Lawrence v. Providence
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
July 13, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1051
ROBERT LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PROVIDENCE COLLEGE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella and Stahl, Circuit Judges,
______________
and Carter,* District Judge.
______________
____________________
Harold E. Krause for appellant.
________________
Marifrances McGinn with whom Richard P. McMahon and McMahon &
__________________ __________________ _________
McMahon were on brief for appellees.
_______
____________________
____________________
_____________________
*Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.
-2-
CARTER, Chief District Judge.
____________________
This is an appeal by Robert Lawrence from the
district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
Defendants, Providence College; Father John Cunningham,
President of Providence College; Dr. Francis MacKay, former
Vice President of Providence College; and Helen Caldwell,
director of the marketing program at Providence College.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
_____________________
Appellant Lawrence was hired as an adjunct
assistant professor in the Business Department of Providence
College for three consecutive one-year terms: 1988-89, 1989-
90, 1990-91. Each year the parties signed a written
agreement to cover the upcoming academic year and providing
that Lawrence would be an Adjunct Assistant Professor in
Business.1 Before the expiration of the Lawrence's
contract for the 1990-91 academic year, he was notified that
he would not be offered another teaching contract.
Lawrence's complaint alleges that Providence College, and
members of its faculty, breached three types of oral
promises made to him. First, the complaint alleges that in
June of 1987, before he started to work at Providence
____________________
1There is no dispute that all of these contracts were fully
performed by the parties.
College, Defendants MacKay and Caldwell promised that he
would be placed in a tenure-track position in the Business
Department in 1988. In July of 1988, Lawrence was offered
and accepted an adjunct faculty position. At that time,
Lawrence contends that he was assured by MacKay and Caldwell
that a tenure-track position would be opened for him in
1989-90. The second oral contract consists of an alleged
promise made in the summer of 1990, when MacKay assured
Lawrence of his support in placing him in a tenure-track
position.2 Finally, Lawrence alleges that in the fall of
____________________
2This Court views Appellant's favorable reading of MacKay's
alleged promise with skepticism. The "promise" was
contained in a memorandum from MacKay to Appellant dated
August 22, 1990. The memorandum, in its entirety, states:
Your work on the MFAT in Business
Administration is surely a
noteworthy contribution to the
field. Your continuing association
with ETS attests to the quality of
the efforts you have made.
I was glad to hear that you are
near to completion of the work on
your doctorate. There would be
complications with the tenure
process if a shift to ordinary
faculty were not done in the next
two years.
Later, Lawrence characterizes the memorandum even more
favorably. In his affidavit submitted in support of his
response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment he
states: "I received a memo from Dr. MacKay . . . indicating
-4-
-4-
1990, MacKay told him that his case would be presented to
the Committee on Academic Tenure and Rank sometime during
the spring term.
The district court found that the alleged oral
agreement between the parties regarding a tenure-track
position was barred by the parole evidence rule because the
terms of the oral agreement were contradictory to the
complete and fully integrated written agreements. In
discussing the oral assurances given by members of the
college the district court stated: "It's clear to me that
[the assurances] would create only a hope that at some
future time he would be put in a tenure-track position."
Hearing Transcript at 8. The court concluded that
"Providence College had no contractual obligation . . . to
put [Lawrence] on a tenure track or grant him tenure." Id.
___
Finding no disputed material issues of fact, the district
court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
II. DISCUSSION
______________
This Court's review of a district court's
disposition of a motion for summary judgement is plenary,
Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lawrence v. Providence, (1st Cir. 1994).
Lawrence v. Providence (Lawrence v. Providence) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gerald Griggs-Ryan v. Beulah Smith, Gerald Griggs-Ryan v. Richard Connelly
904 F.2d 112 (First Circuit, 1990)
Samuel Mesnick v. General Electric Company
950 F.2d 816 (First Circuit, 1991)
American Underwriting Corp. v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co.
303 A.2d 121 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1973)
Supreme Woodworking Co. v. Zuckerberg
107 A.2d 287 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1954)
Industrial National Bank v. Peloso
397 A.2d 1312 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1979)
Dockery v. Greenfield
136 A.2d 682 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1957)
Darcey v. Darcey
71 A. 595 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1909)