Perry vs. Sindermann
408 U.S. 593 (1972)
by:
Chris Spahr

Facts of the Case:

Robert Sindermann was a teacher in the state college system of Texas. After teaching at many colleges in Texas, Sindermann became a professor of government at Odessa Junior College in 1965. Because of his success, he was eventually appointed to the chair of his department. He was a professor at Odessa Junior College for four years under one-year consecutive contracts. During the 1968-1969 school year, controversy arose between Sindermann and the administration of the college.  Sindermann was elected the president of Texas Junior College Teachers Association and, because of this, Sindermann became involved in numerous public disagreements with the policies of the Board of Regents of the college. One of the main disagreements was whether to change the college into a four year school or not to (Sindermann was for this; Regents were against it). In May 1969, Sindermann’s one-year contract ended and the Board of Regents chose not to renew his contract. The Board of Regents issued a press release stating the choice to not renew his contract was because of his insubordination, however, they never gave Sindermann any reasons for the non-renewal of his contract and the Board of Regents also never gave Sindermann a hearing.

Sindermann brought this case to the federal district court. The court first held that despite the lack of Sindermann’s tenure, the non-renewal of his contract would violate the Fourteenth Amendment if it was based on his protected free speech. The reason for the non-renewal of his contract by the Board of Regents was in “total dispute”. Therefore, the court held that a full hearing be held to decide on the issue. Then, the court decided that because the college had not adopted the tenure program the termination of Sindermann was legal.

The court of appeals reversed the decision stating that despite his lack of tenure, the failure to give him a hearing  violated the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process if Sindermann could show that he had expected to be rehired the next year.

Decision of the Court:

In an opinion written by Justice Stewart, the Court decided that Sindermann had alleged enough facts to show that he was entitled to some kind of due process and that the lack of a contractual or tenure right taken alone did not defeat his claim that the nonrenewal of his contract violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court decided that he be given a hearing to determine whether his termination was legal.

Basis for the Decision:

The Supreme Court cited Board of Regents vs. Roth (408 U.S. 564), stating that while Sindermann did not have tenure he had achieved a kind of tenure. Roth was also an example of a non-tenured teacher not having a claim for a hearing. Also, Sindermann had pointed to the policy paper that was a part of his contract, which stated that Sindermann should have an expectancy of treatment as if being tenure.