The relevant language on how non-renewal is processed is in the handbook, unless you have evidence that they lie here just to abrogate it in a separate document. There's a multi-stage procedure involving committee work. That didn't happen in a short number of days. Further, you best believe the AAUP is going to get involved, especially when it involves speech.
No, you don't understand how academia works. Non-tenured tt on yearly contracts in at-will states do not have grievance rights. Nothing in that handbook speaks to non-tenured non-renewals. If you think otherwise, cite the page number and I will school you on how you've misread it.
The "Faculty Code" is the more relevant document here, not the Handbook.
LOL. You're getting desperate. I'm guessing you've never been involved with this process. Our university operates under similar guidelines, and it was a small effort to not renew the contract of a non-TT woman. We knew she had no gripe by the nature of the job, and she failed to do her job, but it took a minute, as we expected her to fight. She did, and she lost, with a compensatory prize (not an extra year).
The document states that non-renewal will be decided by a committee who makes their recommendations to the president. None of that is contingent upon grievance rights. You're going to need to go back to this being a lie and abrogated by another document.
Hood's FBR will process complaints of wrongful non-renewal. It's explicitly stated that this exists for non-tenured faculty who believe they were not renewed for bad reasons. Though this isn't necessary for expecting non-renewal to take more than a week to decide on, so it would not matter if you could establish that this is a lie and abrogated by another document.
It's also a bit contrived to expect she's not taking the conciliatory year.
Cite the page number or gt fo. What happened to your friend in Canada that one time is not relevant
...See full post