## Facts

- Dr. Raj P. Soni, a mathematics professor, joined the University of Tennessee in 1967 as a visiting associate professor.
- Soni and the department head discussed a permanent appointment with tenure; his visiting appointment was extended with an understanding that a decision would be made in fall 1968.
- The department head issued a written recommendation that Soni be offered an associate professorship with tenure.
- Because Soni was not a U.S. citizen at the time, officials stated that state law prevented a permanent appointment; Soni was told he would be considered for tenure upon obtaining citizenship and treated like tenured faculty.
- For several years, the University treated Soni as part of the regular tenure faculty in practice, including placing him in a retirement program reserved for permanent faculty, allowing participation and voting in departmental governance, and providing repeated assurances about permanency.
- After Soni became a U.S. citizen, the University decided not to renew his appointment, citing concerns about his teaching and research.
- The University did not provide a meaningful opportunity to contest the stated reasons before ending his employment.
- Soni sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the University’s representations and course of conduct created a constitutionally protected property interest in Soni’s continued employment despite the absence of formal tenure.
2. If a property interest existed, whether the University violated due process by failing to provide notice of reasons and a hearing before nonrenewal/termination.
3. Whether ordering a post-termination hearing and awarding back pay until the hearing was provided was a proper remedy for the due process violation.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court.
- The court held that the University’s actions and assurances created a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to continued employment, constituting a protected property interest.
- Because Soni had a protected property interest, due process required notice and a hearing at which he could challenge the asserted grounds for nonrenewal.
- The University’s failure to provide those procedures violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The court upheld the remedy requiring the University to provide a hearing and awarding back pay from the termination date until the hearing was furnished.

## Legal Principles

- Property interests under the Fourteenth Amendment arise from “rules or understandings” that secure benefits and support an entitlement claim; they may be created by formal policies or informal, mutually explicit understandings.
- A public employer’s conduct, assurances, and established practices can create a protected property interest in continued employment even when formal written tenure procedures have not been completed.
- When a protected property interest in continued employment exists, procedural due process requires, at minimum, notice of the reasons for termination/nonrenewal and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- In assessing whether a protected interest exists, courts look to the substance of the employment relationship, not solely to formal labels or the absence of an official tenure grant.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the University’s sustained representations and treatment of Soni as permanent faculty created a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment, and that ending his appointment without prior notice and a meaningful hearing violated due process; the ordered hearing and back-pay remedy were therefore affirmed.


Soni v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Tenn., 513 F.2d 347 (6th Cir. 1975)