Skip to main content

Lill v. Ohio State Univ.

OHIOCTCLJuly 2, 2019No. 2015-00387JD
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Crawford
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Court ordered proper tenure review; after denial on second review, damages awarded for interim period; amount stipulated by parties

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Court found defendant breached its employment contract by conducting an improper tenure review and ordered a proper review to be conducted. Plaintiff was awarded damages for the period between termination and completion of the proper review.

Excerpt

Contract breach damages. Plaintiff was formerly employed as a professor by defendant, a state university. Plaintiff was denied tenure by defendant. The denial triggered a final year of employment, after which plaintiff's employment was terminated. Plaintiff filed this action for breach of contract. The court found that defendant breached its employment contract with plaintiff by conducting an improper tenure review. The court ordered defendant to conduct a proper tenure review. After the proper tenure review also resulted in the denial of tenure, plaintiff was awarded damages for the period of time between the end of her employment and the completion of the proper tenure review. The parties stipulated to the amount of damages.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** A professor at Ohio State University was denied tenure and subsequently fired when their employment contract ended. The professor believed the university didn't follow proper procedures during the tenure review process and sued for breach of contract. **What the Court Decided:** The court sided with the professor, finding that Ohio State University failed to conduct the tenure review properly according to the terms of the employment contract. The judge ordered the university to redo the tenure review using the correct procedures. The professor was also awarded damages to cover the time period between when they were fired and when the proper review would be completed. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows that employers, including universities, must follow the specific procedures outlined in employment contracts. Workers have legal recourse when employers don't stick to agreed-upon processes, even in complex situations like academic tenure reviews. The ruling demonstrates that courts will enforce contract terms and can order employers to redo flawed processes rather than just paying monetary damages. For academic workers especially, this reinforces that tenure review procedures aren't just guidelines—they're binding contractual obligations that universities must follow properly.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Abdullah
OHIOCTCLDec 2025

Civ.R. 56, hostile work environment, constructive discharge. Plaintiff failed to produce a genuine issue as to any material fact that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race or national origin, or that he was constructively discharged. The alleged hostile actions and commentary made by other employees were not racially based and did not materially disrupt plaintiff's work. As plaintiff's experiences amounted to no more than ordinary tribulations of the workplace, plaintiff's hostile work environment claims failed. For the same reasons, plaintiff failed to sustain his constructive discharge claim. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 56.

Defendant Win
Leach
Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2024

The Court of Claims did not err in granting Ohio State University's ("OSU") motion for summary judgment on the employment discrimination claim or in dismissing the breach of contract claim based on a collective bargaining agreement for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Defendant Win
Khatri
Unknown CourtJan 2024

Summary Judgment, Qualified Immunity, Civ.R. 56(C), 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), Civil Conspiracy, Wrongful Termination. Defendant established that tolling statues did not apply to Plaintiff's claims for civil conspiracy and wrongful termination in violation of public policy as the state of Ohio has consented to be sued in only one forum – the Court of Claims. Additionally, the Court held that the savings statute did not apply to Plaintiff's third attempt at filing the same claims. The remainder of Plaintiff's claims for conversion, intellectual theft, unjust enrichment, and lost opportunities were held to be untimely filed. Plaintiff's initial cause of action originated more than four years prior to the filing of this case. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Defendant Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.