 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Franklin v. Loma Linda University2/8/2002
Plaintiff and appellant Donna L. Franklin appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Loma Linda University (the University or the employer). For the reasons which follow, we determine that the trial court properly granted the University's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a nationally known scholar and author in the field of social work or sociology. From 1994 to 1996, plaintiff was a visiting professor at the University of Southern California (USC). Plaintiff wrote and published a book which received critical acclaim and a distinguished book award from a professional association. According to plaintiff, USC had promised her that she would be promoted to full professor when she completed the book, and, in the meantime, she was awarded the John Milner Endowed Chair.
In 1994, the University first approached plaintiff and proposed to hire her as a faculty member for its newly established graduate department of social work.
The terms of the 1994 offer were that plaintiff would be tenured as a professor, at salary grade "E". Plaintiff would be granted "release time" varying from 100 percent to 70 percent of her work time, to permit her to complete her "current manuscript." After the first year, plaintiff's workloads would be governed by the graduate school's regular policies. Plaintiff rejected the University's 1994 employment offer.
In 1996, plaintiff and the University entered into new employment negotiations. At that time, apparently, plaintiff was preparing to write a second book. She planned to take a leave of absence from USC. The University was interested in having plaintiff as a full-time faculty member. Plaintiff indicated that, "if [the University] could offer me something permanent, I would be interested." The result of the discussions was a two-year contract, giving plaintiff the rank of professor at salary grade "G," for the first year, and salary grade "H," for the second year. The professorship was not a tenured position. The contract included an additional "budget" of $15,000 per year, and a "faculty development fund " of $1,000 each year. During the two years of the contract, plaintiff would have light teaching duties and minimal administrative duties, so that she could devote more time to her writing.
Plaintiff, having taken a leave of absence from USC, accepted the University's 1996 contract. After the first year, plaintiff resigned her position at USC.
After the two-year contract expired, further negotiations took place. The University wanted plaintiff to assume responsibility for seeking grant moneys to cover her salary; it also asked her to assume more teaching and faculty responsibilities. Plaintiff, on the other hand, believed that she had been promised that the University would continue to allow her special accommodations to allow her to write; according to plaintiff, she had been promised that, even after the expiration of the initial two-year period, (1) she would not have a standard workload of faculty or teaching duties, and (2) her salary would be increased. She negotiated a one-year extension on the same terms as the 1996 contract.
At the next renewal period, the University informed plaintiff that her contract would not be renewed again unless she accepted a standard teaching and administrative workload; otherwise, she could be released from such duties to the extent that she sought grant proposals to fund part or all of her salary. Alternatively, if plaintiff wished to devote more time to her writing, she could apply for a leave of absence from the University. Plaint
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|