stating “Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary judgment. Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his [or her] case and on which he [or she] bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.”
How later courts described this case
- stating “Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary judgment. Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his [or her] case and on which he [or she] bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.”
- “Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on 5 ARSC also pled a unjust enrichment as a quasi-contract theory of recovery. See Amended Complaint, 7/29/15, 7-9 (count III
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 1 I join in the result of the majority, and write separately merely to highlight a few of the principles applicable to this complicated situation.
¶ 2 1. The binding document in tenure determinations is the contract between the applicant and the university, usually a union contract. A faculty handbook does not override the underlying union contract when it comes to tenure decisions.
¶ 3 2. A university is not bound to follow the same tenure requirements that are in place when a faculty member takes employment in a tenure track position. The faculty member takes the risk that the requirements will change before he or she achieves tenure.
¶4 3. The mere fact that the department recommends tenure is not binding on the ultimate decision maker, in this case, the university president.
¶ 5 4. If the president makes the decision and there is an appeal procedure, that procedure must be followed. While there was some indication in this case that on appeal the president’s decision was not *859 supported, a review of the record shows that this was not the case.
¶ 6 Therefore, I fully agree with the decision of the majority.