Harper v. Mancos School District Re-6, 837 F. Supp. 2d 1211

Harper, K-12 administrator and secondary principal, was employed in 2007-08 and 2008-09 by Mancos School District.
In April 2009, Hanson told Harper he would recommend renewal but warned the vote might not be unanimous, and Harper said she would stay notwithstanding nonunanimity.
Board voted on April 15, 2009 to renew Harper’s contract for 2009-10; minutes show a 4-1 vote in favor.
After the vote, Harper assisted in filling staff positions and Hanson blocked LaMunyon’s interview based on references; he refused to give Harper a reason.
In May 2009, Hanson advised the Board to rescind renewal; Harper was placed on paid administrative leave; May 21, 2009 Board resolution rescinded renewal and stated Harper would not be re-employed for 2009-10.
Harper alleged breach of contract, due process/42 U.S.C. § 1983 violations, intentional interference with contract, and promissory estoppel; the court granted summary judgment for defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence and enforceability of a 2009-10 contract	Harper argues an oral contract was formed and enforceable.	District claims no enforceable contract due to lack of writing; writing required by statute.	No enforceable contract; summary judgment for District on breach.
Property interest in continued employment for 2009-10	Harper had a statutorily or contract-based property interest in continued employment.	No statutory tenure; no implied contract; writing required.	No statutorily created or implied property interest; due process claim fails.
Liberty interest and name-clearing in termination	Harper was deprived of her liberty interest without a hearing.	Statements were private, possibly not published; qualified immunity may apply.	Board claim fails; Hanson entitled to qualified immunity on liberty-interest claim.
Intentional interference with contract	Hanson interfered with Harper’s contract by opposing renewal.	No enforceable contract existed; no third-party contract to interfere with.	No triable issue; summary judgment for Hanson.
Promissory estoppel	Harper detrimentally relied on a promise of continued employment.	Reliance not reasonable; contract had to be in writing; no enforceable promise.	Promissory estoppel not shown; summary judgment for Defendants.

Western Distributing Co. v. Diodosio, 841 P.2d 1053 (Colo. 1992) (establishes elements of breach of contract action)
Pierce v. Marland Oil Co., 278 P.2d 804 (Colo. 1929) (material terms need not be in one document; meeting of the minds)
Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests require concrete, enforceable entitlement)
Nelson v. Elway, 908 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1995) (reliance elements for promissory estoppel; justifiable reliance considerations)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (clarified clearly established law in qualified-immunity analysis)