Curtis Doyle v. State of Illinois

ORDER

BIRNBAUM, CJ.

This matter is before the Court by stipulation of the parties for the Court to rule on this matter based upon motions, pleadings, affidavits, and depositions to date including Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment dated March 20, 2015, and Claimant’s Response thereto.

FACTS

During the 2005-2006 academic year, Claimant, Curtis Doyle, was on the faculty of American Intercontinental University as a full professor. Early in 2006, Claimant applied for a faculty position advertised by Respondent, Western Illinois University. The position offered a tenure-track for a qualified applicant and qualifications included an earned doctorate (at the time of appointment) in certain specified health related fields. Claimant interviewed for the position in the spring of 2006. At that time, neither Claimant nor Respondent raised questions on whether Claimant’s doctorate from California Coast University met the qualifications for the position.

The advertised position at Western Illinois University paid less than Claimant’s position at American Intercontinental University, but Claimant was willing to take less pay for an opportunity to work in a tenure-track position. After the interview, Respondent called and verbally offered Claimant the position and Claimant verbally accepted Respondent’s offer, but this offer and acceptance was never reduced to writing. Following the phone conversation, Claimant resigned from his position at American Intercontinental University.

At some point after the phone call and before Claimant signed a written agreement or began work at Western Illinois University, Claimant was informed by Respondent that there was an issue concerning the accreditation of California Coast University where Claimant had earned his doctorate.

It is unclear exactly when Claimant was fully aware that he was no longer being offered a position that included a tenure-track at Western Illinois University. But on May 30, 2006, Claimant signed an agreement drafted by Respondent. The agreement stated the contract was for a temporary nine-month instructor position at the University. This agreed upon position did not include a tenure-track.

[*153] Claimant states that he was willing to accept the temporary position for two reasons. (1) Claimant had already resigned from his position at American Intercontinental University and had no other employment opportunities. (2) Claimant was under the belief that there was a misunderstanding between him and Respondent, but Claimant believed that the parties could resolve the issue.

In the fall of 2006, Claimant began teaching at Western Illinois University for the 2006- 2007 academic year. Claimant met with University officials during the fall of 2006 regarding his employment status. Claimant made an agreement with school officials that he would be placed into a tenure-track position if he earned a doctorate from a regionally accredited institution by August 2008. Claimant continued to work at Western Illinois University as a temporary instructor, signing written agreements before each academic year. Claimant was unable to earn a doctorate by August 2008. Claimant again signed a nine-month contract for a temporary position with Western Illinois University for 2009-2010 academic year.

In the Spring of 2010, Claimant was informed by Respondent that Claimant would not be retained as an instructor for the 2010-2011 academic year.

On October 20, 2011, Claimant filed a complaint in the Illinois Court of Claims pursuant to 705 ILCS 505/8(b). Claimant alleges Respondent breached a contract for employment as a tenure-track assistant professor.

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is before the Court. A motion for summary judgment “shall be rendered without delay if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2- 1005(c).

ANALYSIS

I. Claimant cannot recover for the breach of the “oral contract.”

Claimant alleges that Respondent breached an oral contract made between the two parties. The oral contract was for a faculty position at Western Illinois University for the 2006- 2007 academic year as a tenure-track assistant professor. Claimant cannot recover in this Court for the breach of this oral contract for two reasons. First, the claim for the breach of the oral contract was untimely filed. Second, this Court has long held that it will not enforce oral contracts that are not of an emergency nature.

As Respondent correctly points out, lawsuits that arise out of a contract with the State “must be filed within five years after it first accrues.” Claimant is unsure of the exact date that Respondent told Claimant that the position would be for a temporary instructor position and not for a tenure-track assistant professor. However, a written contract for the temporary position was signed by Claimant on May 30, 2006. Therefore, Claimant certainly knew that his position did not include a tenure-track by May 30, 2011 to file a complaint. Claimant did not file a complaint until October 20, 2011.

[*154] Claimant alleges that the statute of limitations should not begin on May 30, 2006, when Claimant signed a written agreement for a temporary position because at this point Claimant had “sustained no actual harm” and Claimant remained employed by the University at the salary set forth in the oral agreement. Claimant advocates that this Court should measure the statute of limitations from the date Claimant was terminated. Claimant states that there was no cause to seek legal redress until the date of the termination because that date was when Respondent failed to give Claimant a tenure opportunity. This Court finds the above reasoning by Claimant inconsistent with the actual complaint.

According to Claimant, Respondent breached an oral contract by no longer offering a tenure-track position and the failure to honor the tenure-track is the exact harm which Claimant is attempting to redress in this Court. On May 30, 2006, both Claimant and Respondent were aware that the agreement was no longer for a tenure-track position because both parties made a written agreement for a temporary instructor position which did not include a tenure-track. If the oral contract for a tenure-track position was ever breached, the breach would have occurred when Respondent no longer offered Claimant a tenure-track position in the written agreement.

Further, as Respondent correctly points out, this Court rarely has jurisdiction over oral contracts and oral contracts are typically only enforced “when provided in an emergency.” Sbigoli v. State, 53 Ill. Ct. Cl. 215, 221 (2000); See also Melvin v. State, 41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 88, 100 (1989).

Claimant points to a case from 1974, in which the Court of Claims enforced an oral agreement between the State and a contractor. Sherlock Construction Co. v. State, 29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 343 (1974). Claimant cites to this Court’s findings in Sherlock, pointing to the fact that the claimant presented evidence showing a tradition of doing work for the State under oral agreement, a copy of a letter confirming that the work requested had been completed, and evidence that the respondent had been billed for the work. Id. At 354. This Court finds the facts in Sherlock are distinguishable from the present case. In the present case, Claimant fails to show any evidence to the Court that proves there is a “tradition” of oral contracts between the State and educators. Moreover, Claimant fails to address the issue that Claimant signed a written agreement stating that the position was temporary before Claimant had performed any work for the University.

Claimant alleges that he took the position because at the time “it was too late for [Claimant] to obtain another teaching job at another location and he had no other option than to continue employment with the University.” But this reasoning fails to explain why Claimant continued the temporary employment at the University the subsequent years, while signing a new written contract every year for the temporary position.

The fact that Claimant continued to sign nine-month agreements for a temporary position at the University and then contracted with school officials to earn a tenure-track position, on the condition that Claimant earned a doctorate by August 2008, shows the Court that Claimant himself was operating under the belief that neither party was bound by the previous oral agreement made during the summer of 2006.

[*155] II. The contractual intent of the parties was not ambiguous in regards to the

tenure-track position.

Claimant alleges that the nature of Claimant’s position at the University was ambiguous in the written agreements signed before each academic year. Based on this ambiguity, Claimant advocates that this Court should construe the meaning of the contract against the Respondent, who was the drafter of the agreements. Therefore, based on the ambiguity of the contract, the Court should support a conclusion that Claimant’s position did include a tenure-track.

Claimant cites case law that states that the main purpose of contract construction is to follow the intent of the parties. Srivastave v. Russell’s Barbeque, Inc., 168 Ill. App. 3d 726, 730 (1st Dist. 1988). And when a court finds ambiguity in the contract, the court must look outside of the contract itself. Myers v. Health Specialists, S.C., 225 Ill. App. 3d 68 (1st Dist. 1992).

In the present case, not only was Claimant told that the position being offered was no longer one with a tenure-track, Claimant also signed a contract that stated the position was temporary. Further, Claimant made a subsequent written agreement with Respondent that would have placed Claimant in a tenure-track position by August of 2008, on the condition that Claimant completed a doctorate program from a regionally accredited University. This condition subsequently clearly shows that both parties were fully aware that Claimant’s temporary position did not include a tenure-track.

Based on these facts, the Court finds no ambiguity in the contract or outside of the contract. The agreements are clear. Despite the fact that the Claimant wished to be in a tenuretrack position, the contracts he was signing were for temporary positions and not positions that included a tenure-track.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment.