Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
File Name: 12a0247p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
LYNN BRANHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL; DONALD
LEDUC,
Defendants-Appellees.
X----
>,---
N
No. 10-2305
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:07-cv-630—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge.
Argued: April 18, 2012
Decided and Filed: August 6, 2012
Before: MARTIN, COOK, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Peter Goldberger, Ardmore, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Megan P. Norris,
MILLER CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for
Appellees. ON BRIEF: Peter Goldberger, Ardmore, Pennsylvania, Julie H. Hurwitz,
William H. Goodman, GOODMAN & HURWITZ, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for
Appellant. Megan P. Norris, Christopher M. Trebilcock, MILLER CANFIELD,
PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Lynn Branham, a former law professor
at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, appeals the district court’s judgments concluding
that the tenure granted under her contract does not afford her rights beyond those
specified in her employment contract; concluding that the faculty conference process
1
No. 10-2305 Branham v. Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch., et al. Page 2
through which her termination was ratified complied with Cooley’s policy and with
Michigan law; denying her a jury trial on the issues of whether there was “good cause”
for her termination and whether she is due damages; and limiting her available remedy
to equity. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgments of the district court.
***
Branham’s tenure does not provide additional privileges or protections other than
those specified in her employment contract. The process by which the faculty
conference reviewed and concurred in LeDuc’s dismissal of Branham was sufficient to
comply with Branham’s employment contract and federal and Michigan law. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the remedy available to Branham
was limited to equitable relief. Branham’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial was
not violated. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgments of the district court.
No comments:
Post a Comment