John Haegert v. University of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924

Haegert, a tenured UE English professor, faced a harassment complaint after an August 25, 2004 incident with a department chair.
McMullan, the chair, filed a formal complaint alleging harassment/sexual harassment and initiated a university disciplinary process.
The university followed a multi-stage process per the Faculty Manual (AAO review, FPAC, FAC, and Board of Trustees) leading to dismissal for cause.
The August 25 incident involved Haegert saying “Hi Sweetie” and touching McMullan’s neck/chin, disrupting work and creating an offensive environment.
McMullan’s anecdotal file and prior complaints were considered but the final decision rested on the August 25 incident and formal proceedings.
Haegert sued for breach of contract and related tort claims; the trial court granted summary judgment for the University; the Court of Appeals reversed and this Court granted transfer to resolve contract-based disputes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Haegert’s August 25, 2004 conduct violated the contract’s harassment/sexual harassment provisions	Haegert contends conduct did not meet actionable harassment under the contract.	University correctly classified and sanctioned conduct under the contract’s definitions.	Yes, conduct satisfied harassment/sexual harassment under the contract.
Whether the University followed the contractually required dismissal procedures	Haegert argues procedures were misapplied or rights violated.	Procedural steps complied with the Faculty Manual and AAUP Guidelines.	Yes, dismissal procedures complied with the contract.
Whether McMullan’s anecdotal file and prior complaints breached the contract and tainted the process	The file was improperly used and unduly influenced the decision.	Even if informal files existed, they were not the substantial factor in dismissal.	No, not a substantial factor; process remained valid.
Whether Haegert was afforded due process under contract and constitutional standards	Due process rights were not adequately provided since tenure was asserted as a property right.	Procedural guarantees were satisfied; process was transparent and fair.	Yes, due process requirements were satisfied.

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (Supreme Court, 1985) (notice and opportunity to respond required for protected interests)
Parke State Bank v. Akers, 659 N.E.2d 1031 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1995) (substantial factor causation standard in contract damages)
Hartman v. Keri, 883 N.E.2d 774 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2008) (due process framework in educational settings)
Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 365 (California Court of Appeal, 2009) (hostile work environment and damages considerations)