Barnett v. Bd. of Trs. for State Colls. & Univs. - 2000-1041 ( La. App. 1 Cir 06/22/01), 809 So. 2d 184

Rule:

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine factual dispute. The motion should be granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The summary judgment procedure is favored and is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 966.

Facts:

The employee, J. D. Barnett, brought breach of contract and detrimental reliance claims against the Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities (the Board). He alleged that the Board approved his promotion to Athletic director of Northwestern State University of Louisiana at Natchitoches (NSU) in June 1995, to take effect July 1, 1996, but that in late summer or fall of 1996, someone else was appointed as athletic director, in violation of the Board’s contract and promise to Barnett. The Board moved for summary judgment, alleging it had never taken any official action placing Barnett in the position of head athletic director, and thus there was no contract to be breached. It further alleged that Barnett could not have reasonably relied on a promise that he would be made head athletic director because he was well versed in both university procedures and policy and the Board's rules and regulations and knew the Board had to formally approve the promotion. Finally, it alleged Barnett's suit was prescribed because he filed suit more than a year after he learned that the university planned to advertise nationally to fill the position of head athletic director. The trial court granted summary judgment. Barnett appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his breach of contract claim because it was not addressed in the Board's motion.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Board? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the issue of whether a contract existed was raised in the uncontested fact statements filed by the parties. The court found no evidence that the employee's change from associate athletic director to head athletic director was ever properly submitted to the Board as a line item as required. There was no evidence that the change was submitted in any manner. There was an absence of factual support for the employee's claim that there was a contract. The employee's detrimental reliance claim was properly dismissed, because he knew that Board approval was necessary to appoint him athletic director. Any promises made by the university president and vice president of external affairs could not be imputed to the Board as they were not defendants. The employee's contention that he suffered by adding on to his home was after the date that he was advised that the Board had not confirmed his promotion, thus any reliance would have been unreasonable.