West Virginia University v. Sauvageot

Citations: 185 W. Va. 534; 408 S.E.2d 286; 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 110Docket: No. 19686

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; July 11, 1991; West Virginia; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

West Virginia University appeals a July 28, 1989 order from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, which upheld a decision by the West Virginia State and Education Employees Grievance Board. This decision mandated the University to reinstate Ann Collins Sauvageot to her former position and compensate her for lost wages. The University argues that both the Grievance Board and the Circuit Court erred in granting her reinstatement and back pay. Upon review, the Court affirms the trial court's determination that Sauvageot is entitled to reinstatement but reverses the back pay award. 

Sauvageot had been employed under a one-year contract with the University Affiliated Center for Developmental Disabilities from July 1, 1986, to June 30, 1987, funded by government grants. She had a long history with the University, having worked in affiliated programs since 1973, typically under similar one-year contracts. In June 1987, the West Virginia Department of Human Services announced funding cuts, leading to the termination of her position. Following her grievance filing, which was initially denied, a Level IV hearing in May 1988 resulted in a favorable ruling for Sauvageot, stating that the elimination of her position constituted a program reduction. The hearing examiner found that the University's policies favored retaining employees with greater seniority during such reductions.

Ms. Sauvageot was determined to be the most senior faculty member in her program, and the University’s failure to renew her annual appointment was found to be contrary to its policy favoring the retention of senior employees. The Circuit Court of Kanawha County affirmed the hearing examiner's decision on July 28, 1989, acknowledging Ms. Sauvageot's long tenure since July 1976 and concluding she was entitled to the relief she sought. The circuit judge contemplated whether the University's actions were arbitrary and capricious and violated Ms. Sauvageot’s property interests. 

In its appeal, the University contended that both the hearing examiner and the circuit court erred in ordering Ms. Sauvageot's reinstatement and back wages, arguing that the court misapplied the 'Policies and Procedures for Program Change,' which apply only during significant program changes involving the release of faculty. The University asserted that Ms. Sauvageot was neither tenured nor released during the term of her contract, thus her non-renewal did not constitute a program change. 

The Court acknowledged the relevance of the University’s policies in the broader context of employment decisions but clarified that these policies did not solely determine Ms. Sauvageot’s entitlement to employment. It referenced the case of State ex rel. McLendon v. Morton, which established that employees with a 'property interest' in their positions are entitled to procedural due process protections against governmental actions affecting their employment. The Court noted that for a protected 'property interest' to exist, there must be established rules or understandings that create a legitimate claim of entitlement, as supported by precedents including Board of Regents v. Roth.

Unilateral and subjective expectations of employees, formed independently of any employer actions or commitments, do not establish a protected property interest. An objective expectation must arise from an employer's undertaking. Such undertakings can be informal and need not be documented. In the case of Professor McLendon, the court recognized her entitlement to procedural safeguards due to her six years of service, as she was not notified according to established policies regarding non-retention, illustrating that arbitrary actions by public employers violate due process.

In the current case involving Ms. Sauvageot, although her employment was classified as temporary and contingent on grant funding, her long tenure of nearly fourteen years at the University, combined with the consistent practice of contract renewal, created a reasonable expectation of continued employment. The University had a policy aimed at minimizing job loss during program reductions, prioritizing the retention of senior staff and ensuring representation of diverse faculty. This context supported the conclusion that Ms. Sauvageot had a legitimate expectation that her employment would persist, challenging the decision not to renew her contract.

The Court determined that Ms. Sauvageot possessed a sufficient property interest in her employment, stemming from the University’s consistent reemployment practices and its policy aimed at safeguarding long-term, nontenured employees. Consequently, she was entitled to nonarbitrary and noncapricious treatment, which the Court interpreted as maintaining treatment consistent with her past employment unless valid reasons for different treatment were provided. Although the Court found that the University did not adequately accommodate her request for renewed employment, it ruled that this failure did not justify an award of back pay. The rationale included the fact that her position was funded solely through grants or contracts, which were unavailable, thus eliminating any funding source for back pay. Furthermore, it was unlikely that future funding could be secured for this purpose. The judgment from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County was affirmed regarding her reinstatement but reversed concerning the back pay claim. Judge Brotherton dissented.