## Facts

- Marvin M. Weinstein, a non-tenured assistant professor at a public university, helped develop and run a clinical clerkship program with two faculty colleagues.
- The three jointly submitted the program proposal, participated in the program, and agreed to write jointly about the results.
- Weinstein claimed an additional agreement with one coauthor that Weinstein would be listed first on one resulting article, while the coauthor would lead a different paper.
- After disagreements over revisions and progress, a coauthor finished the draft, submitted it to a professional journal, and the article was published listing Weinstein as third author.
- Weinstein alleged the publication order and revisions deprived him of credit and contributed to denial of tenure and termination.
- He sued the university and individual officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of property without due process.

## Issues

1. Whether a faculty member has a constitutionally protected property interest in being listed as first author (or in the order of authorship) on a jointly written scholarly article.
2. Whether university copyright or “work for hire” rules created or negated a property interest supporting a due process claim.
3. Whether a non-tenured professor had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment or tenure sufficient to support a due process claim.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held Weinstein had no Fourteenth Amendment property interest in authorship order on the publication.
- The court treated the article as a joint work; each coauthor had equal rights to use and publish it, so submission and publication did not constitute a constitutional deprivation.
- The court rejected the premise that the university necessarily owned the copyright as a work for hire under university policy and academic practice, but concluded this did not create a federal due process claim.
- The court held Weinstein, as non-tenured faculty, lacked a property interest in continued employment or tenure absent a contract, statute, or rule granting an entitlement.

## Legal Principles

- Due process protects only property interests grounded in an established legal entitlement (e.g., state law, contract, or formal rules), not professional expectations or courtesy-based claims.
- In a joint work, coauthors generally have equal rights to use and publish the work; disputes over credit allocation are typically matters of contract, copyright, tort, or professional norms rather than constitutional law.
- Public employees have a protected property interest in continued employment only if a rule, contract, statute, or mutually explicit understanding creates an entitlement; non-tenured faculty ordinarily lack such an entitlement absent specific guarantees.
- Section 1983 does not convert ordinary academic credit disputes or alleged breaches of internal understandings into Fourteenth Amendment due process claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that a disagreement over authorship order and related professional consequences did not amount to a deprivation of constitutionally protected property, and that a non-tenured professor lacked any entitlement to tenure or continued employment; the § 1983 complaint was properly dismissed.


Weinstein v. University of Illinois, 811 F.2d 1091 (7th Cir. 1987)