Crenshaw v. Erskine College
Case Details
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal - appellate court reversed trial court judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appellate court reversed jury verdict for tenured professor, holding that employer Erskine College did not breach its employment contract with Dr. Crenshaw despite jury award of $600,000.
Excerpt
William Crenshaw, a tenured professor of English at Erskine College, brought this lawsuit claiming he was wrongfully fired. An Abbeville County jury found in favor of Dr. Crenshaw and awarded him $600,000. We hold the trial court properly granted Erskine's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because, as a matter of law, Erskine did not breach its contract with Dr. Crenshaw. We reverse the court of appeals.
What This Ruling Means
What Happened
William Crenshaw, a tenured English professor at Erskine College, sued the school claiming he was wrongfully fired and that the college broke his employment contract. A jury initially sided with Crenshaw and awarded him $600,000 in damages, believing the college had improperly terminated him despite his tenured status.
What the Court Decided
South Carolina's highest court overturned the jury's decision and ruled in favor of Erskine College. The court determined that the college did not actually breach its contract with Crenshaw when it fired him. The court threw out the $600,000 award, meaning Crenshaw received nothing.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that even tenured professors – who typically have strong job security – can lose wrongful termination lawsuits if courts determine their contracts weren't actually violated. It demonstrates that employment contracts must be carefully reviewed to understand what protections they actually provide. Workers should understand that jury verdicts in their favor can be overturned by higher courts if judges determine the law wasn't properly applied, regardless of how sympathetic their situation may seem.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
The plaintiff filed an affidavit of illegal discriminatory practice with the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that the defendant A Co. wrongfully terminated her employment. Follow- ing an assignment of the matter to the commission's Office of Public Hearings, a human…
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion to amend her complaint, to include facts regarding her PTSD diagnosis and claims of racial and disability discrimination, eight months after she filed her administrative appeal from the termination of her teaching…
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
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.