Willens v. University of Massachusetts
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
570 F.2d 403 (1978)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Lilian Willens (plaintiff) was an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts (UMass) (defendant). Willens was hired in 1967 and received a letter of hire, which indicated that her tenure-decision year would be 1970-1971. In 1970 Willens signed a letter of reappointment, which indicated that her tenure-decision year would be 1972-1973. Willens was denied tenure because of her lack of scholarly work. Willens did not dispute UMass’s claim that her scholarly work was lacking, nor did UMass publicize this claim. After being denied tenure, Willens filed suit against UMass, alleging that she had been denied both a liberty interest and property interest in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court awarded summary judgment to UMass, finding that Willens had no such interest in continued employment. The district court also rejected Willens’s argument that UMass deprived her of a liberty interest by labeling her as unscholarly. Willens also brought a breach-of-contract claim, predicated on the theory that UMass had a system of de facto tenure. At trial, there was testimony establishing that UMass did not have a de facto system of tenure. Willens appealed, even though she did not challenge this testimony or the reasons behind UMass’s decision to deny her tenure.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bownes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.