## Facts

- Hertha H. Krotkoff, an Austrian citizen, was a tenured professor of German at Goucher College; she began teaching in 1962 and received “indeterminate tenure” in 1967.
- Her tenure letter described continued employment absent “good cause” for termination; neither the letter nor the college bylaws expressly referenced termination for financial exigency.
- By the mid-1970s, the college faced sustained deficits and declining enrollment, reporting annual deficits aggregating more than $1.5 million.
- The college initiated institution-wide retrenchment to reduce deficits, eliminated certain programs, and declined to renew multiple faculty contracts, including several tenured professors.
- The German section within the Modern Language Department was eliminated, and Krotkoff’s employment ended after June 30, 1976.
- Krotkoff sued for breach of contract, contending (1) the trustees did not reasonably believe a genuine financial exigency existed, and (2) even if finances were serious, the tenure agreement did not permit terminating a tenured professor for financial exigency.
- The college asserted that termination resulted from bona fide financial exigency and program reduction decisions made using reasonable, uniform criteria.

## Issues

1. Whether a tenure contract may, as a matter of law, include an implied condition permitting termination of tenured faculty for bona fide financial exigency or program discontinuance, despite silence in the written tenure terms.
2. Whether the evidence could support a jury finding that the trustees lacked a reasonable, good-faith belief in financial exigency.
3. Whether the evidence could support a jury finding that the college failed to apply reasonable, uniform standards in selecting Krotkoff for termination.
4. Whether the evidence could support a jury finding that the college failed to make reasonable efforts to find Krotkoff alternative employment.

## Decision

- The jury returned a general verdict for Krotkoff and awarded $180,000 in damages after being instructed that she would prevail if she proved any one of four submitted propositions.
- The district court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (and conditionally granted a new trial as an alternative), concluding the verdict was unsupported by the evidence.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the college.
- The court held that financial exigency was an implied limitation on tenure in this context and that the record compelled the conclusion that the college reasonably believed exigency existed, used reasonable uniform standards, and made reasonable efforts to consider alternative employment.

## Legal Principles

- On judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, with conflicts and reasonable inferences resolved in that party’s favor; JNOV is proper only when the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion.
- Academic tenure protects academic freedom and job security but is not an absolute guarantee of continued employment; it may include an implied term allowing termination for bona fide financial exigency or program discontinuance.
- A private college may terminate tenured faculty during bona fide financial exigency if the governing body reasonably and in good faith believes exigency exists and the institution applies reasonable, uniform, nonretaliatory criteria in selecting positions to eliminate.
- Tenure does not obligate an institution to maintain every program indefinitely during genuine financial distress.
- An institution’s duty to consider alternative employment is measured by reasonableness in light of academic and financial constraints and the faculty member’s qualifications and conditions for reassignment.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed judgment for the college, ruling that tenure may implicitly permit termination for bona fide financial exigency and that the evidence compelled findings that the trustees reasonably believed exigency existed, applied reasonable uniform selection criteria, and reasonably considered alternative employment options.


Krotkoff v. Goucher Coll., 585 F.2d 675 (4th Cir. 1978)