to warrant a hearing where he could attempt to prove his legitimate claim of entitlement to the job. The Court also held separately that non-renewal of a teacher's contract, tenured or not, cannot be predicated on the teacher's exercise of First Amendment rights.
Concurring - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes. The Court correctly holds that a state-employed teacher with a right to re-employment under state law, arising from an express or implied contract, has a Fourteenth Amendment right to a hearing. However, it is critical to emphasize that the existence of such a 'property' interest is fundamentally a question of state law. Federal courts should be prepared to abstain from deciding the constitutional question if the relevant state contract law is unclear, allowing state courts to first resolve the underlying state law issue.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. While agreeing with the majority's First Amendment analysis, the dissent argues that the respondent was entitled to summary judgment on the due process claim. Following the reasoning in Justice Marshall's dissent, they believe the respondent was denied due process when his contract was not renewed without being informed of the reasons and given an opportunity to respond, regardless of whether he could prove a 'property' interest.
Dissenting in part - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. While agreeing that the respondent presented a valid First Amendment claim, the dissent argues that every public employee is entitled by the Due Process Clause to a statement of reasons and a hearing when their contract is not renewed. This right should not be contingent on the employee first proving a 'property' or 'liberty' interest. The government's interest in administrative efficiency is not sufficient to outweigh the individual's interest in being treated fairly and being able to protect their reputation and future employment prospects.
Analysis:
This case, decided with its companion Board of Regents v. Roth, established the modern framework for procedural due process rights in public employment. It significantly broadened the concept of a 'property' interest beyond formal contracts or statutes, recognizing that legitimate claims of entitlement can be created by informal institutional policies and practices. This 'de facto tenure' concept requires courts to look at the 'common law' of the workplace to determine if an employee has a protected interest. The decision empowers public employees without formal tenure to challenge non-renewal by forcing employers to provide a hearing if a legitimate expectation of continued employment can be shown.
