Roth, the Court refuses to find a protected liberty interest because the plaintiff was "simply not rehired." Does the Court mean to suggest that the plaintiff was not injured by the non-renewal? What are the implications of non-renewal for a faculty member's career path?

According to the findings of the Court, Roth had no protected liberty interest that was violated. Rather, the Court stated that the State, by not rehiring Roth, did not seriously damage his "standing and associations in his community" and career path. "It did not base the non-renewal of his contract on a charge, for example, that he had been guilty of dishonesty, or immorality. Had it done so, this would be a different case," although the Court does acknowledge the seriousness of losing his position. Roth's career path was damaged, but not irrevocably so, in the Court's point-of-view. He was not slandered or defamed.

The damage done to Roth would have to have been the type of damage that harmed his rights as a citizen, not merely as an employee, as an employer is free not to hire back a non-tenured employee such as Roth. Or, the damage done to his career would have had to have been so great and irrevocable it constituted a malicious action.

What institutional practices or policies may create a constitutionally protected property interest in one's job? May faculty members in private institutions have such a property interest in their jobs?

Roth's "property" interest in employment at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh was terminated on June 30, 1969, as specified in his contract, and there were no provisions for renewal. Faculty members at private institutions that grant tenure may have expectations of retaining their position, given the stipulations of their contracts. Grounds for being granted or retaining tenure may vary from institution to institution. There is no broadly sweeping right to tenure or right to one's job, however, rather the institution must merely uphold the guidelines it sets forth in its original contract. The university created the constitutionally-protected property interests within legally specified, acceptable limits.