## Facts

- A search committee for the Board of Education of Paris Union School District No. 95 (Board) traveled to Joliet, Illinois to recruit Jesse Vail for athletic director and head football coach.
- Vail had lived in Joliet with his family for 13 years and had worked for about 10 years at a Joliet correctional center in a stable position.
- During discussions, Vail raised concerns about job security, the length of any contract term, and the time needed to fix problems in the district’s athletic program.
- The committee told Vail it could not commit beyond a one-year contract and that the full Board would decide the contract term.
- In June 1980, the Board met and unanimously agreed to hire Vail; it was the Board’s consensus that it would assure Vail of two years in the position.
- The Board instructed the superintendent to convey the offer and explain the Board’s intention to renew Vail’s one-year contract at the end of the first year so that Vail would have two years of employment.
- Vail executed a written one-year contract for a salary lower than his prior job and left his prior employment to take the school position.
- In March 1981, the Board voted not to renew Vail’s contract for a second year.
- The Board did not provide Vail with a hearing or an explanation for the nonrenewal.
- Vail sued the Board and individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of a Fourteenth Amendment property interest without due process.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Vail had a constitutionally protected interest in continued employment for the second year and awarded $19,850.99 in damages.
- The defendants appealed, arguing Vail had only a subjective expectation of renewal, Illinois law defeated any claimed entitlement, and damages were an improper remedy.

## Issues

1. Did the Board’s official assurance that it would renew Vail’s one-year contract for a second year create a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment, despite the written one-year contract?
2. If Vail had a protected property interest, did the Board violate procedural due process by deciding not to renew him without providing notice of reasons and an opportunity to be heard?
3. Was the district court’s award of compensatory damages an available and proper remedy under § 1983 for the due process violation found?

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Vail.
- The court held that the Board’s explicit, officially authorized assurance of two years of employment—communicated to Vail through the superintendent as directed by the Board—created a legitimate claim of entitlement to the second year, not merely a unilateral hope of renewal.
- Because that entitlement was a protected property interest, the Board could not cut off the promised second year without constitutionally adequate procedures.
- The Board’s failure to give Vail reasons and a hearing before terminating his employment expectancy for the second year violated the Due Process Clause.
- The court upheld the district court’s $19,850.99 damages award as a permissible § 1983 remedy on the record made at trial.

## Legal Principles

- Property interests protected by procedural due process are created by independent sources (such as state law, contracts, and official practices) and require a “legitimate claim of entitlement,” not a mere unilateral expectation.
- A public employer’s explicit assurance—made through official decisionmaking channels and reasonably relied upon—can create a protected property interest in continued employment even when a formal written contract is for a shorter term.
- When the government deprives a person of a protected property interest in public employment, due process generally requires notice of the grounds and a meaningful opportunity to respond before the deprivation becomes final.
- A governmental body may not avoid due process duties by characterizing its action as “nonrenewal” when its own official commitment created an entitlement to continued employment.
- Compensatory damages may be awarded under § 1983 for proven economic loss caused by a procedural due process violation.

## Conclusion

In *Vail v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District No. 95*, the Seventh Circuit held that the Board’s official assurance that Vail would have two years in the job (through renewal of a one-year contract) created a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment for the second year, and that the Board violated due process by refusing to renew him without providing reasons or a hearing; the court therefore affirmed liability under § 1983 and the district court’s $19,850.99 damages award.


Vail v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District Number 95, 706 F.2d 1435 (1983)