## Facts

- Philip I. Morgan was hired by American University (AU) in spring 1981 as a full-time, tenure-track faculty member for the 1981–82 academic year and was reappointed for 1982–83 and 1983–84 under successive one-year contracts.
- AU required annual reporting of professional activities in connection with reappointment.
- In July 1983, AU received an anonymous letter alleging Morgan held a simultaneous full-time faculty position at Golden Gate University during periods covered by his full-time AU appointments.
- Morgan admitted he held the Golden Gate position but asserted it did not interfere with his AU duties.
- AU concluded Morgan had not disclosed the outside employment in materials supporting his initial appointment or reappointments and asserted it would not have hired him had it known.
- AU “rescinded” Morgan’s 1983–84 appointment without using § 19 of the AU Faculty Manual (incorporated into the employment contract), which provided notice-and-hearing protections for mid-term termination “for cause.”
- Morgan sued for breach of contract, arguing AU’s action was effectively a “for cause” termination requiring § 19 procedures; AU argued it could rescind the contract ab initio for material misrepresentation.
- The trial court denied both parties’ summary-judgment motions, tried the case to a jury, and the jury returned a verdict for AU; the court denied Morgan’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).

## Issues

1. After a full trial on the merits, may an appellant obtain review of the trial court’s pretrial denial of the appellant’s motion for summary judgment?
2. Did the trial court err by submitting to the jury whether AU’s action was a permissible rescission for material misrepresentation rather than a “for cause” termination governed by § 19 of the Faculty Manual?

## Decision

- The court held that, following a full trial on the merits, the denial of a pretrial summary-judgment motion is not reviewable on appeal.
- The court held the contract questions concerning the relationship between § 19 dismissal procedures and rescission for misrepresentation were properly submitted to the jury given factual disputes.
- The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict for AU and affirmed the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Once a case has been fully tried, appellate review does not revisit the pretrial denial of summary judgment; challenges must be directed to the trial record and post-trial rulings (e.g., JNOV).
- Internal “for cause” termination procedures in an employment contract or incorporated manual do not, without clear language, eliminate the common-law remedy of rescission for material misrepresentation inducing contract formation.
- Contract interpretation may be submitted to the jury when application of the written terms depends on disputed extrinsic facts, including materiality of an alleged misrepresentation, reliance, and the parties’ understanding of how contractual procedures apply.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict for the university, ruling that a denied summary-judgment motion is not appealable after a full trial and that, on the disputed facts, the jury could determine whether the university permissibly rescinded the faculty contract for material nondisclosure rather than terminating “for cause” under the manual’s hearing procedures.


Morgan v. Am. Univ., 534 A.2d 323 (D.C. 1987)