Mildred C. Montgomery v. Dr. Onva K. Boshears, Individually and as Dean of the School of Library Science, and the University of Southern Mississippi

Citations: 698 F.2d 739; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30284; 9 Educ. L. Rep. 50Docket: 82-4326

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; February 22, 1983; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mildred C. Montgomery, a non-tenured librarian at the University of Southern Mississippi, appeals a summary judgment ruling in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against the university and its dean, Dr. Onva K. Boshears. Montgomery claims she was denied procedural due process regarding the nonrenewal of her employment, alleging violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit affirms the lower court's ruling, determining that the university's decision did not deprive her of any liberty or property interest warranting due process protections.

Montgomery contends that the trial judge improperly emphasized her failure to present counter-affidavits to dispute the defendants’ factual evidence. She argues that she was not obligated to respond until the defendants established a sufficient factual basis for their motion. The court clarifies that the non-moving party is only required to counter the evidence once the moving party has met its burden.

The facts reveal that Montgomery believed she had a property interest and reasonable expectation of reemployment based on employment customs. She alleges that the dean publicly slandered her by stating her removal was necessary "for the good of the library," which she claims violated her right to a due process hearing regarding her reputation. Additionally, she asserts that her contract nonrenewal was retaliatory for her criticisms of library policies.

In response, the defendants presented deposition testimony and affidavits demonstrating that Montgomery's untenured status meant she could only rely on her contract, which allowed nonrenewal without cause. The dean provided testimony that the reasons for Montgomery's nonrenewal were unrelated to her prior criticisms of library procedures.

The plaintiff failed to provide counter-affidavits or factual evidence to dispute the defendant's claims. The trial court determined that the undisputed facts did not reveal any genuine issue of material fact, allowing the defendants to secure a judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). A non-tenured university employee lacks a property interest in continued employment under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus not entitled to due process protections when a contract is not renewed. The university properly notified the plaintiff twelve months prior to the non-renewal. The plaintiff did not present evidence of conditions suggesting de facto tenure that would support a property interest in continued employment. The Mississippi statute cited by the plaintiff does not mandate that cause must be shown for non-renewal after the contract term and does not create a property interest entitling the plaintiff to due process protections. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim of a liberty interest is unsupported, as there is no indication that the university's decision to decline re-employment imposed a stigma affecting her employment opportunities, and the reasons for non-renewal were not publicly disclosed.

Non-renewal of a non-tenured public employee's contract cannot be based on the employee's exercise of First Amendment rights, even if there is no deprivation of a protected interest. The plaintiff must prove that her protected conduct was a significant factor in the non-renewal decision, after which the university must show it would have made the same decision regardless of that conduct. In this case, the plaintiff criticized her supervisor and a library computer system, which is treated as speech on public concerns. However, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting her claim of retaliatory non-renewal and did not submit affidavits or documents to substantiate her allegations. The defendants presented uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff's insubordination, which justified the non-renewal. Summary judgment can be appropriate in such cases where a defendant has compelling reasons for non-renewal. Since the plaintiff did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding her First Amendment rights or due process interest, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the lawsuit.