Most of America's major universities have no shortage of workplace policies. From faculty handbooks to codes of ethics to policies governing research and teaching, these directives touch on nearly every aspect of a faculty member's relationship with the university. But when can these policies become enforceable contracts that have the potential to subject the university to liability for failure to comply with their terms? And is it any different for employers outside of the colleges and universities context? Prudent university counsel should keep in mind that New York state and federal courts have held that employees can pursue breach of contract claims based on an alleged failure to comply with workplace policies.

New York Courts' Approach to Workplace Policies

The willingness of courts to recognize contract rights in workplace policies is somewhat in tension with rulings by the New York Court of Appeals that have stressed the importance of restraint when addressing such issues. Indeed, the court has long held that "routinely issued employee manuals, handbooks and policy statements should not lightly be converted into binding employment agreements." See Lobosco v. New York Telephone Company/NYNEX, 96 N.Y.2d 312, 386 (2001). As the court explained, doing so would be "unwise" because it would subject employers who have developed written policies to contractual liability upon a "mere allegation" by an employee of reliance on a specific provision.

As the court has stressed, the exercise of judicial restraint in enforcing workplace policies is even more critical in cases involving colleges and universities. In Maas v. Cornell University, 94 N.Y.2d 87, 94 (1999), the court held that courts should play a "restricted role" in addressing internal academic and administrative issues, stressing that the colleges and universities themselves are "better suited" to making decisions concerning such matters. Accordingly, in Maas, the court affirmed the dismissal of a professor's breach of contract claim that alleged the university failed to comply with its policies governing sexual harassment complaints, holding that the defendant university did not demonstrate any intent that its sexual harassment policies "would become terms of a discrete, implied-in-fact agreement."