3 Professional Ethics, Grievance Procedures, and Formal Complaint Policy
3.1 鶹 Statement on Professional Ethics
Deep respect for others is fundamental to the 鶹 community. 鶹 does not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, student, or applicant for admission on the basis of actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, sex, religion, age, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, pregnancy, familial status, marital status, citizenship status, veteran/military status, disability status, or any other protected category under applicable local, state, or federal laws. In compliance with the requirements of Title IX, 鶹 does not discriminate on the basis of sex in its educational program and activity, including admission/employment. For a fuller description of the statement, see 2.4.1.1. See also the 鶹 Employee Handbook, Section 10.2.
Equity and Compliance (Title IX)
Complaints that are covered by the university Equal Opportunity, Harassment, and Non-Discrimination policy should be directed to the Dean for Compliance, Training & Development/Title IX coordinator.
Concerns regarding all forms of discrimination, including sexual harassment and/or sex discrimination in admission/employment should be addressed to the following:
Becki L. Achey, M.S.
Equal Opportunity and Title IX Coordinator
1309 Main St.
(610) 625-7023
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18018
(610) 861-1529
equityandcompliance@moravian.edu
Concerns regarding gender and equity in athletics:
Rebecca May
Assistant Athletic Director
(Deputy Title IX Coordinator)
109 Johnston Hall 鶹 1200 Main St.
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18018
(610) 625-7791
mayr@moravian.edu
Concerns regarding the application of Title IX:
U.S. Department of 鶹
Office of Civil Rights
100 Penn Square East, Suite 515
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3323
(215) 656-8541 ocr.philadelphia@ed.gov
Report sexual harassment/sex discrimination online anytime (can be anonymous) at /equity-compliance. The full policy and grievance procedures can be found in the university’s Equal Opportunity, Harassment, and Non-Discrimination policy.
3.2 Grievance Resolution for Faculty Members
3.2.1 Forms of Dispute Involving Faculty
Appeals of decisions related to tenure and promotion, as described in the Policies and Procedures document, are heard by the Faculty Review Committee (FRC), and the procedure described in Section 3.2.2 does not apply.
If the dispute is between a faculty member and a student, and the nature of the dispute is not in the purview of the Academic Standards Committee (ASC) or the Discipline Review Committee (DRC), then the matter should be referred to the appropriate academic Dean and/or the Dean of Students (or their designee). If the dispute is between a faculty member and an administrator, the matter should be referred to the Vice President for Human Resources (or their designee). If the dispute is between a faculty member and a member of the support staff, the matter should be referred to the appropriate Vice Presidents. Faculty members who are acting as full-time administrators are not considered faculty under these procedures and follow the procedures outlined in the Employee Handbook (see Section X, Employment Issues and Policies). In all of these cases, the procedure described in Section 3.2.2 does not apply.
All faculty are urged to seek out assistance in resolving disputes prior to using the procedures outlined below. Informal resolution might include conversations with trusted colleagues, Chairs, Deans, Associate Provosts, and/or Provost. Other resources on campus include the Office of Human Resources, the Chaplain’s Office, and the Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As members of a relatively small community, we have an obligation to engage compassionately and professionally with one another in pursuit of our common purpose.
3.2.2 Dispute Resolution Among Faculty Members
The Dispute Resolution Group (DRG) encourages faculty members to seek out a liaison if a dispute or uncomfortable situation is complicating their work at the university (see the Policies and Procedures document for information on DRG membership and see AMOS for a list of committee members updated at the start of each academic year). Liaisons support the constructive resolution of disputes among faculty members. A conversation with one or more liaisons is one of the most important forms of support the DRG can offer. The DRG functions as a filter for cases. Liaisons may also offer to accompany those who are party to a dispute to meetings, where and when that form of support would be appropriate.
Faculty members choose which of the four liaisons they would like to contact. They may also ask to work with more than one liaison. Liaisons may direct faculty members to one or more of the following resources, depending on the nature of the dispute and the wishes of those who are party to it:
- The liaison serves as a sounding board for a problem and can help identify the critical issue, formulate a question for further discussion, or simply offer an additional perspective.
- The liaison may offer to arrange a conversation with those who are party to the dispute.
- It may be appropriate to arrange a conversation with the Vice President of Human Resources or their designee. Liaisons can be present for such a conversation if those who are party to the dispute so choose. Records of such meetings are kept by the Office of Human Resources.
- It may be appropriate to arrange a conversation with the appropriate Associate Provost as well. The Associate Provost can invite the liaison to join the conversation if they choose to do so. Records of the meeting will be kept by the Office of Human Resources.
Liaisons document their cases in the following ways:
- Liaisons contact each other and report that they are meeting with a faculty member who has a concern. The contacted liaison sends an email to the group. No specifics are mentioned. Information is shared on a need-to-know basis or when parties to the dispute request the involvement of specific liaisons, administrators, or a mediator.
- Liaisons do not keep formal records regarding the specifics of conversations with faculty members who approach them with concerns. Notes should be treated as confidential documents.
- Any contact with liaisons regarding a dispute will be counted and categorized, including conversations not resulting in further steps.
- Cases will be counted and categorized in the most general terms to protect confidentiality.
- Liaisons collect general information to be summarized annually. Summaries are stored in the Office of the Provost.
- At the end of the academic year, the DRG shares a summary of its work with the Office of the Provost and the Vice President of Human Resources.
3.2.3 Unresolved Grievance
If, after such discussions described above, the grievance remains active, then it should be treated as a formal complaint and be directed to the appropriate Associate Provost or VP/Dean of the Seminary.
If, after such discussions described above, the grievance remains active, then it should be treated as a formal complaint and be directed to the appropriate Associate Provost or VP/Dean of the Seminary.
3.3 Procedures for Formal Complaints Between Faculty
3.3.1 Formal Academic Complaints
Complaints between faculty members, exclusive of administrative faculty members, that merit the formal procedures outlined herein include: Egregious violation of their employment contract, moral turpitude, incompetence, academic or other forms of misconduct, violation of confidentiality/privacy expectations, or ethical concerns involving faculty who fail to follow the Statement on Professional Ethics found in this handbook or the ethical guidelines of the professional organization in the faculty member’s own academic discipline. Claims of false accusations may also be heard through the formal complaint process. In situations that require clarification of these conditions or consideration of them in specific contexts, the Ad-Hoc Grievance Committee (see Section 3.3.3) will be consulted.
Decisions not to renew limited term faculty appointments, decisions not to grant tenure, or other matters that do not expressly constitute dismissal in the faculty handbook, policies, or procedures are not addressed here. Likewise, written comments to faculty members by the TPRC, the Provost, an Associate Provost, or a Dean, made in the course of their normal work, do not constitute the formal discipline addressed in this procedure.
Complaints that are not between teaching faculty follow procedures in the 鶹 Employee Handbook (section 10.9).
3.3.2 Filing a Formal Complaint
Complaints regarding 鶹 faculty shall be in writing and directed to their appropriate Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary or their designee (herein all references to the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary also include a designee) whose responsibility it is to address the complaint. The individual making the complaint shall be referred to as the Complainant and the person against whom the complaint is made shall be referred to as the Respondent.
The Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary who receives the complaint may consult with another Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary if the Respondent is in another College or in the Seminary.
If it is determined by the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary that further action may be needed, they will move forward with the procedures outlined below.
Note: All formal complaints will be acted upon promptly as possible. The university strives to resolve complaints in a timely manner, and where possible, to contain proceedings to a single semester. There are always exceptions and extenuating circumstances that can cause a resolution to take longer, but the university will avoid all undue delays within its control. The university will provide written notice to the parties of any significant delay, the cause of the delay, and an estimate of the anticipated resolution timeline.
3.3.3 Determination
The appropriate Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary may undertake a preliminary inquiry of the matter but must notify the faculty Respondent within a reasonably prompt time that a formal complaint has been made against them. The notice to the Respondent must be in writing and a copy must be sent to the Provost. When possible, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary will present the notice and the issues to the faculty member in person. The written notice must include the nature of the complaint and the name(s) of the person(s) making the complaint. In the written notice, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary will offer to discuss the matter in a conference, giving the faculty member an opportunity to respond.
If the Respondent wishes, they may provide a written response to the matter brought forward by the Complainant. Response must be received within seven (7) business days of the notification of the complaint by the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary.
At any point during an initial assessment or inquiry, if the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary determines that reasonable cause does not exist to support a conclusion that policy has been violated, the process will end, and the parties will be notified. The Complainant may request that the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary review the reasonable cause determination and/or re-open the investigation. This decision is at the discretion of the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary, and the request may be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. In the case of false reporting, see Section 3.3.7.
If the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary determines that there is sufficient merit/reasonable cause, they will contact the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance in order to arrange for an Investigator(s) to investigate the complaint promptly. The Pool of Investigators (“The Pool”) typically includes the Title IX Coordinator/Deputies, Civil Rights Investigators (university employees not otherwise affiliated with the university beyond this role), other university officials, and trained employee volunteers from the university’s faculty and staff. The university may also engage trained external contractors as deemed necessary and/or appropriate for any role in the process. A list of Pool members is maintained under the Process A anchor section 7 at /policy/harassment-discrimination and contact information is available in the Moravian Campus Directory.
Once the investigation is complete, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary reviews the investigative report and makes a determination regarding whether formal proceedings are warranted, including possible discipline or dismissal of the faculty member. The Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary may ask the appointed Investigator(s) to further investigate the complaint if they need additional information to make a decision.
If the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary determines that there is not sufficient merit to warrant formal proceedings, the process ends and the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary shall notify the Complainant and the Respondent as soon as possible about the rationale for their recommendation. In this case, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary may offer the parties other avenues for resolution (e.g., mediation). Alternatively, if the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary recommends that formal proceedings should be initiated, they will formulate a statement of the issues with a rationale for appointing an Ad-hoc Grievance Committee to render a determination of responsibility and any associated discipline or recommendation for dismissal.
The Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary will contact the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance who will appoint the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee, which will be made up of three (3) members (exclusive of members of the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Committee and the Faculty Review Committee) from the Pool of trained individuals described above. The members will be free of bias and conflict of interest, as determined by the potential committee member, the Complainant, and the Respondent. The Complainant and the Respondent can reject no more than two potential committee members each. The Provost, in cooperation with the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance, reserves the right to finalize the membership of the Ad-hoc Committee. These individuals will be separate from those assigned as the Investigator(s). If the case involves potential dismissal of a tenured faculty member, the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee must contain three tenured faculty members from the Pool.
3.3.4 Status of the Faculty Member
Pending a final decision concerning discipline or dismissal, a faculty member shall not normally be relieved of duties. If, however, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary finds that substantial harm to the university or significant risk to a member of the Moravian community may result if a faculty member continues in their position, they will immediately contact the Provost in order to determine whether a faculty member should be relieved of all or a portion of their duties in the interim. In this case, salary will continue at least until a final decision is reached.
In the case of probationary faculty, the Provost may issue a revocable notice of dismissal to a faculty member if it appears that the case will not be resolved before the date by which the university must notify a faculty member of non-reappointment or else provide another year of employment. Such notice of dismissal may be revoked if the case is dismissed or disciplinary action other than dismissal is decided upon.
3.3.5 Administrative Hearing
The Ad-hoc Grievance Committee will proceed by considering the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary’s statement of the issues, the Investigator’s report, and any statements that were provided by the Complainant and the Respondent.
The Ad-hoc Grievance Committee first examines the evidence, without privileging either the Complainant’s or the Respondent’s position. The committee makes a determination of whether or not the Respondent is responsible or not for violating policy based on the preponderance of evidence. If the Respondent is deemed not responsible, then the case will be dismissed. If the Respondent is deemed responsible, the Committee may request information about prior conduct from the Office of the Provost and/or the Office of Human Resources. The Committee will then determine disciplinary action, recommend dismissal of a term or probationary faculty member, or recommend dismissal of a tenured faculty member to the Provost (see below). The Ad-hoc Grievance Committee will make a decision by majority vote on the basis of the materials submitted, with votes recorded but not attributed.
Examples of disciplinary actions may include required training(s) or education, workplace reassignment, or a reporting structure change.
Note: A recommendation to dismiss a tenured faculty member may only be made by an Ad-hoc Grievance Committee made up entirely of tenured faculty members.
The Ad-hoc Grievance Committee will submit a confidential written report to the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary, the Provost, the Complainant, and the Respondent within a reasonable time. The report will indicate (a) whether or not they find the Respondent responsible on each of the issues laid out in the statement of issues by the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary; and (b) if responsible, the disciplinary action assigned, or a recommendation for dismissal of the violating party. If the vote is for dismissal, a final decision will be made by the Provost.
In the event of recommended dismissal, the Provost shall review all of the materials, including the report by the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee, and render a decision within a reasonable time. The Provost may decide to uphold the recommendation for dismissal or determine a lesser disciplinary action. In either case, a report will be issued to the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary, the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee, the Complainant, the Respondent, and the President.
3.3.6 The Appeals Process
Within ten (10) business days after receiving official notification of the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee’s decision, and in the case of a disciplinary decision other than recommendation of dismissal, a faculty member may appeal the decision to the Provost.
In this situation, appeals are limited to the following grounds: (a) Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter; (b) New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination was made and that could affect the outcome of the matter; (c) The sanction(s)/corrective action(s) are substantially disproportionate to the severity of the violation(s) and/or cumulative conduct record of the Respondent; or (d) The Executive Director for Equity and Compliance, the Investigator(s), or any member of the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee had a clear conflict of interest or substantiated bias for or against Complainants or Respondents generally or the specific Complainant or Respondent that affected the outcome of the matter.
In the case of recommended dismissal by the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee, the Provost’s decision for dismissal would be appealed to the President if on procedural grounds alone. The President’s decision is final in this case. If the appeal on the dismissal charge is on grounds other than procedural grounds (see above categories), then the appeal would typically be heard by an
Ad-hoc Grievance Appeals Committee, which is a new 3-member committee created from the Pool of trained (and tenured) faculty. If this group again finds responsibility, their recommendation will go to the Provost, and the Provost’s decision will be final and reported to the President.
In the written appeal request, the faculty member must address the substantive and/or procedural grounds of the appeal, and, if appropriate, supply any new evidence to the Provost or President with the appeal.
If there is no response from the faculty member within ten (10) business days of the official notification, the decision of the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee becomes final and an appeal will not be considered.
3.3.7 False Accusations
The university takes seriously any accusations made against another employee. Should it be determined that an employee willfully made a false report, willfully contributed false information to an ongoing investigation, or, in any way, interfered with the integrity of a report or the related investigation, the employee is in violation of university policy. In these circumstances, the university reserves the right to take disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from employment.
3.3.8 Publicity and Records
To protect both the university and the faculty member(s), those involved in these procedures must not disclose information related to the review process unless authorized to do so by the Provost or their designee. Participants in the review process shall not separately maintain records or notes.
If a proceeding is terminated by the university or if a Respondent is found not responsible, all records of the investigation and/or proceedings will be kept secured and in accordance with the institutional record retention policy by the Office of Human Resources and the Office of the Provost, but not in the faculty member’s personnel file.
In the event of discipline or dismissal, a record of the outcome of the investigation and proceedings will be kept in the personnel file residing in the Office of Human Resources and the Office of the Provost.
All records of false accusations will also be retained in the Office of Human Resources and the Office of the Provost.
3.3.9 Supportive Measures
Both the Complainant and the Respondent have the right to be protected from harassment, discrimination, and retaliation throughout the entirety of the grievance process. 鶹 will offer and implement appropriate and reasonable supportive measures to the parties upon notice of alleged harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation. Supportive measures are non-disciplinary, non-punitive individualized services offered as appropriate, as reasonably available, and without fee or charge to restore or preserve the parties’ access to the university's education program or activity, including measures designed to protect the safety of all parties and/or the university's educational environment, and/or deter harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation.
Upon receiving a written complaint, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary will work with the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance or their designee to make supportive measures available. The Executive Director for Equity and Compliance works with the Complainant to ensure that their wishes are taken into account regarding supportive measures that are implemented. Supportive measures are likewise made available to the Respondent, once put on notice by the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary.
鶹 will implement supportive measures in a way that does not unreasonably burden the other party, will ensure as minimal an academic/occupational impact on the parties as possible, and will maintain the privacy of the parties to the degree possible in providing the measures. It should be noted that the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance is a Campus Security Authority (CSA) under the Clery Act and reports required statistical data (no personally identifiable information) to the 鶹 Police Department for inclusion in the Daily Crime Log and Annual Security Report (ASR).
Supportive measures may include, but are not limited to:
Complaints between faculty members, exclusive of administrative faculty members, that merit the formal procedures outlined herein include: Egregious violation of their employment contract, moral turpitude, incompetence, academic or other forms of misconduct, violation of confidentiality/privacy expectations, or ethical concerns involving faculty who fail to follow the Statement on Professional Ethics found in this handbook or the ethical guidelines of the professional organization in the faculty member’s own academic discipline. Claims of false accusations may also be heard through the formal complaint process. In situations that require clarification of these conditions or consideration of them in specific contexts, the Ad-Hoc Grievance Committee (see Section 3.3.3) will be consulted.
Decisions not to renew limited term faculty appointments, decisions not to grant tenure, or other matters that do not expressly constitute dismissal in the faculty handbook, policies, or procedures are not addressed here. Likewise, written comments to faculty members by the TPRC, the Provost, an Associate Provost, or a Dean, made in the course of their normal work, do not constitute the formal discipline addressed in this procedure.
Complaints that are not between teaching faculty follow procedures in the 鶹 Employee Handbook (section 10.9).
3.3.2 Filing a Formal Complaint
Complaints regarding 鶹 faculty shall be in writing and directed to their appropriate Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary or their designee (herein all references to the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary also include a designee) whose responsibility it is to address the complaint. The individual making the complaint shall be referred to as the Complainant and the person against whom the complaint is made shall be referred to as the Respondent.
The Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary who receives the complaint may consult with another Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary if the Respondent is in another College or in the Seminary.
If it is determined by the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary that further action may be needed, they will move forward with the procedures outlined below.
Note: All formal complaints will be acted upon promptly as possible. The university strives to resolve complaints in a timely manner, and where possible, to contain proceedings to a single semester. There are always exceptions and extenuating circumstances that can cause a resolution to take longer, but the university will avoid all undue delays within its control. The university will provide written notice to the parties of any significant delay, the cause of the delay, and an estimate of the anticipated resolution timeline.
3.3.3 Determination
The appropriate Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary may undertake a preliminary inquiry of the matter but must notify the faculty Respondent within a reasonably prompt time that a formal complaint has been made against them. The notice to the Respondent must be in writing and a copy must be sent to the Provost. When possible, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary will present the notice and the issues to the faculty member in person. The written notice must include the nature of the complaint and the name(s) of the person(s) making the complaint. In the written notice, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary will offer to discuss the matter in a conference, giving the faculty member an opportunity to respond.
If the Respondent wishes, they may provide a written response to the matter brought forward by the Complainant. Response must be received within seven (7) business days of the notification of the complaint by the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary.
At any point during an initial assessment or inquiry, if the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary determines that reasonable cause does not exist to support a conclusion that policy has been violated, the process will end, and the parties will be notified. The Complainant may request that the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary review the reasonable cause determination and/or re-open the investigation. This decision is at the discretion of the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary, and the request may be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. In the case of false reporting, see Section 3.3.7.
If the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary determines that there is sufficient merit/reasonable cause, they will contact the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance in order to arrange for an Investigator(s) to investigate the complaint promptly. The Pool of Investigators (“The Pool”) typically includes the Title IX Coordinator/Deputies, Civil Rights Investigators (university employees not otherwise affiliated with the university beyond this role), other university officials, and trained employee volunteers from the university’s faculty and staff. The university may also engage trained external contractors as deemed necessary and/or appropriate for any role in the process. A list of Pool members is maintained under the Process A anchor section 7 at /policy/harassment-discrimination and contact information is available in the Moravian Campus Directory.
Once the investigation is complete, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary reviews the investigative report and makes a determination regarding whether formal proceedings are warranted, including possible discipline or dismissal of the faculty member. The Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary may ask the appointed Investigator(s) to further investigate the complaint if they need additional information to make a decision.
If the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary determines that there is not sufficient merit to warrant formal proceedings, the process ends and the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary shall notify the Complainant and the Respondent as soon as possible about the rationale for their recommendation. In this case, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary may offer the parties other avenues for resolution (e.g., mediation). Alternatively, if the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary recommends that formal proceedings should be initiated, they will formulate a statement of the issues with a rationale for appointing an Ad-hoc Grievance Committee to render a determination of responsibility and any associated discipline or recommendation for dismissal.
The Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary will contact the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance who will appoint the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee, which will be made up of three (3) members (exclusive of members of the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Committee and the Faculty Review Committee) from the Pool of trained individuals described above. The members will be free of bias and conflict of interest, as determined by the potential committee member, the Complainant, and the Respondent. The Complainant and the Respondent can reject no more than two potential committee members each. The Provost, in cooperation with the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance, reserves the right to finalize the membership of the Ad-hoc Committee. These individuals will be separate from those assigned as the Investigator(s). If the case involves potential dismissal of a tenured faculty member, the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee must contain three tenured faculty members from the Pool.
3.3.4 Status of the Faculty Member
Pending a final decision concerning discipline or dismissal, a faculty member shall not normally be relieved of duties. If, however, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary finds that substantial harm to the university or significant risk to a member of the Moravian community may result if a faculty member continues in their position, they will immediately contact the Provost in order to determine whether a faculty member should be relieved of all or a portion of their duties in the interim. In this case, salary will continue at least until a final decision is reached.
In the case of probationary faculty, the Provost may issue a revocable notice of dismissal to a faculty member if it appears that the case will not be resolved before the date by which the university must notify a faculty member of non-reappointment or else provide another year of employment. Such notice of dismissal may be revoked if the case is dismissed or disciplinary action other than dismissal is decided upon.
3.3.5 Administrative Hearing
The Ad-hoc Grievance Committee will proceed by considering the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary’s statement of the issues, the Investigator’s report, and any statements that were provided by the Complainant and the Respondent.
The Ad-hoc Grievance Committee first examines the evidence, without privileging either the Complainant’s or the Respondent’s position. The committee makes a determination of whether or not the Respondent is responsible or not for violating policy based on the preponderance of evidence. If the Respondent is deemed not responsible, then the case will be dismissed. If the Respondent is deemed responsible, the Committee may request information about prior conduct from the Office of the Provost and/or the Office of Human Resources. The Committee will then determine disciplinary action, recommend dismissal of a term or probationary faculty member, or recommend dismissal of a tenured faculty member to the Provost (see below). The Ad-hoc Grievance Committee will make a decision by majority vote on the basis of the materials submitted, with votes recorded but not attributed.
Examples of disciplinary actions may include required training(s) or education, workplace reassignment, or a reporting structure change.
Note: A recommendation to dismiss a tenured faculty member may only be made by an Ad-hoc Grievance Committee made up entirely of tenured faculty members.
The Ad-hoc Grievance Committee will submit a confidential written report to the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary, the Provost, the Complainant, and the Respondent within a reasonable time. The report will indicate (a) whether or not they find the Respondent responsible on each of the issues laid out in the statement of issues by the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary; and (b) if responsible, the disciplinary action assigned, or a recommendation for dismissal of the violating party. If the vote is for dismissal, a final decision will be made by the Provost.
In the event of recommended dismissal, the Provost shall review all of the materials, including the report by the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee, and render a decision within a reasonable time. The Provost may decide to uphold the recommendation for dismissal or determine a lesser disciplinary action. In either case, a report will be issued to the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary, the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee, the Complainant, the Respondent, and the President.
3.3.6 The Appeals Process
Within ten (10) business days after receiving official notification of the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee’s decision, and in the case of a disciplinary decision other than recommendation of dismissal, a faculty member may appeal the decision to the Provost.
In this situation, appeals are limited to the following grounds: (a) Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter; (b) New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination was made and that could affect the outcome of the matter; (c) The sanction(s)/corrective action(s) are substantially disproportionate to the severity of the violation(s) and/or cumulative conduct record of the Respondent; or (d) The Executive Director for Equity and Compliance, the Investigator(s), or any member of the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee had a clear conflict of interest or substantiated bias for or against Complainants or Respondents generally or the specific Complainant or Respondent that affected the outcome of the matter.
In the case of recommended dismissal by the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee, the Provost’s decision for dismissal would be appealed to the President if on procedural grounds alone. The President’s decision is final in this case. If the appeal on the dismissal charge is on grounds other than procedural grounds (see above categories), then the appeal would typically be heard by an
Ad-hoc Grievance Appeals Committee, which is a new 3-member committee created from the Pool of trained (and tenured) faculty. If this group again finds responsibility, their recommendation will go to the Provost, and the Provost’s decision will be final and reported to the President.
In the written appeal request, the faculty member must address the substantive and/or procedural grounds of the appeal, and, if appropriate, supply any new evidence to the Provost or President with the appeal.
If there is no response from the faculty member within ten (10) business days of the official notification, the decision of the Ad-hoc Grievance Committee becomes final and an appeal will not be considered.
3.3.7 False Accusations
The university takes seriously any accusations made against another employee. Should it be determined that an employee willfully made a false report, willfully contributed false information to an ongoing investigation, or, in any way, interfered with the integrity of a report or the related investigation, the employee is in violation of university policy. In these circumstances, the university reserves the right to take disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from employment.
3.3.8 Publicity and Records
To protect both the university and the faculty member(s), those involved in these procedures must not disclose information related to the review process unless authorized to do so by the Provost or their designee. Participants in the review process shall not separately maintain records or notes.
If a proceeding is terminated by the university or if a Respondent is found not responsible, all records of the investigation and/or proceedings will be kept secured and in accordance with the institutional record retention policy by the Office of Human Resources and the Office of the Provost, but not in the faculty member’s personnel file.
In the event of discipline or dismissal, a record of the outcome of the investigation and proceedings will be kept in the personnel file residing in the Office of Human Resources and the Office of the Provost.
All records of false accusations will also be retained in the Office of Human Resources and the Office of the Provost.
3.3.9 Supportive Measures
Both the Complainant and the Respondent have the right to be protected from harassment, discrimination, and retaliation throughout the entirety of the grievance process. 鶹 will offer and implement appropriate and reasonable supportive measures to the parties upon notice of alleged harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation. Supportive measures are non-disciplinary, non-punitive individualized services offered as appropriate, as reasonably available, and without fee or charge to restore or preserve the parties’ access to the university's education program or activity, including measures designed to protect the safety of all parties and/or the university's educational environment, and/or deter harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation.
Upon receiving a written complaint, the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary will work with the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance or their designee to make supportive measures available. The Executive Director for Equity and Compliance works with the Complainant to ensure that their wishes are taken into account regarding supportive measures that are implemented. Supportive measures are likewise made available to the Respondent, once put on notice by the Associate Provost or the VP/Dean of the Seminary.
鶹 will implement supportive measures in a way that does not unreasonably burden the other party, will ensure as minimal an academic/occupational impact on the parties as possible, and will maintain the privacy of the parties to the degree possible in providing the measures. It should be noted that the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance is a Campus Security Authority (CSA) under the Clery Act and reports required statistical data (no personally identifiable information) to the 鶹 Police Department for inclusion in the Daily Crime Log and Annual Security Report (ASR).
Supportive measures may include, but are not limited to:
- Referral to the Employee Assistance Program
- Referral to community-based service providers
- Visa and immigration assistance
- 鶹 to the campus community or community subgroup(s)
- Altering work arrangements
- Safety planning
- Providing campus police escorts
- Providing transportation accommodations
- Implementing contact limitations (including no contact orders) between the parties
- No Trespass orders (鶹 Police Department)
- Timely warnings to campus (under Clery Act)
- Increased security and monitoring of certain areas of the campus
- Any other actions deemed appropriate by the Executive Director for Equity and Compliance
The university’s Equity and Compliance page provides additional details about support resources. Potential violations of no contact orders (NCOs) are referred to the Office of Human Resources for resolution and action as appropriate. MUPD enforces “No Trespass” orders.
3.3.10 Privacy
Every effort is made by the university to preserve privacy. 鶹 will not share the identity of any individual who has made a report or complaint of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; any Complainant, any individual who has been reported to be the perpetrator of sex discrimination; any Respondent, or any witness, except as permitted by the Family 鶹al Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g; FERPA regulations, 34 CFR part 99; or as required by law; or to conduct any investigation, hearing, or grievance proceeding arising under these policies and procedures.
鶹 reserves the right to determine which university officials have legitimate educational interest in information obtained under this policy. Only a small group of officials who need to know will typically be told about the complaint. These officials include but are not limited to the appropriate individuals in Academic Affairs and the Office of Human Resources as appropriate to the situation. Information will be shared as necessary with Investigators, decision makers, witnesses, and the parties. The university strives to preserve the parties’ rights and privacy.
3.3.10 Privacy
Every effort is made by the university to preserve privacy. 鶹 will not share the identity of any individual who has made a report or complaint of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; any Complainant, any individual who has been reported to be the perpetrator of sex discrimination; any Respondent, or any witness, except as permitted by the Family 鶹al Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g; FERPA regulations, 34 CFR part 99; or as required by law; or to conduct any investigation, hearing, or grievance proceeding arising under these policies and procedures.
鶹 reserves the right to determine which university officials have legitimate educational interest in information obtained under this policy. Only a small group of officials who need to know will typically be told about the complaint. These officials include but are not limited to the appropriate individuals in Academic Affairs and the Office of Human Resources as appropriate to the situation. Information will be shared as necessary with Investigators, decision makers, witnesses, and the parties. The university strives to preserve the parties’ rights and privacy.