## Facts

- John Haegert, a tenured English professor at a private university, worked there from 1979 and received tenure in 1982.
- His annually renewed tenure contracts incorporated the university’s Faculty and Administrator Manual, which in turn incorporated AAUP-based standards and included a sexual-harassment policy.
- Prior concerns were raised about Haegert’s interactions with women, including complaints of inappropriate comments and touching involving female students.
- On August 25, 2004, Haegert entered a department lounge while the department chair, Margaret McMullan, was meeting with a prospective student and her parents; he addressed McMullan as “Sweetie,” stood very close to her, and touched her under the chin and along the neck.
- McMullan filed a formal complaint under the university’s internal disciplinary process.
- A faculty review committee investigated and issued a report finding Haegert violated the university’s sexual-harassment policy.
- After extensive internal proceedings providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, the university rescinded Haegert’s tenure and terminated his employment.
- Haegert sued for breach of contract; the trial court granted summary judgment for the university, the court of appeals reversed, and the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether the university had contractual “cause” to rescind tenure and terminate Haegert for conduct found to violate the incorporated sexual-harassment policy.
2. Whether the university substantially complied with the disciplinary and dismissal procedures incorporated into Haegert’s contract (Faculty Manual and AAUP-based standards) so that termination did not breach the contract.
3. Whether summary judgment for the university was proper under Indiana’s no-genuine-issue-of-material-fact standard.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the university and vacated the court of appeals’ contrary decision.
- The court held the university had contractual cause to terminate Haegert based on violation of the incorporated harassment policy.
- The court held the university substantially complied with the contractual procedures for discipline and dismissal.
- Because no breach of contract was shown and no material factual dispute required trial, the university was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A private university’s faculty manual and incorporated standards may become binding terms of a faculty member’s employment contract when incorporated by reference into annual appointment/tenure agreements.
- Disputes over termination by a private university sound in contract; constitutional due process does not apply absent state action, though promised procedures may be enforced as contractual obligations.
- Judicial review of private university disciplinary decisions generally focuses on whether the institution acted within contractually recognized grounds (“cause”) and substantially complied with the procedures it adopted, rather than reweighing the merits of internal fact-finding.
- Substantial compliance with contractually required procedures—providing the essential protections such as notice, opportunity to be heard, and reasoned decision-making—can satisfy the institution’s contractual duties even if minor deviations occurred.
- When the record shows contractual cause and substantial procedural compliance, summary judgment is appropriate if the employee fails to identify a genuine issue of material fact on a specific, outcome-determinative breach.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the university’s incorporated harassment policy supplied contractual cause to revoke a tenured professor’s appointment and that the university’s internal process substantially complied with the faculty-manual procedures, defeating the professor’s breach-of-contract claims on summary judgment.


Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. 2012)