Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 828 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1997 ___________________________________

UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE v. PERI IZ ___________________________________ Moylan, Hollander, Smith, Marvin H. (Retired, Specially Assigned) JJ. ___________________________________ Opinion by Hollander, J. ___________________________________ Filed: September 3,1998

This

appeal

concerns

the

decision

of

the

University

of

Baltimore (the "University"), appellant and cross-appellee, to deny tenure and promotion to Peri Iz ("Dr. Iz"), appellee and crossappellant.1 City Appellee filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore

against the University; its President, H. Mebane Turner

("President Turner"); its Provost, Ronald Legon; and former Dean of the Business School, Daniel Costello (collectively, the

"Officers").2

In her second amended complaint, Dr. Iz alleged that

the Officers violated her constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. With respect to the University, Dr. Iz claimed that it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, breached its contract with Dr. Iz, and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After a three week trial in July 1996, the jury found in favor of the University and the Officers on the civil rights and state and federal constitutional claims, but found in favor of Dr. Iz on the contract claims lodged against the University. awarded appellee $425,000.00 in damages. The jury

After the parties' post

trial motions were denied, the University timely noted its appeal. It presents four questions for our review, which we have reframed Dr. Iz was represented below by counsel, but is pro se on appeal.
2 1

The Officers are not parties to this appeal.

and reordered: I. II. Did the trial court err in refusing to grant appellant's motion for judgment as a matter of law?3 Did the trial court err in permitting appellee to testify as an expert on damages when she had not been named as an expert witness pursuant to the court's scheduling order for disclosure of experts?

III. Was the jury's award of $425,000.00 in damages excessive and speculative? IV. Does sovereign immunity bar a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?

In her cross-appeal, appellee presents one question for our consideration, which we have rephrased: Did the trial court err in refusing to award specific performance of the contract? In addition, the University has moved to dismiss appellee's crossappeal as untimely filed. It has also moved to strike part of Dr.

Iz's reply brief on the ground that it exceeds the scope of the University's response to the issue raised by Dr. Iz on her cross-

3

This "question" actually reads:

The jury's verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence because Dr. Iz's inability to work cooperatively with her colleagues was appropriately considered in her tenure review and because there was no evidence that the University acted unreasonably when it considered Dr. Iz for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor. A. B. Considering Dr. Iz's lack of collegiality did not breach her contract with the University. The evidence in support of the claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not create a jury question. 2

appeal. We shall answer appellant's first question in the affirmative. Therefore, we need not address appellant's remaining issues or the issue presented on the cross-appeal. appellant's motions. shall reverse. Factual Background The parties agree on most of the facts. Dr. Iz holds a Ph.D. Moreover, we shall deny

Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we

in Decision Sciences, and her expertise lies in the study of decision-making in a business context. In 1989, the University

hired Dr. Iz as a visiting assistant professor under a one-year contract. Business She was appointed to the University's Merrick School of (the "School" or "Merrick") in the Information and

Qualitative Sciences ("IQS") Department. In 1990, Dr. Iz received a tenure track contract. The

agreement provided that she would be reviewed for tenure in the 1993 academic year in accordance with the terms and conditions of the University of Maryland System's Board of Regents' policy on appointment, rank, and tenure. The University of Maryland System's

policy, in turn, requires each of its institutions to develop written procedures and criteria governing the promotion and tenure process. The University of Maryland System's policy also states: [T]he terms described in the letter of appointment, together with the policies reproduced in the designated portions of the faculty handbook, shall constitute a contractually binding agreement between the institution 3

and the appointee. The University of Maryland System's tenure policy also

provides that the President of the University is the only official actually authorized to award tenure and promotion to a faculty member. Such authority is also provided in Md. Code (1978, 1997

Repl. Vol., 1997 Cum. Supp.),

Download University of Baltimore v. Iz.pdf

Maryland Law