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?
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.