Jones v. Louisiana Board of Supervisors of University of Louisiana Systems, 809 F.3d 231

Background

Robert C. Jones III was a tenured economics professor at Northwestern State University (NSU); tenure documents did not specify a discipline but ULS bylaws limited tenure to an academic discipline offered at the institution.
Severe state budget cuts (2008–2010) prompted NSU to eliminate certain programs; NSU eliminated the economics concentration in 2010, projecting personnel savings and reassigning economics courses to non-tenured faculty in a different college.
Provost Abney and President Webb led review and recommended discontinuance; the ULS Board ratified the plan; Jones was informed, met briefly with administrators, and then had his tenure terminated effective July 31, 2011 and was offered a lower-paid instructor position.
Jones appealed to a seven-member faculty committee (wrote a detailed letter, did not appear in person); the committee unanimously rejected his appeal; Jones sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming procedural and substantive due process violations and a Contracts Clause violation.
The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants; on appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the process afforded (notice and faculty-committee appeal plus administrative review) met constitutional minimums and that termination was not arbitrary in context of fiscal emergency.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process: was Jones entitled to a face-to-face hearing with the ultimate decisionmaker?	Jones argued he was entitled to a meeting with President Webb (ultimate decisionmaker) before termination, relying on Texas Faculty and Russell.	Defendants argued minimal process was required given budget crisis and that Jones received constitutionally adequate notice and an appeal to a faculty committee.	The court held that notice plus the written appeal and faculty-committee review satisfied due process; a meeting with the president was not required.
Substantive due process: was the termination arbitrary or capricious?	Jones argued termination lacked factual basis: he taught some finance, non-tenured faculty retained his courses, and another professor retained tenure in similar circumstances.	Defendants argued Jones was tenured in economics only, lacked credentials for other roles, and the termination followed budget-driven reorganization and review.	The court held Jones failed to show an arbitrary or baseless decision; substantive due process claim failed given deference to university budgeting judgments.
Contracts Clause: did state budget cuts impair Jones’s contractual tenure rights?	Jones contended the legislature’s funding reductions impair contractual tenure obligations.	Defendants argued the cuts served a significant public purpose to address the fiscal crisis and were reasonably necessary.	The court held the legislative funding reductions were justified as addressing a legitimate public purpose and did not violate the Contracts Clause.

Key Cases Cited

Texas Faculty Ass’n v. Univ. of Tex. at Dallas, 946 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1991) (additional hearing with ultimate decisionmaker required under a more expansive tenure scheme in certain circumstances)
Russell v. Harrison, 736 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1984) (tenured faculty entitled to notice and opportunity to respond; factual dispute over adequacy of hearing precluded summary judgment)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for required procedural protections)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (welfare-termination context requiring face-to-face hearing)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (importance of property interest in public employment and right to notice and opportunity to be heard)
United Healthcare Ins. Co. v. Davis, 602 F.3d 618 (5th Cir. 2010) (Contracts Clause: state impairment justified if it serves significant and legitimate public purpose)
Williams v. Tex. Tech. Univ. Health Sci. Ctr., 6 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1993) (deference to university discretion in administering educational programs)
Honore v. Douglas, 833 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1987) (federal courts should not second-guess routine public personnel decisions)