Crenshaw v. Erskine College, 850 S.E.2d 1

Background

William Crenshaw, tenured English professor at Erskine (tenure granted 1984), summoned EMS for a possibly head‑injured student on Sept. 24, 2010; a guardian later filed grievances alleging improper conduct.
An initial faculty grievance attempt failed; President David Norman later convened an ad hoc committee; members reported a toxic environment and could not resolve the dispute.
In August 2011 Norman met with Crenshaw, suspended him with pay for the upcoming term, offered an early‑retirement settlement (21‑day window), and later sent a termination letter (August 12) stating a hearing would be held unless waived and asking for a written reply if a hearing was desired.
Crenshaw did not request the faculty hearing; Norman declared employment terminated on September 7, 2011. Crenshaw sued Erskine for breach of contract (and related claims); jury awarded $600,000.
Trial court granted JNOV for Erskine (finding no breach as a matter of law); Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the verdict; the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed JNOV, holding the Faculty Manual is the contract but Erskine did not breach as a matter of law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Faculty Manual is an enforceable contract for tenured faculty	Crenshaw: manual creates contractual tenure protections and procedural rights	Erskine: manual is a non‑contractual handbook (disclaimer)	Court: Manual is a contract as a matter of law for tenured faculty (tenure promises)
Whether Erskine breached the Manual by terminating Crenshaw without following procedures	Crenshaw: Norman's actions, rushed scheduling, suspension, and failure of grievance processes breached the Manual	Erskine: President only initiated formal proceedings; full process (hearing/Board) required before termination becomes final	Court: Under the Manual the President's initiation was preliminary; failure to request a hearing meant the administrative decision became final — no breach by Erskine
Whether Crenshaw's failure to request the Hearing Committee foreclosed his contract claim	Crenshaw: jury could find procedural confusion, waiver, or that termination was final despite lack of written reply	Erskine: reply‑in‑writing requirement is mandatory; Crenshaw's inaction prevented the hearing and eliminated Erskine's obligation to hold one	Court: Crenshaw’s contractual remedy was to pursue the hearing/Board; his failure to do so bars recovery as a matter of law
Whether “contractual due process” or implied covenant of good faith created independent enforceable rights	Crenshaw: Manual guarantees procedural/due process rights and an implied covenant of good faith	Erskine: general references to due process are not discrete enforceable terms; implied covenant cannot override explicit provisions requiring a written hearing request	Court: General due process language is not an enforceable panoply; implied‑covenant claim fails where party exercised express contractual rights (the reply requirement)

Key Cases Cited

Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interest/due process framework)
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (academic freedom and state action context)
Rendell‑Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (First/Fourteenth Amendment limits on private institutions)
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (state action distinction)
Ross v. Medical Univ. of S.C., 328 S.C. 51, 492 S.E.2d 62 (tenured professor property interest at public institutions)
Small v. Springs Indus., Inc., 292 S.C. 481, 357 S.E.2d 452 (handbook/promissory language analysis)
Hessenthaler v. Tri‑Cty. Sister Help, Inc., 365 S.C. 101, 616 S.E.2d 694 (disclaimer + handbook contract analysis)
McConnell v. Howard Univ., 818 F.2d 58 (tenure rights and review of university termination)
Roberts v. Columbia Coll. Chicago, 821 F.3d 855 (limits on internal review precluding court challenges)
McAdams v. Marquette Univ., 914 N.W.2d 708 (suspension/academic freedom and contract breach)