Howard University v. Harold E. Lacy, Jr. (On Petition for Rehearing/Orig. Opinion dated 7/17/03)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volum es go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 02-CV-464 and 02-CV-554 H OWARD U NIVERSITY, A PPELLANT, v. H AROLD E. L ACY, J R., A PPELLEE. Appeals from the Superior Court of the District of C olumbia (CA-3012-99) (Hon. Susan R. Winfield, First Trial Judge) (Hon. Mary Ellen Abrecht, Second Trial Judge) ON PETITION FOR REHEARING (Filed October 10, 2003) Daniel I. Prywes for appellan t. David W. Brown for appellee. Before SCHWELB, F ARRELL, and W ASHINGTON, Associate Judges. PER CURIAM: This court s decision in this case is reported at 828 A.2d 733 (D.C. 2003) (Lacy I). Appellee Harold E. Lacy, Jr., has filed a timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In h is petition, Lacy correctly points out that, con trary to a statement in the court s opinion, 828 A.2d at 736 (and contrary to a concession by Lacy s attorney at oral argument), the question whether there was an employment contract between the parties in Law v. Howard Univ., 558 A.2d 355 (D.C. 1989) , was in fact con tested an d litigated . See id. at 356 n .1. We grant re hearing to the ex tent that w e now correct this factu al error. We conclude, however, that the foregoing incorrect statem ent in the op inion in fac t, there have been tw o jury findings tha t the Unive rsity s handb ook is an e mploym ent contrac t, 2 rather than one does not affect th e prope r dispos ition of th e case. See Lacy I, 828 A.2d at 736-39. In all other respects, the petition for rehearing by the division is denied. So ordered.* * We agree with Lacy that the new trial ordered in Lacy I should be confined to the existence of a contract between the parties; the question whether there was a breach need not be retried.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
