Jerome McKinney v. University of Pittsburgh
915 F.3d 956
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Jerome McKinney, a tenured University of Pittsburgh professor, received annual performance reviews and longstanding base salary set by University policies issued by the Trustees.
- University Policy 07-09-01 provided for annual salary "maintenance" increases (to offset inflation) for satisfactory performers and merit increases for meritorious performers; increases become part of base salary in subsequent years.
- The Policy did not expressly address salary reductions, but it required notice and procedures when performance was judged "unsatisfactory."
- After poor evaluations in 2012–2013 (ranked last, poor student evaluations, declining enrollment), McKinney was warned his salary could be frozen or reduced; in Sept. 2013 Dean Keeler reduced his salary by 20% and explained the reasons.
- McKinney sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the Policy created a property interest in his entire base salary and that the reduction deprived him of that property without due process. The district court granted summary judgment for McKinney.
- The Third Circuit reversed, holding the Policy did not create a constitutionally protected property interest in the full base salary and remanding with instructions to enter judgment for the University.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether University Policy created a property interest in the entirety of McKinney's base salary | Policy language promising maintenance increases implies an entitlement to prior base salary and thus to continued receipt of that salary | Policy does not guarantee protection against reductions; it contemplates annual adjustments and procedures for unsatisfactory performance | No property interest in full base salary; Policy insufficient to create entitlement |
| Whether a negative implication (silence regarding decreases) can establish a "mutually explicit understanding" | Silence and statement about increases reasonably imply protection of baseline salary | Negative implication is insufficient; plaintiff must show explicit assurance prohibiting reductions | Negative implication insufficient to create protected property right |
| Whether the Policy's procedural protections (notice, appeal) convert expectations into constitutional property | Procedural safeguards show mutual understanding that salary decisions are governed and thus protected | Procedural safeguards regulate process but do not create substantive entitlement to a particular salary | Procedural rules do not establish a substantive property interest in base salary |
| Whether courts should infer constitutional property rights from ambiguous academic policies | McKinney urges protection to prevent arbitrary reductions | Court cautions against judicial intrusion into academic decisions absent clear assurances | Courts will not create property rights from ambiguous academic policies; require explicit assurance |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interest must stem from an independent source such as state law or explicit rules)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (property interest arises from mutually explicit understandings, not unilateral expectations)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (tenured employees with "for cause" protection have a property interest in continued employment)
- Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438 (plaintiff must show requisite mutual understanding to establish property right)
- Williams v. Texas Tech Univ. Health Sci. Ctr., 6 F.3d 290 (ambiguous or conditional salary provisions do not create a property interest)