The Teachers’ Tenure Act (Tenure Act); “Performance violations” under the Revised School Code (the Code); Due process; Property interest; Distinguishing Perry v Sindermann & Soni v Board of Trs; Ryan v Aurora City Bd of Educ; Edinger v Board of Regents of Morehead State Univ; Claim that plaintiff’s teaching certificate was rendered “valueless”; Liberty interest in the right to contract; Wrongful termination claim under Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of MI (MI); Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that defendant-Detroit Public Schools Community District (the District) did not violate plaintiff-Hasanaj’s due-process rights by discharging him because he had no property interest in his teaching job where he failed to satisfy Michigan’s statutory tenure requirements. Hasanaj, a certified Michigan teacher, taught for 10 years in the District under a series of contracts. After year seven, he no longer received contract renewal notices, and he received “ineffective” evaluation ratings during his last three years. The District dismissed him from his teaching job based on the three ineffective ratings, as required under state law. He sued the District and some of its employees under several theories. The district court dismissed his case. The court first considered his due process claim. It concluded that he “had no protected property interest in his job because, as the Tenure Commission concluded, he did not satisfy Michigan’s statutory tenure requirements.” As he did not allege “that he satisfied the statutory probation requirements to acquire tenure, he was an at-will employee and thus lacked a protected property interest in his job.” Performance evaluations fall under the Code. “‘[I]f a teacher is rated as ineffective on 3 consecutive annual year-end evaluations,’ the school district ‘shall dismiss the teacher from his or her employment.’” The court determined that Hasanaj lacked “a protected property interest in the ‘expectation’ that the District was required to follow the teacher evaluation statute” in order to discharge him. “State law procedures that relate to property rights are not property rights.” As to his claim of a deprivation of a property interest in his teaching certificate, the court noted that he was still a licensed Michigan teacher, even though he claimed no one would hire him because of the three ineffective ratings. “A third-party’s decision not to hire Hasanaj based on a history of unfavorable performance reviews is not dictated by the State or his former employer.” The court found that no matter how he framed “his claim, he was not deprived of a protected ‘property’ or ‘liberty’ interest as required for a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.” As to his state-law claim under Toussaint, he could not “supersede Michigan’s tenure statutes with an express or ‘implied’ contract.” Finally, his FMLA claim was time-barred. Affirmed.