## Facts

- Vonceil McLendon served as an Assistant Professor at Parkersburg Community College, governed by the West Virginia Board of Regents.
- Faculty tenure was governed by the Board’s Amended Policy Bulletin No. 36 (effective July 1, 1974) and the college’s implementing rules.
- The tenure policy linked tenure to academic freedom and aimed to prevent arbitrary dismissals and denials.
- Under the college rules, after six years of full-time teaching a faculty member became eligible to be considered for tenure under specified criteria.
- After completing six years of service, McLendon applied for tenure.
- A tenure committee reviewed the application; the college president denied tenure by letter without stating reasons and without providing a hearing.
- McLendon was offered a one-year “termination contract” after the tenure denial.
- McLendon filed an original mandamus petition seeking to compel the Board of Regents and its Chancellor to provide due-process procedures in connection with the tenure denial.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board of Regents’ tenure policy and the college’s rules created a protected property interest in the tenure decision sufficient to trigger procedural due process.
2. If a protected property interest existed, whether due process required written reasons for denial and an opportunity for a hearing to contest the stated grounds.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted relief in mandamus.
- The court held that the tenure policy and implementing rules created a legitimate claim of entitlement sufficient to constitute a protected property interest.
- The court held that denying tenure without providing reasons and an opportunity to be heard violated procedural due process.
- The court ordered the respondents to provide written reasons for the tenure denial and an appropriate hearing or opportunity to contest those reasons.

## Legal Principles

- Property interests protected by procedural due process arise from state law, rules, or mutually explicit understandings that create a legitimate claim of entitlement, not from unilateral expectations.
- A public employer’s tenure policy that uses objective eligibility criteria, structured decision procedures, and an expressed commitment to non-arbitrary outcomes can create a protected property interest even if tenure is not automatic.
- The required scope of procedural due process depends on weighing: (1) the private interest affected, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under existing procedures and the value of added safeguards, and (3) the government’s interest and administrative burdens.
- When a protected property interest exists in a tenure decision, due process at least requires notice of reasons and a meaningful opportunity to respond; a full trial-type hearing is not required in every case.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that the governing tenure framework created a protected property interest for an eligible faculty member and required basic procedural safeguards—written reasons and an opportunity to contest the grounds—before tenure could be denied without violating due process.


State ex rel. McLendon v. Morton, 249 S.E.2d 919 (W. Va. 1978)