Discriminatory Content and Retaliation in Promotion Reviews

 (see below for info from previous update) - Four female faculty members in a single department underwent promotional reviews in 2020-2021 (three for tenure and one for Professor). Following the promotions to tenure, the four filed a grievance alleging gender and race discrimination among several other violations of the collective bargaining agreement. A grievance was filed alleging that the college level personnel committee had failed to follow the rules for personnel reviews set forth in the college constitution and that the reviews of college personnel committee and the Provost discriminated on the basis of gender and race/ethnicity.  Two of the faculty members argued that racial and gender discriminatory content had been included in their promotional files and that such content negatively impacted both the current assessment of the faculty members and, potentially, future assessments as well by establishing a unique teaching standard for female faculty of color. A request was made to, among other things, remove the discriminatory content from the faculty members’ files (in both the college level review, and in one case, in the Provost’s review). Following negotiations, the Provost agreed to revise his promotional review letter for one of the faculty members to remove the discriminatory content he had copied from the college level report but he did not remove the discriminatory content itself from the file of either of the two faculty members. 

While the grievance was still pending, the faculty members filed a discrimination case with the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX (as the statute of limitations was approaching). A Title IX investigation concluded that, while the content included in the college level review letters was indeed discriminatory, University of Massachusetts Non-Discrimination and Harassment Policy (T16-040) was not violated because no harm was shown (i.e. despite the discrimination, the candidates obtained tenure). The investigation report included a recommendation for trainings for personnel committees to ensure that committee members recognize such content as discriminatory and not rely upon it in future reviews. It also recommended review of college-level personnel review guidelines for their compliance with the Red Book and the CBA so as to ensure that committee members cannot use such to support practices that may violate the Red Book and CBA. It is not known whether any of the investigators recommendations were carried out.  Two of the faculty members on the college personnel committee responsible for the discriminatory action were promoted (one to full professor and another to an important administrative position) after the allegations of discrimination were made.  The discriminatory content in the college level reviews was redacted from two faculty members’ files at the instruction of the vice chancellor of HR, but the conclusions based on this content were not removed or redacted from the faculty members’ files. The appeal of the finding to the Chancellor’s office was denied and thus the two Title IX discrimination cases are final.

In addition to the discrimination claims in the tenure cases, a third faculty member who had applied for promotion to Professor and was denied promotion and claimed the denial was retaliatory for prior union activity and for being a co-complainant in the grievance filed alleging that the college personnel committee violated the college constitution and gender and race/ethnicity discrimination. An unfair labor practice charge was also filed with the Department of Labor Relations, which resulted in a settlement of the unfair labor practice claim and the grievance for that faculty member.  Two female faculty members left UMass Boston as a result of the discriminatory and retaliatory actions.  The grievance remains pending for other the two female faculty members still at UMass Boston. The grievance was put in abeyance in August 2021 to allow the Provost to consult with legal counsel on his options to correct the discriminatory conduct of the college personnel committee and the discriminatory content in the faculty members’ personnel files.

From 5/18/22

Discriminatory Content and Retaliation in Promotion Reviews- Three faculty members in a single department recently underwent promotional reviews (two for tenure and one for Professor). While the tenure promotions were granted, the two faculty members who had applied for tenure argued that racially discriminatory content had been included in their promotional files and that such content negatively impacted both the current assessment of the faculty members and, potentially, future assessments as well. A grievance was filed and a request was made to remove the discriminatory content from the faculty members’ files. Ultimately, a settlement was reached whereby the Provost agreed to revise the latter’s promotional review letter for one of the faculty members to account for the discriminatory content but not remove the content itself from the file.  Subsequently, the faculty members filed a discrimination case with the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX. An investigation concluded that, while the content included in the letters was indeed discriminatory, University of Massachusetts Non-Discrimination and Harassment Policy (T16-040) was not violated since no negative harm (i.e. promotion denial) was demonstrated. The investigation report included a recommendation for trainings for personnel committees to ensure that committee members recognize such content as problematic and not rely upon it in future reviews. It also recommended review of college-level personnel review guidelines for their compliance with the Red Book and the CBA so as to ensure that committee members cannot use such to support practices that may violate the Red Book and CBA. At this point, it is not clear the extent to which the discriminatory content and the conclusions based on this content will be removed or redacted from the faculty members’ files; thus the Civil Rights and Title IX case is ongoing In addition to the discrimination claims in the tenure cases, a third faculty member who applied for promotion to Professor and was denied claimed the denial was retaliatory for prior union activity and for being a co-complainant in the grievance filed to remove discriminatory content in their colleagues’ files. An unfair labor practice charge has been filed with the Department of Labor Relations (that case is pending).