No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the trial court and affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that Miami University breached its employment contract with tenured professor Chan by terminating him using the sexual harassment grievance procedures (Section 3.71) rather than the required procedures for termination of tenured faculty (Section 3.555), and that Chan was denied due process.
Universities and colleges—Civil rights—Graduate student's formal complaint of sexual harassment against tenured professor—Employment contract provides procedures \for dismissal or removal from tenure\—Removal procedures not followed and contract breached, when.
Chan v. Miami University (1995)
What Happened
A tenured professor named Chan faced a formal sexual harassment complaint from a graduate student. Instead of following the standard procedures required for firing tenured faculty members, Miami University used the sexual harassment grievance process to remove him from his position.
What the Court Decided
Ohio's highest court ruled that the university broke its contract with Chan. The court found that the university had to follow specific termination procedures outlined in its employment contract for tenured professors. By using the sexual harassment process instead, the university violated those procedures and denied Chan fair treatment before firing him.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case protects tenured employees by requiring employers to follow their own rules. Even when serious allegations like sexual harassment arise, universities and employers cannot skip proper procedures to remove workers faster. Workers have the right to expect that their employer will follow the termination process they agreed to—especially for protected positions like tenure. This ensures employees receive fair treatment and proper notice, even during difficult circumstances.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in determining Ohio's savings statute, R.C. 2305.19, and Civ.R. 15(C) did not apply to save the plaintiff-appellant's R.C. 4112.02 employment discrimination claims and, as a result, granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee, Miami University, due to the…
Public employees' collective bargaining - Ohio public employer commits unfair labor practice in violation of R.C. 4117.11(A)(5) when it unilaterally terminates bargaining with an incumbent union, when .
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.