Mulvenon v. Greenwood
643 F.3d 653
8th Cir.2011Background
- Mulvenon, a tenured COEHP faculty member, was appointed in 2004 to the Billingsley Chair for Educational Research and Policy Studies for a five-year term renewable annually.
- The Appointment Letter stated the term would end May 10, 2009, after which Mulvenon would return to his prior tenured position at his then-existing salary.
- The appointment incorporated Reappointment Guidelines detailing annual reviews and a fifth-year external-review process to consider reappointment.
- During the fifth year, Mulvenon could express interest in reappointment; an external review committee would prepare letters, which would be forwarded to the department head and discussed with Mulvenon.
- Final reappointment decisions rested with the Dean, after reviewing all materials and consulting with the department head and incumbent chair holder.
- In 2009, Mulvenon pursued reappointment; three external reviewers provided letters, two favorable and one ambivalent, and Mulvenon responded to them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mulvenon had a protected property interest in reappointment. | Mulvenon asserts a legitimate entitlement arose from guidelines favoring reappointment. | Greenwood contends discretion rests with the Dean; guidelines are non-binding and do not create a property interest. | No protected property interest; due process claim fails. |
| Whether Mulvenon stated a procedural due process claim based on lack of reappointment. | Procedural steps in the Guidelines create entitlement and require due process protections. | Discretionary process does not vest a property interest; procedural steps are not binding entitlements. | Procedural due process claim rejected; no protected interest. |
| Whether Mulvenon stated a substantive due process claim. | Lack of reappointment unfairly constitutes a detriment to employment and triggers substantive due process. | Without a protected property interest, substantive due process claim fails. | Substantive due process claim rejected for lack of protected interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (set framework: property interest requires legitimate entitlement, not mere expectation)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (protects life, liberty, property; cautions against defining property by procedures alone)
- Stow v. Cochran, 819 F.2d 864 (8th Cir. 1987) (procedural guidelines do not by themselves create property interests)
- Kozisek v. Cnty. of Seward, Neb., 539 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2008) (state-law-based entitlement analysis governs property interests)
- Winegar v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 20 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 1994) (legitimate entitlement required for property interest; unilateral expectations insufficient)