McKeny v. Ohio Univ.
2017 Ohio 8589
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- McKeny was hired in 2006 as a tenure‑track assistant professor; handbook and departmental Policy 60.111 governed tenure standards and appeals.
- Departmental committee and department chair recommended tenure in 2011; Dean Middleton denied tenure citing insufficient peer‑reviewed publications and lack of sustained scholarship.
- McKeny pursued internal appeals to the Provost and the Faculty Standing Committee; a Special Senate Committee recommended granting tenure, but President McDavis denied the appeal and affirmed the dean’s assessment.
- McKeny sued in the Court of Claims (breach of contract, contractual due process, discrimination, and related tort claims); immunity denied for individual defendants and many claims were later dismissed.
- After a bench trial, the Court of Claims entered judgment for Ohio University; McKeny appealed, raising contract interpretation, bad faith/arbitrary decision, due process, and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OU breached its contract (handbook + Policy 60.111) by denying tenure | McKeny: Policy 60.111 defines scholarship broadly; denial improperly prioritized peer‑reviewed publications and departed from policy | OU: Policy emphasizes peer‑reviewed dissemination; dean/president acted within discretionary, subjective review powers | Court: No breach — dean/provost/president acted consistently with Policy 60.111 and handbook discretion |
| Whether the tenure denial was arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith | McKeny: Multiple adverse decisions show a substantial departure from academic norms and bad faith | OU: Multi‑level review, documented concerns about scholarship; decision reflects professional judgment | Court: Decision not arbitrary/bad faith; courts defer to academic judgment absent substantial departure |
| Whether OU violated contractual due process (grievance procedure) | McKeny: Appeals procedure was not properly followed; words in decisions show procedural irregularity | OU: Handled appeals per handbook levels; process was followed through president’s final review | Court: No contractual due process violation; record shows handbook grievance process was followed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in evidentiary rulings (expert exclusion; exclusion of post‑departure policies and website documents) | McKeny: Excluding expert and documents prejudiced his case | OU: Expert disclosures untimely; documents irrelevant or insufficient hearsay foundation | Court: No abuse — expert excluded under local rule; post‑departure policies irrelevant; exclusion of website docs harmless because no breach was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipeline Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (contract interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Skivolocki v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 38 Ohio St.2d 244 (contract construction aims to effect parties' intent)
- Shifrin v. Forest City Ents., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 (intent resides in contract language; courts will not rewrite unambiguous contracts)
- Holdeman v. Epperson, 111 Ohio St.3d 551 (courts enforce clear contract language)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (civil judgment not reversed if competent, credible evidence supports it)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (appellate deference to trial court findings and credibility determinations)
- Bleicher v. Univ. of Cincinnati College of Med., 78 Ohio App.3d 302 (courts defer to academic decisions unless there is substantial departure from norms)
- Peters v. Ohio State Lottery Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 296 (admission/exclusion of evidence is within trial court discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard defined)