Cole v. Milwaukee Area Technical College District
634 F.3d 901
7th Cir.2011Background
- Cole was president (director) of Milwaukee Area Technical College, hired in 2001 and under a contract through 2011 after amendments.
- Contract paragraph 10 gave Board unilateral discretion to terminate for conduct or performance, with severance for 10(e) terminations.
- In Feb 2009, Cole was arrested for OUI and OCAC; college conducted internal interview via outside counsel.
- Board met Feb 19, 2009, heard external report and other allegations, and voted 6-3 to terminate effective Feb 28, 2009.
- District court dismissed due process claim; equal protection claim was dismissed by stipulation; Cole appealed the due process ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cole had a protectable property interest in continued employment | Cole had a contractual entitlement to continued employment. | Contract grants broad Board discretion; no property interest created. | No protectable property interest; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Board termination under 10(b) and 10(e) complies with due process | Termination lacks just cause protections; effect undermines due process. | Termination based on conduct within Board’s sole discretion; contract allowed it. | Termination under 10(b) for conduct was allowed; not an end-run around 10(e). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests arise from existing rules, not the Constitution)
- Buttitta v. City of Chicago, 9 F.3d 1198 (7th Cir. 1993) (protectable property interest threshold for deprivation)
- Barrows v. Wiley, 478 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2007) (whether a protected interest exists is a question of law)
- Beischel v. Stone Bank School Dist., 362 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 2004) (gray area between at-will and for-cause termination; no protected interest)
- Fittshur v. Vill. of Menomonee Falls, 31 F.3d 1401 (7th Cir. 1994) (unfettered discretion does not create a property interest)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1972) (mutually explicit understanding or employment terms create property interests)
- Colburn v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 973 F.2d 581 (7th Cir. 1992) (employment terms define property interests; termination rules matter)
- Omosegbon v. Wells, 335 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2003) (terms of appointment define property interests; not all discretion creates entitlement)