DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, Sr., Judge.
This is a suit for wrongful termination of an employment contract. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Dr. Julia Patino, awarding $79,852.00 in damages, the defendant, Dillard University, appeals. Dr. Patino answers the appeal seeking additional relief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
By letter dated July 12, 1994, Dillard University offered Dr. Patino a position as an Assistant Professor in Spanish for the 1994-95 academic year. The last paragraph of this letter stated:
Dr. Patino agreed to the terms of the employment contract and began teaching Spanish in the fall of 1994. By letter dated March 20, 2000, Dillard University notified Dr. Patino of its acceptance of her application for promotion to Associate Professor and tenure.
According to Dr. Patino, she received annual reappointment letters up until the 2011-2012 academic year, with each letter offering her employment for one academic year, and incorporating the Dillard University Faculty Handbook for the policies and guidelines concerning her employment.
In regards to tenure, the 2008 Faculty Handbook, section 2.6, stated as follows:
On May 23, 2012, section 2.6.1 of the Faculty Handbook was edited to state that "tenured faculty may be dismissed if: 1) a financial exigency exists for the University as a whole; 2) changes in or the elimination of an educational program prevent faculty from making a productive contribution; 3) insubordination; 4) for cause, or 5) unethical or unprofessional conduct is demonstrated."
The 2008 Faculty Handbook section 3.6.3 addressed an employee's non-reappointment, and stated as follows:
The May 23, 2012 Faculty Handbook
On August 1, 2011, Dr. Patino received notification from Phyllis Dawkins, concerning her "tenured faculty reappointment at Dillard University as Associate Professor of Spanish" for the 2011-2012 academic year. That letter stated, in pertinent part:
By letter dated August 4, 2011, Dr. Patino expressed concerns about the above language, which had not appeared in previous appointment letters. By way of counteroffer, Dr. Patino offered to accept a salary for three years in return for releasing Dillard University from all obligations to her under the terms of her tenured status. On August 8, 2011, Dillard University responded by stating that in "October 2010, the Board of Trustees voted to discontinue/suspend the degree program in Spanish" and that her counteroffer was "unacceptable," and that if she did not sign the original contract offered to her on August 1, 2011, Dillard University would terminate her employment. Thereafter, on August 11, 2011, Dr. Patino signed the employment contract for the 2011-2012 academic year.
On May 25, 2012, Dillard University provided notice to Dr. Patino that her position as Associate Professor of Spanish had been eliminated for the 2012-2013 academic year. The letter stated in pertinent part that:
At that time, Dillard University extended Dr. Patino the option to retire and maintain her life insurance benefits, which she accepted on July 31, 2012.
On February 5, 2013, Dr. Patino filed this lawsuit against Dillard University alleging the existence of a contract for tenure and seeking damages for bad faith breach, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, abuse of rights and/or detrimental reliance. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Dr. Patino and against Dillard University and awarded Dr. Patino $79,852.00, representing lost wages from 2012-2013 in the amount of $50,555.00, lost 403(b) contributions for 2012-2013 in the amount of $4,297.00, and general damages in the amount of $25,000.00. In her reasons for judgment, the trial judge stated, in pertinent part:
Dillard University now appeals this final judgment. On appeal, Dillard University assigns the following assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in finding that provisions of the Dillard University Faculty Handbook contractually bound the parties because pursuant to Louisiana law employee handbooks are not binding agreements but merely informational in nature; (2) the trial court erred in finding that the Dillard University Faculty Handbook was a contract because the tenure award failed to define a specified term of employment which is in violation of Louisiana law; (3) the trial court erred in finding that Dr. Patino's acceptance of reappointment in August 2011 was done under duress to vitiate her consent; (4) the trial court erred in finding that Dillard University's Board of Trustees was required to make a formal declaration of financial exigency to trigger its right to dismiss tenured faculty because such a declaration was not required by the Faculty Handbook or by law; (5) the trial court erred in finding that Dillard University's Board of Trustees was required to make a formal declaration or resolution of financial exigency to trigger Dillard's right to dismiss tenured faculty because the evidence presented at trial established that the Board did determine a bona fide financial exigency existed; (6) the trial court erred in failing to find that financial constraints provided Dillard University with a valid and permissible basis for termination of tenured faculty without notice because prior notice requirements are not applicable to termination of tenured professors for financial exigency; and (7) the trial court erred in awarding Dr. Patino general damages in violation of Louisiana law because damages for mental anguish and distress are not recoverable claims for breach of employment contract.
Dr. Patino answered the appeal alleging that the trial court erred in its failure to award sufficient and appropriate damages. Specifically, Dr. Patino argues that the trial court erred in limiting general damages to $25,000.00 for the mental anguish imposed upon her for the loss of the ability to meet her bills, for the loss of a tenure position, and for the distress over the inability to generate sufficient revenues to comfortably support her mother and husband. Dr. Patino further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the amount of specific damages to lost wages and benefits for the term of one year.
Agreements legally entered into have the effect of laws on those who have formed them. La. C.C. article 1983. In New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Foundation, Inc. v. Kirksey, 09-1433, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/26/10), 40 So.3d 394, 401, (citing Clinkscales v. Columns Rehabilitation and Retirement Center, 08-1312, p. 3 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/01/09), 6 So.3d 1033, 1035-1036), this Court clarified the appellate standard of review with regard to contractual interpretations:
It is also worth noting that although the reasons for judgment may be informative, they are not determinative of the legal issues to be resolved on appeal. See Cusimano v. Port Esplanade Condominum Ass'n., Inc., 10-0477, pp.4-5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/12/11), 55 So.3d 931, 934-935. See also Wooley v. Lucksinger, 09-0571, 09-0584, 09-0585, 09-0586, pp. 77-78 (La. 4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507, 572 (Because appellate courts review judgments and not reasons for judgments, "[j]udgments are often upheld on appeal for reasons different than those assigned by the district judges.").
Although Louisiana courts have found that employment handbooks are not contracts eliminating the application of the "at-will" doctrine, the courts have recognized that offers of employment subject to the terms of faculty handbooks may create enforceable contractual obligations. See Balseiro v. Castandea-Zuniga, M.D., 04-2038 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/17/05), 916 So.2d 1149 and Schalow v. Loyola University of New Orleans, 94-0797 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 502 (whereby this Court found that the employment contracts incorporated by reference the Faculty Handbooks). Further, this Court has recognized that tenure related provisions in faculty handbooks are contractually enforceable. See Olivier v. Xavier University, 553 So.2d 1004, 1007-1008 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1989) (where the award of tenure was subject to the terms of the Faculty Handbook and those terms were enforceable.) Based on this jurisprudence, we find that Dillard University's offer of employment to Dr. Patino was subject to Dr. Patino's annual acceptance of the terms of the Faculty Handbook, and when Dr. Patino accepted Dillard's annual offers of employment, the Faculty Handbook created contractual obligations between the parties.
After reviewing the annual employment contracts from 1994 to 2011 between Dr. Patino and Dillard University, all of which incorporate the faculty handbook for the guidelines concerning her employment as an associate professor, and as a tenured professor, we find that the words of the employment contracts are clear and unambiguous. As such, we find the issue before us is whether the trial court was legally correct in its finding that Dillard University breached its contract with Dr. Patino.
At the time Dr. Patino received notice of her termination on May 25, 2012, section 3.5 of the Faculty Handbook addressed the ways in which an employment relationship may end. Specifically, the Faculty Handbook (May 23, 2012) stated as follows:
The Faculty Handbook consistently references December 15
The evidence in the record demonstrates that Dillard University's financial position was precarious, especially due to the decline in enrollment since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Based on the budget cuts, Dillard University chose to eliminate the Spanish degree program in 2010, while continuing to offer Spanish as part of its core curriculum. By doing so, all parties agree that Dillard University clearly restricted, or "downsized" the Spanish department program. Thus, it can be argued that Dillard University had the right to end its employment relationship with Dr. Patino when it downsized the Spanish program; however, it should have provided her timely notice of the non-reappointment by December 15, 2011. Accordingly, we find that Dillard University breached the employment contract with Dr. Patino when it failed to provide her notice of her termination in December of 2011, and waited until May 25, 2012 to give the proper notice.
Dillard University also argues that the trial court erred in awarding general damages. Dr. Patino filed an answer in regard to the damage award and alleges that (1) the trial court erred in only awarding $25,000.00 in general damages; and (2) the trial court erred in limiting the amount of specific damages to lost wages and benefits for the term of one year.
Louisiana Civil Code Article 1995 provides that "[d]amages are measured by the loss sustained by the obligee and the profit of which he has been deprived." Additionally, "[a]n obligor in good faith is liable only for the damages that were foreseeable at the time the contract was made." La. C.C. article 1996. Nonpecuniary losses are recoverable "when the contract, because of its nature, is intended to gratify a nonpecuniary interest" and "the obligor knew, or should have known, that his failure to perform would cause that kind of loss." La. C.C. article 1998. If the contract breached is not "intended to gratify a nonpecuniary interest," damages for nonpecuniary losses "may be recovered . . . when the obligor intended, through his failure, to aggrieve the feelings of the obligee." La. C.C. article 1998. The appellate standard of review applicable to a general damages award is the abuse of discretion standard. Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260 (La.1993). As such, an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages. Id. at 1261. Thus, the role of the appellate court in reviewing general damage awards is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact. Id. at 1260.
We find that the tenured employment contracts from 2000-2011 provided a mutual commitment by Dillard University and Dr. Patino to continue a long-term employment relationship based on the values of teaching, research, and service. Despite the fact that the Spanish degree program was eliminated in 2010, Dillard University provided Dr. Patino the opportunity to contribute to the University's mission by continuing to teach Spanish from 2010-2012. Nonetheless, Dillard University caused Dr. Patino to suffer a loss of intellectual gratification in May of 2012 when it abruptly terminated her employment. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly recognized that Dr. Patino sustained both pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses when she was notified of her termination. "General damages are those which may not be fixed with pecuniary exactitude; instead, they `involve mental or physical pain or suffering, inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification or physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or life-style which cannot be definitely measured in monetary terms.'" Kaiser v. Hardin, 06-2092, p.9 (La. 4/11/07), 953 So.2d 802, 808-809, citing Keeth v. Dept. of Pub. Safety & Transp., 618 So.2d 1154, 1160 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1993). After reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of $25,000.00 in general damages.
Further, we find no merit in Dr. Patino's argument that the trial court erred in limiting the amount of specific damages to lost wages and benefits for the term of one year. For the entirety of Dr. Patino's tenure with Dillard University, she received annual tenure appointment contracts for the academic year; thus, the trial court correctly limited her recovery to a one year (2012-2013) salary.
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court that awarded $79,852.00 in damages in favor of Dr. Julia Patino and against Dillard University.
TOBIAS, J., CONCURS AND ASSIGNS REASONS.
I respectfully concur.
The Dillard University Faculty Handbook and Constitution ("Handbook") is made a part (incorporated by reference) of the contract between Dillard and Professor Patiño for her tenured employment at Dillard. The Handbook requires that Dillard notify an employee in December of the then current school year that the employee's services will not be continued in its employ for the following school year. Dillard gave Professor Patiño notice in May of the then current year, approximately five months late.
It is obvious that the requirement of giving notice in December is to permit a faculty member whose services are no longer required to seek employment elsewhere for the next fiscal school year. Fiscal school years for schools/colleges generally run from summer to summer, not January through December.
The late notice in May effectively prevented the professor from obtaining employment elsewhere for another school's fiscal year, thus causing her damages of the loss of employment for one fiscal year. The trial court in my view was not therefore manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in limiting Professor Patiño's recovery to that period for I do find that ultimately Dillard could have terminated her for other reasons (that existed at the college at the time) permitted under the Handbook. However, if I am wrong in that conclusion and Professor Patiño was improperly terminated on any grounds, then her damages would be limited to her work-life expectancy; the lowest number that the record supports for that is $329,113.00.
