## Facts

- Richard C. Spuler was hired as an assistant professor at the University of Houston in 1980 and was reappointed on one-year contracts for several years.
- Near the end of his fifth year, the department chair notified Spuler his contract would not be renewed after the 1985–86 academic year, citing financial reasons.
- Spuler asked to undergo the tenure review process to report to prospective employers that he was being considered for tenure; departmental and college committees concluded he met tenure criteria and was eligible for consideration.
- The faculty handbook described tenure as following completion of a probationary period and outlined a multi-level process, ending with final tenure authority vested in the Board of Regents upon recommendation of the President.
- After Spuler left, another professor resigned; the University did not rehire Spuler and asserted the opening required different specialization.
- Spuler sued university administrators and the Board, alleging denial of tenure and nonrenewal deprived him of due process because the handbook, procedures, and reappointments created a property interest in continued employment.
- A jury found the University’s rules created a reasonable expectation of continued employment and that defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously, awarding damages.
- The district court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for defendants, holding Spuler had no constitutionally protected property interest; Spuler appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the University’s handbook, tenure procedures, and practices created a constitutionally protected property interest in Spuler’s continued employment sufficient to trigger due process protections.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, or whether JNOV was proper because no reasonable jury could find a protected property interest.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the JNOV for defendants.
- Spuler’s annual reappointments, completion of a probationary period, and favorable committee evaluations did not create a property interest in continued employment or tenure.
- Because Spuler lacked a protected property interest, alleged arbitrariness in tenure recommendations or nonrenewal did not establish a due process violation.

## Legal Principles

- A procedural due process claim based on termination or nonrenewal requires a constitutionally protected property interest created by state law sources such as contract terms, statutes, or binding institutional rules that limit the employer’s discretion.
- Faculty handbook language describing a tenure system and probationary period does not create an entitlement to continued employment where final tenure authority is reserved to the governing board and the institution retains discretion to deny tenure or decline renewal.
- Internal academic processes (committee recommendations, eligibility findings, or fairness expectations) do not convert year-to-year appointments into a protected entitlement absent clear, enforceable limits on nonrenewal or tenure denial.
- Without a property interest, a claim that university decisionmaking was arbitrary or capricious does not, by itself, constitute a federal due process violation.

## Conclusion

The court held that the University’s handbook and tenure process did not restrict institutional discretion enough to create a property interest in reappointment or tenure, so setting aside the jury’s verdict and entering judgment for the defendants was proper.


Spuler v. Pickar, 958 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1992)