Cuozzo v. State, d/b/a University of North Dakota, 925 N.W.2d 752

Frank Cuozzo, a tenured UND anthropology professor, was placed on a performance-improvement plan after failing to disclose DUI and revoked-license convictions and then violated the plan; he was terminated for cause.
The Standing Committee on Faculty Rights (SCoFR) held a hearing, found by clear and convincing evidence that adequate cause existed to terminate Cuozzo, and recommended allowing resignation instead of termination.
President Mark Kennedy received the SCoFR report and, within days, sent a short written decision upholding the termination and stating the decision was final; he later replied to Cuozzo reiterating reliance on SCoFR and refusing resignation.
Cuozzo sued UND and Kennedy for breach of the employment contract, arguing the UND Faculty Handbook required the president to provide written findings of fact and reasons or conclusions based on the hearing record, which Kennedy failed to do.
The district court treated cross-motions as summary judgment and held Kennedy and UND substantially complied with the contractual/handbook requirement; the court also concluded that, even if noncompliant, Cuozzo could not prove damages from the procedural defect.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, concluding Kennedy’s letters amounted to adoption of SCoFR’s findings and that substantial compliance satisfied the contractual due-process purpose.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kennedy breached the handbook/contract by not issuing written findings of fact and reasons or conclusions based on the hearing record	Cuozzo: Kennedy failed to review the record and failed to make findings of fact/reasons as required	UND/Kennedy: Kennedy considered and relied on the SCoFR report; his letters reflect final decision based on the record	Court: No breach — Kennedy substantially complied; his decision and responses effectively adopted SCoFR findings and fulfilled the regulation’s purpose
Whether substantial compliance standard permits upholding the termination despite lack of formal written findings	Cuozzo: Formal written findings are required to protect due process and ensure review based on the record	UND/Kennedy: Substantial compliance suffices if the regulation’s protective purpose is met; form should not trump substance	Court: Applied substantial-compliance and separation-of-powers principles; found purpose satisfied and remand unnecessary

Mills v. City of Grand Forks, 813 N.W.2d 574 (summary-judgment standards and treatment of matters outside pleadings)
Dahms v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 920 N.W.2d 293 (summary judgment and legal standards)
Stensrud v. Mayville State Coll., 368 N.W.2d 519 (substantial compliance with procedural termination requirements)
Hom v. State, 459 N.W.2d 823 (substantial compliance analysis where delay prejudiced employee)
Schultz v. N.D. Dep't of Human Servs., 372 N.W.2d 888 (administrative decisionmaker need not read every word but must consider and appraise the record)
Hammond v. North Dakota State Personnel Bd., 345 N.W.2d 359 (agency/board duty to issue findings and conclusions based on review of record)
Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468 (limits on probing decisionmaker’s mental process in judicial review)