Morgan v. American University
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
534 A.2d 323 (1987)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Phillip Morgan (plaintiff) was hired by American University (AU) (defendant) as an assistant professor on a tenure track. After three consecutive one-year appointments, AU learned that Morgan was a full-time professor at another university, a fact that he did not disclose during his appointment process. Morgan’s one-year contract was immediately rescinded. AU did not conduct a hearing as required by § 19 of the faculty manual, which provided that adequate cause had to be shown if a faculty member was terminated before the end of his or her contract. The faculty manual defined adequate cause as something related to a professor’s fitness or performance. Morgan filed a breach-of-contract claim against AU, contending that AU was required to afford him a hearing, as required by his contract. AU argued that it had the right to rescind his contract because Morgan made a material misrepresentation prior to its formation. A jury returned a verdict for AU, finding that AU had shown that it had a right to rescind the contract and, therefore, Morgan was not entitled to any protections afforded by his contract. Morgan filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied. Morgan then appealed, arguing that, as a matter of law, the contract language, which included § 19 of the faculty manual, was unambiguous and afforded him the right to a hearing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Steadman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.