Smith v. Kent State University
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
696 F.2d 476 (1983)
Facts
Smith (plaintiff) was a tenured music professor at Kent State University (defendant). After receiving tenure, Smith joined in a petition to have the Director of the Music Department, Merrill, removed, but the music faculty ultimately voted for him to remain. Smith received an unfavorable evaluation for teaching Music 280, a music history course within his field of expertise. Afterwards, Smith refused to teach the course. Merrill specifically requested that Smith teach the course, and Smith continually refused. Merrill sought to terminate Smith’s employment, and termination proceedings ensued. The Faculty Hearing Committee agreed that Smith should teach the course but found termination to be too severe and recommended that Smith be retained if he accepted future teaching assignments. The university president accepted this recommendation, and the Board of Trustees ratified Smith’s contract for the following school year with the express language that if Smith again refused a teaching assignment that was deemed reasonable, he would be automatically removed from the faculty. Smith again refused to teach Music 280 and refused to meet with music department officials about the situation. A hearing was held before the university president, which resulted in Smith’s termination. Smith filed a lawsuit against the university. The district court ruled in favor of the university, and Smith appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.