## Facts

- Stephan L. Honore taught at a public law school from 1974 to 1984, serving as an assistant and later associate professor.
- At the time of his hiring, university rules were understood to grant tenure automatically after seven years of service.
- After four years of teaching, Honore took three consecutive one-year authorized leaves to serve in the Peace Corps; the parties disputed whether authorized leave counted toward the seven-year tenure period.
- In 1978, the university revised its tenure rules to remove automatic tenure and require a petition-and-review process with final authority in the Board of Regents, along with notice requirements for non-tenured faculty.
- After Honore returned in 1981, a faculty committee recommended promotion and recognition of tenure based on counting the leave years; he was promoted, but the governing board did not grant tenure.
- In 1983, after Honore criticized the dean and participated in grievance activity and a no-confidence effort, the dean notified him his employment would end unless he obtained tenure.
- A faculty committee again recommended tenure, but the dean opposed it; the Board of Regents denied tenure and ended Honore’s employment effective May 31, 1984.
- Honore sued public university officials alleging (1) deprivation of a tenure-based property interest without due process and (2) denial of tenure in retaliation for protected speech.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Honore’s procedural due process claim given disputed facts about whether university rules and practices created a protected property interest in tenure or continued employment.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Honore’s First Amendment retaliation claim given evidence that his protected speech may have been a substantial and motivating factor in the tenure denial.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Honore had a property interest in tenure/continued employment under university rules and practices.
- The court also held that the record permitted competing inferences on whether Honore’s protected speech was a substantial and motivating factor in the adverse tenure decision, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- A public employee’s protected property interest in employment may arise from rules or mutually recognized understandings created by state law, including university regulations and established practices, not from a unilateral expectation.
- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and may not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing interpretations of contested facts.
- In public-employee speech cases, a plaintiff must show protected speech and evidence permitting a finding that the speech was a substantial and motivating factor in the adverse employment action; causation and motive are often fact questions not suitable for summary judgment where the record is disputed.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit required further proceedings because disputed evidence about the operation of tenure rules (including whether authorized leave counted toward automatic tenure) and the potential retaliatory role of Honore’s faculty criticism could support liability, and those disputes could not be resolved on summary judgment.


Honore v. Douglas, 833 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1987)