## Facts

- Jerry Bruner, an unemployed assistant football coach living in El Paso, Texas, sought an assistant coaching job at the University of Southern Mississippi (USM).
- Bruner interviewed and communicated with USM’s head football coach, Jim Carmody, and later met with USM officials, including athletic director Roland Dale and USM president Dr. Aubrey Lucas.
- Bruner claimed Carmody called him in early February 1982 and offered him the offensive line coach position, telling him the job was his and that Carmody would not seek other candidates; Bruner’s wife testified she overheard and confirmed the substance of the call.
- Bruner said he relied on Carmody’s statements by withdrawing from consideration for other coaching openings.
- Bruner traveled to Hattiesburg and met with Carmody; he then met with Dale, who made statements consistent with Bruner “coming over” to USM.
- Bruner received items and access associated with employment, including keys to an automobile and an administrative office, and access to game film; he also spent time looking at housing and began moving his family from Texas to Mississippi.
- Dale told Bruner that he should not appear on the practice field until Carmody’s recommendation was approved by the Mississippi Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (the Board), which by statute had the sole authority to enter employment contracts for state universities; Dale also told Bruner he could return to Texas while awaiting Board action.
- Although Carmody and Dale recommended Bruner for the position, President Lucas did not forward Bruner’s name to the Board for approval.
- The Board never approved Bruner for the job and never issued an employment contract; Bruner was later told he did not get the position.
- Bruner sued USM, the Board, Lucas, Dale, and Carmody. The trial court granted directed verdicts for the Board, USM, Lucas, and Dale. Carmody went to the jury, which returned a verdict for Carmody. The trial court denied Bruner’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- Bruner appealed, including an argument that USM could be bound because Carmody had apparent authority to make an employment offer.

## Issues

1. Whether a valid, enforceable employment contract with USM existed when the Board never approved Bruner’s hiring or recorded approval in its minutes.
2. Whether Carmody, as head football coach, had actual or apparent authority to bind USM or the Board to an employment contract.
3. Whether the directed verdicts for the Board, USM, Lucas, and Dale were proper given the statutory scheme requiring Board approval.
4. Whether the jury’s verdict for Carmody, and the denial of JNOV, were supported by substantial evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court held no enforceable employment contract existed with USM or the Board because Mississippi law placed contracting authority for state-university employment with the Board, and the Board never approved Bruner’s hiring through action shown in its minutes.
- The court rejected Bruner’s apparent-authority theory, holding Carmody lacked authority to bind the Board or the university to an employment contract where the statute required Board approval.
- The court affirmed the directed verdicts for the Board, USM, Lucas, and Dale because the evidence could not establish a binding public employment contract absent Board action.
- The court affirmed the jury’s verdict for Carmody and the denial of JNOV because there was evidence from which jurors could find no actionable promise or contract—e.g., testimony characterizing Bruner’s visit and treatment as part of a candidate-review process and reflecting the requirement of Board approval.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute assigns exclusive contracting power for state-university employment to a governing board, a binding employment contract requires the board’s approval as shown in official board records (including minutes).
- Public boards and public universities are not bound by informal assurances from employees who lack statutory contracting power; those dealing with public entities are charged with notice of legal limits on an agent’s authority.
- Apparent authority cannot be used to impose contractual liability on a public entity when the law requires specified formal board action and that action did not occur.
- Directed verdict is proper when, taking the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party, reasonable jurors could not find the necessary elements of contract formation against the public defendants.
- JNOV is properly denied when substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict on disputed facts, including whether statements and conduct amounted to a firm offer or only part of an interview and recommendation process.

## Conclusion

Bruner’s reliance on Carmody’s alleged oral job offer and job-like treatment did not create an enforceable USM employment contract because only the Board could approve and memorialize such hiring, and it never did so; Carmody had no authority to bind the public defendants, and the directed verdicts, the jury’s verdict for Carmody, and the denial of JNOV were all affirmed.


Bruner v. University of Southern Mississippi, 501 So. 2d 1113 (1987)