Vincennes University by the Board of Trustees of Vincennes v. Daniel E. Sparks
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 201
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Sparks forfeited his tenure under a 2003 Agreement after admitting falsification related to a recruit’s application.
- The Agreement required Sparks to forfeit tenure and accept a zero-tolerance policy for the duration of his employment.
- He signed a then-current one-year contract for 2004-2005 with potential non-renewal for the following year.
- The University notified Sparks in 2004 that his contract would not be renewed for 2005-2006.
- Sparks sued for breach of contract and promissory estoppel; the University moved for summary judgment and directed verdict, and the case went to a jury which returned a Sparks verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agreement unambiguously forfeited Sparks’s tenure | Sparks argues the zero-tolerance clause created ongoing employment rights | University argues tenure forfeiture was clear and ended employment protections | Unambiguous forfeiture; no continued employment right |
| If ambiguous, whether extrinsic evidence supports the University interpretation | Extrinsic evidence shows expectations of continued employment | Extrinsic evidence supports year-to-year contract with no guarantee | Extrinsic evidence favors University interpretation; supports grant of summary judgment |
| Whether the trial court should grant summary judgment based on contract construction | Dispute over meaning of tenure and zero tolerance creates issues of fact | Contract unambiguous; law favors University interpretation | Summary judgment for University appropriate; verdict reversed |
| Whether Sparks had any contractual right to continued employment after a one-year term | Sparks relied on prior assurances and non-renewal practices | University Manual and contract show no guaranteed continuation | Non-tenured status; no continued employment right beyond term |
| Role of University Manual provisions in interpreting contract | Manual creates expectation of continued status for tenure-track | Manual supports University’s right not to renew; terms control | Manual corroborates University interpretation; strengthens summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowden v. Vincennes Univ., - (-) (cited for context on statements about zero tolerance and employment expectations)
- Orem v. Ivy Tech State College, 711 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (at-will vs. tenure; release agreements and non-entitlements)
- Reed v. Reed, 980 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. 2012) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Kaghann’s Korner, Inc. v. Brown & Sons Fuel Co., 706 N.E.2d 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (contract interpretation; unambiguous terms)
- DLZ Indiana, LLC v. Greene County, 902 N.E.2d 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (read contract as a whole; avoid meaningless terms)
- Trs. of Ind. Univ. v. Cohen, 910 N.E.2d 251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (read contract as a whole; specific terms control)
- Orem v. Ivy Tech State College, 711 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (addresses how release agreement affects job security)