Quote:
Originally Posted by IvySpice
Madness!
Other lawyers have already correctly explained why privilege and the right to choose members freely are going to do zip to protect DZ in this case.
Someone several pages back suggested that perhaps the problem was that DePauw did not follow its own published grievance procedures in kicking out DZ.
It doesn't have to. In the absence of a two-sided contract referencing the grievance procedure -- like, say, a collective bargaining agreement between an employer and a union -- handbooks outlining internal procedures are unenforceable. They're instructions from the institution to its staff, NOT binding contracts with everyone who may interact with the institution.
Barring very unusual circumstances that aren't present here, any promises DePauw may have made about DZ coming back are likewise unenforceable. Both parties are sophisticated corporate entities, not consumers. If DZ wanted to make sure the university stuck to its word, they should have drawn up a contract. Otherwise, DePauw is perfectly entitled to change its mind and kick them out.
|
If this case moves forward, do you - or any other legal folk - anticipate any legal repercussions that might affect other fraternal organizations? More to the point, could this case set some sort of negative precedent?