Dr. Michael Altimore filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Mount Mercy College, in Iowa state court for breach of contract. Mount Mercy counterclaimed and subsequently removed the case to federal court, where Dr. Altimore sought to remand it back to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient diversity of citizenship. The district court denied his remand motion, asserting it had jurisdiction based on diversity and later granted summary judgment in favor of Mount Mercy on its breach of contract claims. Dr. Altimore's appeal challenges both the remand ruling and the summary judgment.
Dr. Altimore, a sociology professor, took a sabbatical leave during the 1992-1993 academic year and was granted tenure in 1994. In 1998, he applied for another sabbatical for the 1999-2000 academic year, which was approved under several conditions, including a commitment to return for two semesters of academic service or reimburse Mount Mercy for substitutes, and submission of a written report on his sabbatical activities. During this sabbatical, Mount Mercy covered his medical benefits and half of his salary.
In March 2000, Dr. Altimore signed a contract to teach for the 2000-2001 academic year but later requested unpaid leave, which was granted with the understanding he would return for the 2001-2002 academic year to fulfill the sabbatical conditions. However, he accepted a visiting professor position at Temple University and subsequently requested medical leave for the 2001-2002 academic year, suggesting Mount Mercy hire a temporary replacement. Mount Mercy denied his request for a third consecutive absence, urging him to return and report on his sabbatical project, with a deadline for his response set for June 25, 2001.
On June 25, Dr. Altimore notified Mount Mercy that he would not return for the 2001-2002 academic year, following their rejection of his request for a one-year, unpaid medical leave. He reiterated his request for leave and sent a copy of his letter to the President of Mount Mercy. On June 29, Dr. Altimore was appointed as a visiting professor at Temple for the same academic year, which he accepted on July 4. In a July 2 communication, Mount Mercy informed Dr. Altimore that it could not grant his leave and interpreted his non-return as a voluntary resignation, initiating the process to fill his position and offering to ship his belongings.
On July 12, Dr. Altimore's attorney contacted Mount Mercy regarding a potential wrongful termination claim, asserting that Dr. Altimore did not resign and alleging breaches of contract, as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Iowa Civil Rights Act, and blacklisting laws. The attorney sought to explore amicable resolution options but did not express Dr. Altimore's willingness to return.
In response, Mount Mercy's attorney argued that Dr. Altimore's disability was not protected under the ADA or Iowa law and claimed his refusal to return constituted resignation. They also highlighted that Dr. Altimore breached his sabbatical contract by failing to provide a report on his sabbatical activities and the required 24 credit hours of service, seeking reimbursement for the costs incurred in hiring a substitute professor.
Dr. Altimore did not return to Mount Mercy and has not reported on his sabbatical or reimbursed the costs of replacements. He currently holds a temporary position at Temple University. Mount Mercy's Faculty Manual states that tenured appointments can only be terminated for adequate cause following specific procedures, which require the college to prove such cause by clear and convincing evidence. The Manual also outlines resignation protocols, including the requirement for written notice to the President, ideally three months prior to the end of service, with the option for the College to provide references if the resignation is accepted.
Dr. Altimore alleges he was dismissed by Mount Mercy, while Mount Mercy claims he resigned. In September 2002, Dr. Altimore initiated a breach of contract lawsuit against Mount Mercy in Iowa state court, which Mount Mercy counterclaimed, asserting Dr. Altimore breached both his 1998 sabbatical and 2001 employment contracts. The case was subsequently moved to federal court, where Dr. Altimore sought to remand it back to state court, arguing lack of federal jurisdiction due to both parties being Iowa citizens. Mount Mercy acknowledged it was an Iowa citizen but argued Dr. Altimore was a Pennsylvania citizen, claiming federal jurisdiction existed.
The court reviewed Dr. Altimore's residency and activities, noting he had lived in Pennsylvania since 2000, worked there, had a Pennsylvania driver’s license, registered to vote, maintained a bank account, received medical treatment, and filed taxes in Pennsylvania. Although he left personal effects at Mount Mercy and claimed he did not intend to change his home base, the court concluded that Dr. Altimore's "presence and intent" indicated he was a Pennsylvania citizen, thus affirming the federal court's jurisdiction.
Following this, Mount Mercy sought summary judgment on its breach of contract claims. The district court found substantial evidence supporting that Dr. Altimore breached his 2001 employment contract by signing a contract with Temple University while still obligated to Mount Mercy, indicating he would not return for the 2001-2002 academic year. The court also noted Dr. Altimore's failure to comply with the terms of his 1998 sabbatical contract. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment to Mount Mercy on both contract claims, concluding Dr. Altimore had voluntarily resigned and breached the agreements.
Dr. Altimore and Mount Mercy reached a consent judgment before trial concerning damages from breaches of contracts dated 1998 and 2001, where Dr. Altimore agreed to a judgment of $36,000 in favor of Mount Mercy. The judgment allows Dr. Altimore to appeal the district court's denial of his remand motion and its grant of summary judgment to Mount Mercy.
Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). Mount Mercy, having removed the case to federal court, must demonstrate jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, determined at the time the suit was filed. The court's findings on citizenship are mainly factual and subject to a deferential standard of review.
Citizenship is established by an individual's physical presence in a state and intent to remain indefinitely. Once established, an individual retains citizenship until legally acquiring a new one. Mount Mercy is undisputedly an Iowa citizen, prompting a focus on Dr. Altimore’s citizenship. Despite his claims of Iowa citizenship, substantial evidence indicates he is a Pennsylvania citizen, as he resides, works, votes, and banks in Pennsylvania. He has not engaged with Iowa in any significant manner, such as paying taxes or maintaining property there.
Dr. Altimore's assertion that he intends to return to Iowa based on materials left in his office and a 2001 employment contract is unconvincing, especially given his breach of said contract and continued residence in Pennsylvania. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Dr. Altimore is a Pennsylvania citizen, undermining his claim of Iowa citizenship.
Dr. Altimore is determined to be a Pennsylvania citizen, establishing diversity of citizenship and federal subject matter jurisdiction. The district court's grant of summary judgment to Mount Mercy is reviewed de novo. Summary judgment is appropriate if evidence, viewed favorably towards Dr. Altimore, shows no genuine issues of material fact, allowing Mount Mercy judgment as a matter of law. Although the applicable state law is not explicitly stated, both the district court and the parties have utilized Iowa contract law, which governs this diversity case.
Under Iowa law, an employment relationship can end through resignation or discharge. The central issue in the breach of contract claims is whether Dr. Altimore resigned or was terminated from his position. Dr. Altimore admits that resignation would constitute a breach of his 1998 sabbatical contract and 2001 employment contract, yet he contends he was dismissed without adequate cause. He argues that significant factual disputes exist regarding his resignation status, warranting a jury trial.
To prove a breach of contract under Iowa law, Mount Mercy must demonstrate: (1) a valid contract existed; (2) the terms of the contract; (3) Mount Mercy's performance under the contract; (4) Dr. Altimore's breach; and (5) damages suffered by Mount Mercy due to the breach. If Dr. Altimore failed to fulfill any contractual obligation without legal justification, he breached those contracts.
The case hinges on whether it can be determined, as a matter of law, that Dr. Altimore resigned, thus breaching the contracts. Despite his arguments suggesting a reasonable interpretation of his actions indicates he did not resign, the record clearly shows he did. Notably, Dr. Altimore signed a contract on March 29, 2001, committing to return after a two-year absence. On June 5, he requested an additional year of leave, which Mount Mercy denied, expecting his return. Mount Mercy subsequently requested written confirmation of his intention to return for the 2001-2002 academic year.
On June 25, Dr. Altimore communicated his disagreement with Mount Mercy's denial of his leave request, while simultaneously requesting leave again, suggesting he believed he could unilaterally alter his employment contract. Mount Mercy sought clarification on his return to fulfill his contractual obligations, to which Dr. Altimore unequivocally stated he would not return for the 2001-2002 academic year. Consequently, Mount Mercy interpreted his refusal as a voluntary resignation. Despite this, Dr. Altimore proceeded to contract with Temple for the same academic year, affirming his non-return to Mount Mercy.
Dr. Altimore contended that his previous contracts obligated him to return, asserting he could choose the timing of his return. He claimed the right to demand a third consecutive year of leave despite the denial of his request by Mount Mercy, which had previously granted him multiple leaves. His insistence on this third year, alongside his actions of signing a contract with Temple and not invoking the Faculty Manual's dismissal procedures, indicated his resignation rather than dismissal by Mount Mercy.
The Faculty Manual's guidelines for resignation were not followed by Dr. Altimore, who failed to formally notify Mount Mercy according to its recommendations. His refusal to return, hiring of an attorney, and subsequent legal action against Mount Mercy further demonstrated his intent to resign. The district court found that Dr. Altimore's actions constituted a resignation, leading to a breach of both his 2001 and 1998 contracts. The court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Mount Mercy was affirmed, rejecting Dr. Altimore’s motion to remand.
