Whiting v. University of Southern Mississippi
62 So. 3d 907
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Whiting, a tenure-track assistant professor at USM, sought tenure and promotion; her contracts (1996–2002) stated they were subject to Board laws and policies.
- She received consistently high annual evaluations and a third-year review in teaching, scholarship, and service.
- The tenure process involved a department committee, College Advisory Committee, CAC, Dean, UAC, Provost, and President, with final Board discretion on tenure.
- In August 2002 President Thames notified Whiting that he would not recommend tenure or promotion and the Board ultimately refused to consider her appeal; Whiting filed suit in 2002.
- Mississippi Tort Claims Act immunity applies, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit; Whiting’s claims were framed as breach of contract or due process breaches under handbook provisions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on MTCA-based exhaustion and related issues, which the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MTCA exhaustion precludes Whiting’s suit | Whiting argues MTCA, not contract, governs; she exhausted internal remedies. | Board/USM contends MTCA requires exhaustion and bars premature suits. | Yes; MTCA exhaustion bars claims filed before final Board decision. |
| Whether a tenure contract existed and created a property interest | Whiting claims the handbook guarantees due process and tenure rights. | No binding offer of tenure was ever made; no property interest exists. | No contract for tenure; no protected property interest under Wicks and related precedents. |
| Whether the handbook’s due process guarantees create actionable rights | handbook guarantees procedural due process in tenure proceedings. | Handbook creates contractual due process but not an absolute right to tenure. | Handbook does not override Board’s discretion; no WV due process violation proven. |
| Whether injunctive relief is appropriate under MTCA | Whiting seeks a court-ordered fair hearing and tenure. | MTCA bar on injunctive relief absent imminent irreparable harm and lack of remedy. | Not appropriate; MTCA precludes injunctive relief in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wicks v. Mississippi Valley State University, 536 So.2d 20 (Miss. 1988) (no protected property interest for non-tenured faculty; due process limits)
- Harris v. Mississippi Valley State University, 873 So.2d 970 (Miss. 2004) (exhaustion of internal remedies required under MTCA)
- City of Jackson v. Estate of Stewart ex rel. Womack, 908 So.2d 703 (Miss. 2005) (definitions of contract and tort claims under MTCA)
- Bruner v. University of Southern Mississippi, 501 So.2d 1113 (Miss. 1987) (Board approval authority and contract formation for university employment)
- Gatlin v. Methodist Medical Center, Inc., 772 So.2d 1023 (Miss. 2000) (contract elements; consideration and acceptance in employment)