BOARD OF REGENTS v.
ROTH Board will, in its discretion, grant or deny same
No. 71-162, June 29, 1972
STEWART, J.
DONCILA | GROUP 1
PETITIONERS/PROSECUTORS: Board of Regents
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: David Roth
TOPIC:
 Due Process (Procedure)
LAWS/PROVISIONS:
 Wis. Stat. § 37.31 (1) (1967) –
xxx All teachers in any state university shall
initially be employed on probation. The
employment shall be permanent, during
efficiency and good behavior after 4 years of
continuous service in the state university system
as a teacher. …
No teacher who has become permanently
employed as herein provided shall be
discharged except for cause upon written
charges. Within 30 days of receiving the written
charges, such teacher may appeal the discharge
by a written notice to the president of the board
of regents of state colleges. The board shall
cause the charges to be investigated, hear the
case and provide such teacher with a written
statement as to their decision. xxx
 The Rules, as promulgated by the BOR (1967),
provide:
RULE I – February first is established
throughout the State University system as the
deadline for written notification of non-tenured
faculty concerning retention or non-retention for
the ensuing year. The President of each
University shall give such notice each year on or
before this date.
RULE II – During the time a faculty member is
on probation, no reason for non-retention need
be given. No review or appeal is provided in
such case.
RULE III – ‘Dismissal’ as opposed to ‘Non-
Retention’ means termination of responsibilities
during an academic year. When a non-tenure
faculty member is dismissed he has no right
under Wisconsin Statutes to a review of his case
or to appeal. The President may, however, in his
discretion, grant a request for a review within the
institution, either by a faculty committee or by
the President, or both. Any such review would
be informal in nature and would be advisory
only.
RULE IV – When a non-tenure faculty is
dismissed he may request a review by or
hearing before the Board of Regents. Each such
request will be considered separately and the
in each individual case.
CASE SUMMARY:
David Roth, a first year assistant professor, was not
rehired by the Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh for
the academic year 1969-1970. The decision and the
delivery of thereof was in accordance to a Wisconsin
statute and the Rules promulgated by the BOR. The
Court held that the Fourteenth amendment does not
require opportunity for a hearing prior to the nonrenewal
of a non-tenured state teacher’s contract unless he can
show that the nonrenewal deprived him of an interest in
“liberty” or that he had a “property” interest in continued
employment, despite the lack of tenure or a formal
contract. The non-retention of respondent, absent any
charges against him or stigma or disability foreclosing
other employment, is not tantamount to a deprivation of
“liberty,” and the terms of respondent’s employment
accorded him no “property” interest protected by
procedural due process.
FACTS:
For ease of reading, please refer to the
provisions provided.
 In 1968, David Roth was hired as an assistant
professor of political science at Wisconsin State
University-Oshkosh (WSU-O). He was hired for
a fixed term of one academic year.
 Roth’s notice of faculty employment specified
that his employment would begin on September
1, 1968 and end on June 30, 1969.
 Roth completed the term, but was told that he
would not be rehired for the next term.
 Under Wisconsin state law, a state university
teacher can only be permanent only after four
consecutive year-to-year employment.
 There are no statutory or administrative
standards defining eligibility for re-employment.
State laws leaves the decision whether to rehire
a non-tenured teacher for another year to the
university officials.
 The Rules provide no real protection for a non-
tenured teacher who simply is not re-employed
for the next year. He must be informed by
February 1 “concerning retention or non-
retention for the ensuing year.” But “no reason
for non-retention need be given. No review or
appeal is provided in such case.”
 Roth was informed by the President of the
university in February 1, 1969 that he would not
be re-hired for the 1969-1970 term. Roth was
not given any reason nor the chance to contest
the decision.
 Roth contested the decision on the grounds of
freedom of speech and right to due process.
ISSUES: WON the respondent had a constitutional right security of interests that a person has already
to a statement of reasons and a hearing on the acquired in specific benefits.
University’s decision not to rehire him  To have a property interest in a benefit, a person
clearly must have more than an abstract need or
RULING: desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral
 No. The Court held that Roth did not have the expectation of it. A legitimate claim of
right to a statement of reasons nor a hearing on entitlement is needed.
the University’s decision.  It is a purpose of the ancient institution of
 The requirements of procedural due process property to protect those claims upon which
apply only to the deprivation of interests people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must
encompassed by the Fourteenth not be arbitrarily undermined. It is a purpose of
Amendment’s protection of liberty and the constitutional right to a hearing to provide an
property. When protected interests are opportunity for a person to vindicate those
implicated, the right to some kind of prior claims.
hearing is paramount. But range of interests  Property interests are not made by the
protected is not definite. constitution but they are created and dimensions
 The Court examined if Roth’s interest is within are defined by existing rules or understandings
the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty that stem from an independent source such as
and property. state law – rules or understandings that secure
o Liberty and property are broad and certain benefits and that support claims of
majestic terms the constitution left to entitlement to those benefits.
gather meaning from experience  Roth’s “property” interest in employment at
o Court has fully rejected a wooden WSU-O was created and defined by the terms of
distinction between rights and privileges his appointment which terminated on June 30,
o Liberty – denotes not merely freedom 1969.
from bodily restraint but also the right of  Terms of appointment secured absolutely no
the individual to contract, to engage in interest for re-employment for Roth. Nor,
an of the common occupations of life, to significantly, there was no any state statute
acquire useful knowledge, to marry, or University rule or policy that secured his
establish a home and bring up children, interest in re-employment or that created any
to worship God according to the dictates legitimate claim to it.
of his own conscience, and generally to  Roth only had an abstract concern in being
enjoy those privileges long recognized rehired, but not property interests required to
as essential to the orderly pursuit of make University officials give him a hearing
happiness by free men. when they declined to renew his contract of
 The state in declining Roth’s rehiring did not employment.
make any charge against that would damage
his standing and associations in his
community.
o In such case, due process would
accord an opportunity to refute the
charge before university officials.
 There is also no suggestion that the State
imposed on Roth a stigma or other disability
that would foreclose his freedom to take
advantage of other employment
opportunities.
o The Court previously held that a State,
in regulating eligibility for a type of
professional employment, cannot
foreclose a rage of opportunities in a
manner that contravenes due process
and specifically, in a manner that denies
the right to full prior hearing.
 Roth’s allegation that his re-employment was
barred because of his freedom of speech
activities has yet to be proven.
 Definition of “liberty” is stretched if applied
to Roth not being rehired but free to seek
another job.
 The Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural
protection of property is a safeguard of the