Osborne v. Stone

536 So. 2d 473, 1988 WL 126145
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 22, 1988
Docket87 CA 1158
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 536 So. 2d 473 (Osborne v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Osborne v. Stone, 536 So. 2d 473, 1988 WL 126145 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

536 So.2d 473 (1988)

Milton OSBORNE, Jr.
v.
Jesse N. STONE, et al.

No. 87 CA 1158.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

November 22, 1988.
Writ Denied February 17, 1989.

*474 Richard J. Dodson, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee Milton Osborne, Jr.

David G. Sanders, Dept. of Justice, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants Jesse N. Stone, Jr., et al.

Before EDWARDS, SHORTESS and SAVOIE, JJ.

SHORTESS, Judge.

Milton Osborne, Jr. (plaintiff), was hired as a law professor at Southern University School of Law in 1971. He acquired tenure in 1975. Since 1975, Southern has experienced accreditation difficulties with the American Bar Association (ABA). One problem area specified by the ABA was the practice of law by Southern's full-time faculty members during the academic year, in prohibition of Rule 402(B) of the ABA Standards For Approval of Law Schools. In 1975, Southern began sending letters routinely to its law professors asking that they "communicate their availability" to teach full-time in the upcoming academic year. Plaintiff had received such letters in the past and responded. On May 9, 1980, he received such a letter from Bhishma K. Agnihotri, dean of the Southern University School of Law, at a faculty meeting.

When plaintiff did not respond to the May 9, 1980, letter, Agnihotri sent a letter to him by certified mail, return receipt requested,[1] stating that if no response was received by May 23, 1980, it would be assumed plaintiff was not available. After receiving no response from plaintiff, Agnihotri sent plaintiff a letter which stated, in part, "please be informed that your name is not being recommended as a member of the law faculty for the year 1980-81."

On July 30, 1980, plaintiff wrote Agnihotri, in part:

[p]lease be advised that I intend and expect that there would be no involuntary interruption of my employment as a tenured faculty member of the Southern University School of Law unless and until there has just been a finding of just cause after due deliberations and proceeding (sic) are had and made definitive.
I shall reserve my right to timely accept, reject or seek modification of my presumtively (sic) continous (sic) tenured appointment as a member of the law school faculty only after having had a reasonable opportunity to throughly (sic) consider the terms and conditions of the appointment for the 1980-81 academic year.

On May 9, 1980, plaintiff and Janice G. Clark entered into a written partnership agreement to practice law in Baton Rouge.

On August 25, Southern notified plaintiff that his office had been assigned to another law professor. Plaintiff never showed up to teach classes. He testified that he called a few people at the school to talk about the situation but never called Agnihotri. He vaguely recalled going out to Southern to check and see whether he had gotten any assignments. Southern hired two professors for the 1980-81 academic year to teach plaintiff's classes, at a total cost of $71,000.00. During that period, plaintiff considered himself on unpaid sabbatical leave. He testified he believed the situation would be handled this way after talking to Lionel Johnson of the Southern University Board of Supervisors, but he never applied for sabbatical leave.

Plaintiff hired a lawyer, Robert C. Williams, in August or September, and they both testified that throughout the next year they engaged in informal attempts to resolve the situation by talking with various members of the Southern University Board of Supervisors. After a July 6, 1981, meeting with Jesse N. Stone, Southern's president, and a follow-up letter by Williams to Agnihotri intended to serve as notice that plaintiff was now available to teach, Stone wrote Williams on August 3, 1981. This letter stated in part: "As indicated *475 to you in our conversation, the Dean is of the opinion that Mr. Osborne's abandonment of his job for a period of one full academic year under the circumstances here present is inexcusable and amounts to a resignation." On November 12, 1981, Williams made formal demand on Lionel Johnson, chairman of the Southern University Board of Supervisors, for a hearing. No hearing was ever held. On November 12, 1981, plaintiff filed suit for "Declaratory Judgment and Other Relief" against Jesse N. Stone, Jr., individually and as president of the Southern University System; B.K. Agnihotri, individually and as dean of Southern University School of Law; and the Southern University Board of Supervisors.

Defendants filed an exception of laches and lack of diligence which the trial court sustained, and it dismissed plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff took a devolutive appeal to this court which, in a 3-2 decision, affirmed the trial court, 472 So.2d 223. The Supreme Court then granted a writ, holding:

Granted. The contention of laches may not be raised by exception; assuming without deciding that laches is available in Louisiana, it may be urged only as an affirmative defense. See LSA-C.C.P. art. 1005, Comment (e). The judgments of the trial court and Court of Appeal are vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law.

476 So.2d 809.

After remand, defendants amended their answer to affirmatively plead the doctrine of equitable estoppel, or laches. After trial, the court granted the declaratory judgment and found that plaintiff did not resign from his tenured position at Southern. In its original reasons for judgment it denied, however, plaintiff's demand for salary. Later, the trial court amended its original reasons and granted plaintiff his salary for the academic years beginning with 1984-1985. Defendants have suspensively appealed.

Initially we note that neither the trial court's original reasons nor its amended reasons for judgment addressed defendants' affirmative defense. We also find it unnecessary to treat defendant's affirmative defense in our review because the record convinces us that plaintiff voluntarily abandoned his job. Even though plaintiff, a tenured law professor, possessed a property interest in his position which requires due process protection under both the state and federal Constitutions, we find that he abandoned his position, which action divested him of any protected property rights. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Bell v. Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 483 So.2d 945 (La.1986), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 827, 107 S.Ct. 105, 93 L.Ed.2d 55; Kalme v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 539 F.2d 1346 (4th Cir.1976).

We do not agree with the trial court's finding in its original reasons for judgment that plaintiff did not abandon his job because the July 30, 1980, letter was a request for a hearing if his employment was not to be continued. This letter arrived some ten weeks after Agnihotri had first requested plaintiff to notify the school of his availability. In the interim, plaintiff testified, he was too busy grading papers to respond to Agnihotri; he testified he responded as he eventually did because he wanted to see what he was going to get "and sort of deal before I tell you, you know." Contracts were made yearly at Southern. The letter does express the hope that there would be no "involuntary" termination of employment "before a finding of just cause after due deliberations...

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones v. SOUTHERN UNIV. AND a & M COLLEGE
693 So. 2d 1265 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Paul v. New Orleans Police Department
687 So. 2d 589 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Hartman Ent. v. Ascension-St. James
582 So. 2d 198 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Bowman v. Board of Regents
785 P.2d 71 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
536 So. 2d 473, 1988 WL 126145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-stone-lactapp-1988.