 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pomona College v. Superior Court5/31/1996
BOREN, P. J.
Petitioner, Pomona College, seeks a writ of mandate directing the superior court to set aside its order overruling Pomona's demurrer to the complaint of real party Andrew Corin.
Corin filed a complaint for damages, claiming wrongful termination and breach of contract and of implied covenants after Pomona declined to offer him lifetime academic tenure as a college professor. Pomona demurred on the ground that Corin's exclusive remedy is administrative mandamus review under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. We conclude that mandamus review is the exclusive remedy and that the superior court should have sustained without leave to amend Pomona's demurrer to Corin's operative complaint. We therefore grant the writ.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Pomona employed Corin as an assistant professor in the department of modern languages and literature from March 1987 to July 1994. (His chosen field of scholarship is Serbo-Croatian linguistics--historical as well as synchronic-descriptive--and philological research, with a particular emphasis on Old Church Slavonic. Corin taught courses primarily in Russian language and historical linguistics.)
Upon learning that he would not be offered lifetime tenure, Corin filed suit, claiming that in 1987 Pomona promised him a permanent teaching position as long as his performance was "acceptable" and in accordance with the "guidelines" and "policies" as outlined in Pomona's faculty handbook (Handbook). He alleges Pomona breached these promises by failing to follow its policies and procedures during the tenure review process. Specifically, Pomona improperly evaluated his teaching, scholarship and service, improperly gave unfair and inappropriate weight to certain evidence presented to Pomona for consideration in the tenure review process, provided improper and inadequate counseling throughout the tenure evaluation process, improperly changed the standards for awarding tenure only as to Corin, without notice or opportunity to be heard by Corin, and failed to adequately define the official role of the linguistics department in the tenure granting process.
Pomona demurred to Corin's complaint on the ground that his exclusive remedy for the wrongs he alleges is administrative mandamus review under section 1094.5. The superior court overruled the demurrer, stating " he ourt finds that this is a strictly reach of ontract lawsuit." This petition for writ of mandate followed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Contentions
Pomona contends that section 1094.5 should be extended to review quasi-judicial decisions of private universities, and that because Corin seeks de novo reevaluation of his lifetime tenure candidacy, administrative mandamus is his exclusive remedy.
Although Corin concedes that section 1094.5 has been applied to various private institutions, he claims the statute should not be applied to private universities. However, assuming we hold that it does, he claims he should not be required to avail himself of the remedy because his is a simple breach of contract claim based on Pomona's "failure to follow its established policies and procedures" during the tenure review process. Alternatively, Corin argues that he should not be required to seek mandamus because, in making its final administrative decision to deny him tenure, Pomona failed to hold a hearing regarding his grievance and failed to take evidence as required by section 1094.5.
B. Standard of Review
We treat the pleadings as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or Conclusions of fact or law. (See Blank v. Kirwan
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|