29.4 Tenure-Track Faculty Grievance

1. Scope. The procedures described in this section constitute the exclusive remedy within the university for a faculty member who wishes to challenge the legitimacy of a university administrative decision that substantially affects the faculty member’s terms and conditions of appointment, provided, however, that these procedures are not applicable to decisions on reappointment, tenure, or promotion, and that they may not be accessed to challenge university-initiated actions or ongoing investigations, including those covered by the Ethics Procedures (III-29.6), the Unacceptable Performance policy (III-29.5), or the Research Ethics Violation Procedures (III-29.9).
2. Informal discussions. A faculty member may seek informal resolution through discussions with the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Provost, or anyone else connected to the matter. In any such discussion, the faculty member may be accompanied by legal counsel and/or another faculty member who does not have a conflict of interest in attending.
3. Timely challenge.
   1. Request for statement of reasons. If the matter is not resolved to the faculty member’s satisfaction through informal discussions, the faculty member may request a statement of reasons from the provost within 60 business days from when the faculty member was informed in writing of the decision. The faculty member must state in some detail the nature of the complaint and the remedy sought.
   2. The Provost must provide the faculty member a written statement of reasons with reasonable detail within 20 business days.
      
      After receiving the statement of reasons, the faculty member may initiate a challenge to the administrative decision under these procedures, initiating the Judicial Procedures described in III-29.7 below.
4. Grounds. A faculty member may initiate this procedure only on one or more of the following grounds:
   1. Violation of a university obligation. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member must show that on the basis of a written promise to the faculty member by an authorized administrator of the university, the faculty member was justified in believing that promise and relied detrimentally on it. The faculty member must either present in evidence the document(s) on which the claim of a violation of a university obligation is based or else justify the failure to do so.
   2. Unfair Impediment. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member must show both that:
      1. the decision significantly impairs the ability of the faculty member to do what is ordinarily expected of a faculty member; and
      2. the decision is not significantly related either to any reasonable institutional need or to the faculty member’s performance.
   3. Violation of academic freedom. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member must show that the administrative decision violated the faculty member's academic freedom.
5. Protected classification discrimination. Formal complaints of discrimination on the basis of a protected classification in the employment context fall within the purview of the university’s Office of Civil Rights Compliance. Formal findings as the result of the investigation may be used to support claims under grounds set out above.