A ruling but no remedy: what to do when a university grievance process has failed you.

Would lawsuits against any of the people involved in the harassment or in obfuscating the grievance process be possible and/or useful? If nothing else, they might add pressure to the university to settle the claim quickly rather than draw out the process

Since the university receives lots of federal $$, it is subject to Title IX, which protects faculty as well as students from discrimination on the basis of sex.

She should sue.

Moreover, it appears she may have additional grounds for complaint in the time the process took. If this is the institution it appears to be, from the identity of the sender of the email, the Faculty Personnel policies which I found online specify a very tight timeline for the resolution of the dispute, far less than 5 years. Since this is a matter of civil rights law and not merely university policy, there is a legal obligation for the university to deal with the issue.

Don't overlook the Department of Labor. From the lectures that $EMPLOYER hammers into us, the DoL does a lot of enforcement on harassment cases. Especially since she has the University's official finding of fact regarding the case, they're not going to have much maneuvering room -- it's down to a matter of law, not of conflicting evidence. In cases like that, awards of attorney's fees aren't unheard-of.

Actually, since it also looks like a breach of contract (IANAL, you've been warned) recovery of costs isn't out of the question anyway.

Finally, as a matter of employment law: in many jurisdictions, employees recover 3x right off the bat, plus interest, and if the case goes to trial and she can convince a jury that the Good Old Boy network will effectively blackball her for standing up for herself then she might get the usual expected career earnings.

IANAL. I warned you -- but the DoL is easy and cheap to ask.

Good response. I'm inclined to say she should sue, because fighting to fix the system seems a worthy goal, and it's an abstract question to me, so the risks seem worth it. To her - well, it's her life, and she needs to balance a lot of factors and possibilities for the future, as you discussed. It must have taken a lot of courage and force of will to carry this as far as she has already.

One bit of advice I can give, as far as being flagged as "litigious" when searching for other positions -- she should carefully rehearse her story with a view towards the impression it will give, then work her way into applying for positions by having direct conversations first (not just cover letters to strangers). Hone the networking skills, etc.. I don't know the details of the experience, but it really sounds like she had no interest in even using the grievance process (and likely won't hurry into it again, given how shitty this experience has been!) but was forced into it by some truly unpleasant people in positions of power. If she can convey that (with no strong emotion displayed, and extra focus on the aspects of the environment/people that she really enjoyed...) then quickly move on to how she'd like to get back to her REAL goals ASAP... it seems that might help diffuse the problem, as long as she can talk to actual people.

It also seems to me like a possible positive attribute that she stayed there for so long, trying to fix this problem through all the proper channels, instead of jumping ship at the first sign of trouble.

This is pragmatism in the face of horrific unfairness, of course; the problem should not be there in the first place. Can't they be shamed into decent behavior? But there I go again, cheering on other people to fix faraway problems.

There may be someone at the American Association of University Professors who can provide guidance, or an appropriate legal referral.

Janet,

I would like to thank you for the post and your thoughts on the issue. Likewise to all the commenters. I provided the grievant in the case with the link to your blog.

Knowing how the university had responded in the past to similar cases and predicting in advance its response in this case, I tend to agree that a sympathetic journalist is a sure way to apply pressure on the university's administration to resolve the issues quickly. This, at least, has been my experience with this bunch of horse's asses.

Sue. Find a good civil rights/employment attorney, and sue. Yes, it's already wrecked. It will take another year to go through the DOL, one can get permission to sue even if they decline to do anything about it, and the filings are public record.

Don't do anything media-wise without the approval of the attorney. The Uni may delay, true, but if the case has merit, the attorney will take it on a contingent basis, and then the damages get larger and larger. Also, she can point to "I went through channels" when the uni will accuse her of money grubbing.

Bottom line, when you gotta start hiring outside counsel, and are looking at reimbursement of legal costs for being obnoxious, things may not take as long as one thinks.

Finally, get a GOOD, boutique employment attorney, one whose practice is only involved with employment law. Since The grievance committee agreed that the harassing party had used his power of authority to hinder the grievant's career, including her ability to apply and secure NIH grants, and that the Chairman of the department and the Dean of the medical school did not follow the grievant request to intervene on her behalf. Actually the Chairman and the Dean ignored an action advice by outside experts' that they themselves had sought and received. should be documented, and if she has written proof of it, this appears to be a slam-dunk. Courts have enforcement powers. When you get backed into a corner like this, and have exhausted going through channels, that's what you have to do.

Are there any organizations that might provide support in the event of a lawsuit? Maybe the AAUP could point towards some resources. Perhaps some legal group that focuses on sexual harassment and might provide some pro bono assistance?

I mention this because lawsuits are a punishing drain on time, finances and emotional well being. Going up against a large organization such as a university with only your own individual resources stacks the deck against you from the start.

should be documented, and if she has written proof of it, this appears to be a slam-dunk.

It is documented and, actually, the grievance committee mentioned that very fact in their findings.

Unfortunately, her lawyer won't work on contingent basis. He told her to "put aside" $40,000 as his estimate of how much her legal fees will amount to. BTW, this attorney is inexpensive compared to others in the field and so far has done a very good job. A complicating factor is that the harassing party left the university to another institution in another state, a fact that may elevate the case to a federal one.

A complicating factor is that the harassing party left the university to another institution in another state, a fact that may elevate the case to a federal one.

Dunno 'bout the law on that (did I mention that IANAL?) but that might actually weaken her case on the grounds that his being gone is a remedy of sorts.

Of course, doing something that's likely to make him radioactive would be good for society. IMHO that's a bit above and beyond, though -- it takes some serious chutzpah to ask someone trying to put her life back together after taking major damage from enemy action to risk it all over again for the off-chance of helping strangers.

And, yes, this is the academic equivalent of paedophile priests getting shuffled from parish to parish. The big difference is that we at least go through the motions of attempting to protect the victims of the priests. AFAIK in academia they get the Islamic rape victim treatment instead.

She should write a book that names the perpetrators and brings all the dirty laundry and skeletons out of the closets.

Let prospective students and prospective faculty members know the details of how this university protects the perpetrators who abuse underlings. Let alumni know that their donations will be used to fund discriminatory practices. Let those in the system who are being discriminated against now that the grievance process is a joke, a joke that only protects the university and the perpetrators in power. Let potential collaborators of these perpetrators know that this how the perpetrators operate. Let charitable and government funding agencies know that the university allows discriminatory practices.

I think the goal should be to either reform the university such that things like this donât happen, or to destroy it so that things like this canât happen. It is probably easier to destroy it than to reform it.

She needs a better and different lawyer. Christopher Thorman, of Thorman Hardin-Levine in Cleveland is one of the pre-eminent employment lawyers, and may be able to provide a referral. (216) 621-9767. Please redact the names and phone number in the comment, but do pass it on.

As long as the university as an institution is still there, they have the deep pockets and they are obliged to make it right. Many employment lawyers will take the case on a contingent basis, because most folks don't have the money to fight a large institution.

If no lawyer will take the case on contingency, there may be no standing in law, and they don't think the risk is worth it. But look for another lawyer. From the information that I have, this seems like a clear case, and one of the 75% that go to settlement.

It is probably easier to destroy it than to reform it.

Not necessarilly! In 1997-1999, I blew the whistle in that university on a scientific misconduct case, which followed with a class-action grievance (although not allowed by the grievance process) against me by a whole department (a majority of the faculty members), who stood by their chairman (a plagiarist) claiming that my interference with their department's affairs should be punished. The dean of the medical school attempted to pressure the grievance committee to overturn their findings and rulling that were in my favor, luckily, without much success. Nevertheless, that case have completely isolated me at that university and I was black-listed by the administration. I am now retired and the plagiarist is still the chairman of that very department.

Any faculty member who dares raising her voice against any type of misconduct perpetrated by administrators or faculty members in power is doomed to become an outcast. Writing a book is a small and much too late a solace for a scientist whose career has been destroyed by no fault of her own. I should know, since I did just that.

In thinking about it more, writing a book is likely not going to do much. A better approach might be to go to the universityâs funding sources. Send a package containing the particulars of the case and the findings and the complete lack of any compensation for the wrong doing to groups of people. I would include the top 100 donors, the president and officers of each of the graduated classes, the board of directors, the faculty. I would also send it to the 50 high schools that have the most students entering the university as freshmen. The 50 universities that send the most graduates there for grad school. Set up a web page. If this is the culture, there are likely a lot of other abused people who played by the rules and got screwed. Make connection with enough of them and the pressure goes up a lot.

The goal is to make everyone know how crappy the culture is at this University, and that unless that culture is changed, it isnât a place that anyone would want to send their child to, or fund.

As long as the material sent is truthful, then there is nothing the university can do in retaliation that they havenât already done. They canât sue for defamation because they have to assert that the statements are not true to do so. That would be a SLAPP lawsuit.

I think a lawsuit is not going to work (IANAL) because the university has no incentive to settle. The lawyers are already on staff, and their fees come out of the general budget, not out of the Department budget. There losses have to be in the millions for them to pay any attention to this. You have to go over the heads of those involved and the only way to do that is via the funding sources and/or costing them students.

If this isn't an isolated incident, then destroying the University is the better plan.

daedalus2u,

The one thing this university and others like it really care about is their "fake" reputation; Research I ranking and the many millions of $ in NIH funding. As long as the dirt stays in-house and away from the eyes of the public, everything is dandy. This is why they will always settle any lawsuit that could expose such dirt. With the particular case in front of us, we do talk about millions of $. The university will hire an outside team of attorneys, since they will never allow their own legal office employees to get involved in a case that the university is in the wrong. They'll spend several hundreds of thousands of $ on such legal proceedings with the hope that the planittif (and her team) will either run out of money or simply give up due to the amount of time that such cases usually consume. All the other actions you have proposed are good and sound in an ideal world however, this particular faculty wants either her career back or its monetary equivalent such that she could have the rest of her life without fighting a whole institution, especially were the alumni are giving money mainly to support the university's sports and don't give a flying F--- about the behavior of a few faculty members and administrators. One thing that could help in shortening the length of time of a lawsuit is the involvement of a good journalist and her editor who care about the university and its real reputation enough to devote time and space needed to expose the wrongdoing.

From the sounds of it, this academic has had her career destroyed. As such I would be going towards the "make a ruckus" approach.

As someone who is not a huge fan of litigation (as it is slow and costly) I would start with the "shout from the rooftop" approach. The local media, my local representative of whichever level of government holds the purse strings and most importantly a few major media outlets would all be hearing from me. In particular I would be looking at major media outlets serving my area. Remember to do your research, don't just call them up blindly, establish who in the media organization is going to be the most sympathetic and head that way. This case has all the elements of a good story, the big, faceless University, kafkaeske rules and "evil doers" being given cover to misbehave.

Just thinking out loud, but I think there are representations made in each government research contract that the university adheres to certain non-discriminatory practices. If those representations are shown to be false, the government could (in theory) cancel and/or claw back some of the money that was awarded the way it does when there is other fraud.

To Janet and all the commenters who took the time to weigh in on this case, I thought you would be interested in an opinion the grievant received from a lawyer friend of her (in another state) who has followed the case closely:

"Dear .....: It is disappointing that the provost was not more responsive to your letter, and I would expect you are correct that your chairman will probably follow her lead. It is hard to tell if she was acting on the advise of counsel for the university, but I expect she was. As for whether you should pursue a court case, I am not in a good position to assess the prospects of a recovery. Federal law would probably allow your harasser to remove any case to federal court, either on the grounds that federal claims were submitted or because your harasser is now a resident of another state, and defendants who are citizens of another state have the option of removing state cases to the federal court. Technically the burden of proof is the same in either court, but most lawyers, including me, find that the federal courts are, generally speaking, more friendly to defendants in cases like this than are state courts. However, your lawyer has done a very good job to date (I suspect you find that hard to accept, given your disappointment, but objectively speaking, it is true), and I think you should probably follow his advice. The alternative is to fold your tent, and let this go, which would also be hard for you to accept. Litigation is always slow, expensive, and frustrating, and only you can decide whether emotionally and financially it is worth pursuing. I think the findings in the grievance process indicate that reasonable judges or juries will be inclined to support you, but the road is not easy. I think you have to ask yourself whether you would regret not seeing this through, whatever the outcome. If so, you should probably go ahead, given that you have already invested lots of time, energy and money in this."

My own opinion is that a lawsuit should be file against the university, rather than the harasser, since it is the university that has done and continue to do the wrong, as was found by the grievance committee.