West Virginia University v. Sauvageot

Citation: 408 S.E.2d 287Docket: 19686

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; September 5, 1991; West Virginia; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

West Virginia University appealed a Circuit Court decision affirming the West Virginia State and Education Employees Grievance Board's order to reinstate Ann Collins Sauvageot and pay her lost wages after her employment with the University Affiliated Center for Developmental Disabilities was terminated due to funding cuts. The University contended that both the Grievance Board and the Circuit Court erred in concluding that Sauvageot was entitled to reinstatement and back pay. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia upheld the Circuit Court’s finding that Sauvageot was entitled to reinstatement but reversed the back pay award. Sauvageot had a history of one-year contracts with the University since 1973, and her position was funded through a state contract. The funding for her position was eliminated in June 1987, prompting her grievance, which was initially denied but later granted by a hearing examiner who characterized the funding loss as a program reduction. The final judgment confirmed her right to reemployment but denied back pay.

The examiner determined that reductions in programs are governed by the University's 'Policies and Procedures for Program Change,' which prioritize retaining employees with the most seniority during such reductions. Ms. Sauvageot was identified as the most senior faculty member in her program, and the University’s decision not to renew her appointment was found to violate this policy. The Circuit Court of Kanawha County upheld the examiner's decision on July 28, 1989, recognizing Ms. Sauvageot’s long tenure since July 1976 and the policy favoring senior employees, thus entitling her to relief. The circuit judge considered whether the University’s actions were arbitrary and violated Ms. Sauvageot’s property interests.

On appeal, the University contended that the hearing examiner and circuit court erred in reinstating Ms. Sauvageot and awarding back wages, emphasizing that the 'Policies and Procedures for Program Change' apply only to significant program changes, which they defined as adjustments involving the release of tenured or non-tenured faculty during their appointment. The University argued that Ms. Sauvageot did not fall into these categories, asserting that her nonrenewal did not constitute a program change.

The Court acknowledged the relevance of the University's policies to the broader question of Ms. Sauvageot’s discharge but maintained that these policies do not determine her entitlement to employment. Citing State ex rel. McLendon v. Morton, the Court noted that employees with a 'property interest' in their positions are entitled to procedural due process when governmental actions affect their rights. This interest arises from established rules or relationships that create a legitimate claim of entitlement, as defined in relevant case law.

Unilateral, subjective expectations of an employee do not create a protected property interest unless supported by some objective undertaking from the employer. This principle was established in cases such as Orr v. Crowder and Logan County Education Association v. Logan County Board of Education. An employer's undertaking does not need to be in writing; it can develop de facto. In the case of Professor McLendon, her long tenure entitled her to protections established by institutional policies regarding nonretention notifications, highlighting that arbitrary employer behavior equates to a lack of procedural due process.

In the current case, Ms. Sauvageot was employed under a one-year contract, contingent on grant funding, but had worked at the University for nearly fourteen years, consistently receiving new contracts despite funding changes. The University had a policy aimed at minimizing employment loss during program reductions, prioritizing retention based on seniority and ensuring representation of diverse faculty. The court concluded that Ms. Sauvageot had a reasonable objective expectation of continued employment due to the University's longstanding practice of renewing her contracts.

The Court determined that Ms. Sauvageot had a legitimate property interest in her employment due to the University's long-standing practice of reemployment and its policy of supporting long-term, nontenured employees. Consequently, she is entitled to nonarbitrary and noncapricious treatment, which should mirror her past employment conditions unless a valid reason exists for different treatment. The Court noted that while the University did not provide adequate accommodations for her renewed employment, the actions taken did not warrant an award of back pay. This conclusion was influenced by the specific circumstances of her position being funded exclusively by grants or contracts, which were unavailable for her contract renewal. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment regarding her reinstatement but reversed the part concerning back pay. Justice Brotherton dissented.