37 A.3d 896
D.C.2012Background
- Roberts-Williams, a former Howard University theatre arts professor, was denied tenure after a 2004-2005 review.
- Her contract incorporated handbook sections 2.7.6 (biennial evaluations) and 2.7.4.6.1 (reconsideration procedures).
- Jury found Howard breached both biennial evaluations and reconsideration provisions; breach was a foreseeable factor in the tenure denial.
- Damages awarded: back pay and front pay totaling $582,400; one reconsideration breach finding was later set aside by the trial court, but total damages remained unchanged on appeal.
- Trial court instructed on biennial evaluations; post-trial, Howard challenged liability on reconsideration and the jury instructions, while both sides appealed.
- Appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on Howard’s liability for the handbook breaches and upheld damages; did not disturb damages on Roberts-Williams’ cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court properly instruct on biennial evaluations? | Roberts-Williams supported the interim instruction as correct. | Howard argued the instruction was prejudicial and improper. | Court narrowly approved the biennial evaluation instruction. |
| Was there substantial compliance or breach re: reconsideration procedure? | Reconsideration rights were violated by timing and lack of reasons; breach caused damages. | Procedural missteps were cured or would not have changed outcome; no prejudice. | Court held the reconsideration provision breached and damages upheld notwithstanding the one reconsideration breach being set aside on other grounds. |
| Was Professor Jennings properly admitted as an expert on tenure process? | Jennings offered necessary expertise on tenure procedures and process. | Testimony beyond the scope of prior rulings should be excluded. | Court approved Jennings as expert on tenure process within scope. |
| Was the mitigation of damages instruction proper for contract claims? | Mitigation duty should be applied; plaintiff must seek similar employment. | No requirement to seek employment outside teaching or beyond similar field. | Instruction deemed proper; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allworth v. Howard Univ., 890 A.2d 194 (D.C.2006) (academic freedom does not preclude vindicating contractual rights in denial of tenure)
- Howard Univ. v. Best, 484 A.2d 958 (D.C.1984) (contract meaning in university context; consider custom and practice)
- Best II, 547 A.2d 144 (D.C.1988) (binding custom and practice requires definite, uniform evidence)
- Allworth v. Howard Univ. (repeat for context), 890 A.2d 194 (D.C.2006) (academic deference and contractual rights in tenure decisions)
- Allen v. Psychiatric Institute of Washington, 509 A.2d 619 (D.C.1986) (broad discretion in jury instructions; standard for reviewing instructions)