Faculty Grievance Procedure

Handbook of Operating Procedures 2-2310 (Interim)

Effective December 1, 2023
Executive Sponsor: Executive Vice President and Provost
Policy Owner: Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

This Policy formerly included guidance concerning the imposition of faculty discipline. That guidance may now be found in HOP 2-2320 (Faculty Discipline). Nothing in this Policy should be construed to govern the imposition of faculty discipline.

Policy Statement

The University of Texas at Austin (“University”) is a university of the first class for many reasons, including the extraordinarily high quality and dedication of its faculty members. As in any employment relationship, however, disputes may arise, and a faculty member may feel aggrieved by an action taken by an administrator. The University is committed to providing fair and efficient procedures through which a faculty member may seek redress of an adverse action taken by an administrator.

Reason for Policy

This policy details the types of matters for which a faculty member may seek redress and the procedures by which a faculty member may seek such redress. It also articulates when a faculty member must seek redress through other processes.

Scope & Audience

This policy applies to individuals holding an academic title contained in Regents’ Rule 31001 (Section 2), with the exception of student titles, and the Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOP) 2-2010.

Definitions (specific to this policy)

Administrator:
A department chair, dean, director, or other institutional officer (e.g., president, executive vice president and provost).

Discipline:
A sanction the University imposes upon a Faculty Member subsequent to a finding that the Faculty Member has: (a) violated a University, UT System, and/or Board of Regents policy or rule; (b) engaged in conduct that adversely affects the Faculty Member’s performance of employment responsibilities; or (c) engaged in conduct outside the scope of employment that adversely affects the mission or reputation of the University (e.g., commission of a crime, etc.). Discipline includes, but is not limited to, a written reprimand, professional development/training activities, ineligibility for promotion or salary increases, suspension with or without pay, reduction in pay, demotion, and termination. Discipline must be recorded in writing and must become part of the Faculty Member’s personnel file.

The following do not constitute Discipline: Interim measures taken pending resolution of a University investigation or review; administrative actions taken by the University to safeguard the University’s own resources; oral reprimands and oral counseling; and the routine assignment of workload responsibilities, such as teaching and committee service, which are governed by HOP 2-2170 (Faculty Workload and Reporting Requirements). An action taken by an administrator against a faculty member that does not qualify as discipline may still be the subject of a grievance. See VII.A.1.

Faculty Grievance Committee:
The standing committee of the General Faculty that is authorized to consider and hear or otherwise dispose of individual grievances pursuant to HOP 2-2310 (Faculty Grievance Procedure).

Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor:
The faculty member appointed by the Provost, in consultation with the dean of the law school, to serve as an advisor the Faculty Grievance Committee. To qualify to serve as the advisor, knowledge in the law is a requirement.

Faculty Member:
Any individual holding an academic title contained in Regents’ Rule 31001 (Section 2), with the exception of student titles, and HOP 2-2010.

Summary Dismissal:
Expedited due process to effect prompt termination of tenured faculty or all other faculty before the expiration of their appointment upon a determination of serious misconduct. Regents’ Rule 31008 Sec. 4 requires an institution’s policies to include this process.

Website (for policy)

https://secure2.compliancebridge.com/utexas/public/getdoc.php?file=2-2310

Contacts

CONTACT

DETAILS

WEB

Phone:

Website:

Email:

Responsibilities & Procedures

General Provisions

Actions for which redress may be sought. A faculty member may seek redress of any of the following actions taken by an administrator against the faculty member:

Discipline imposed under HOP 2-2320 (“Faculty Discipline Policy”):
- discipline imposed without good cause or without a determination of Serious Misconduct as the basis;
- discipline that, even though imposed for good cause cause or because of serious misconduct, is so inappropriate in kind or so disproportionate to the faculty member’s misconduct as to be unreasonable.
Discipline imposed under HOP 3-3020 (“Nondiscrimination Policy”):
- discipline that, even though imposed upon a finding of good cause, is so inappropriate in kind or so disproportionate to the faculty member’s misconduct as to be unreasonable.
Discipline imposed under HOP 3-3031 (“Prohibition of Sexual Assault, Interpersonal Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Sex Discrimination”):
- discipline, imposed under a Track C proceeding, that is so inappropriate in kind or so disproportionate to the faculty member’s misconduct as to be unreasonable. The kind and severity of discipline imposed under a Track A or B proceeding are not grievable. Nor is whether there was good cause to impose discipline under a Track A, B, or C proceeding.
Discipline imposed under HOP 7-1230 (“Misconduct in Science and Other Scholarly Activities”):
- discipline that, even though imposed for good cause, is so inappropriate in kind or so disproportionate to the faculty member’s conduct as to be unreasonable. Whether there was good cause to impose discipline is not grievable.
Any action that violates the faculty member’s academic freedom.
Any action that violates the faculty member’s rights under federal law, state law, or University of Texas System or University policy, or the faculty member’s contractual rights.
Termination for good cause of a tenured faculty member or termination for good cause of a non-tenured faculty member before expiration of appointment.
Summary Dismissal for Serious Misconduct.
A decision not to grant tenure or to reappoint a tenure-track faculty member that violates the faculty member’s rights under federal or state law.

Retaliation prohibited. A faculty member has the right to seek redress under this Policy. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against a faculty member for exercising this right.

Joint faculty/staff appointment. If a faculty member has both a faculty and administrative or staff appointment, the faculty member may seek redress under this Policy only with respect to actions that affect the terms and conditions of the faculty appointment. Matters relating to the terms and conditions of the administrative or staff appointment may be addressed only through available administrative or staff grievance procedures. If a dispute arises regarding whether an action affects the terms and conditions of the faculty appointment or the administrative or staff appointment, the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee has the sole discretion to determine whether the matter may be addressed under this Policy.

Process For Seeking Redress

Informal resolution strongly encouraged. Faculty members are strongly encouraged to seek to informally resolve a dispute with an administrator. In some instances, faculty members must pursue informal resolution before filing a formal grievance. See section C.2 below.

Other processes for redress. When informal resolution fails or is impracticable, a faculty member should ordinarily seek redress under section C (“Faculty Grievance Policy – General Process”) below. But for certain types of issues, the faculty member must seek redress through other procedures:

Discrimination other than sexual discrimination. A complaint that alleges a faculty member has been the victim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, citizenship, veteran status, or genetic information must be brought under HOP 3-3020 (“Nondiscrimination Policy”).
Rating pursuant to Annual Review or Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation. A faculty member who complains about the rating given to the faculty member pursuant to an Annual Review under HOP 2-2151 or a Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation under HOP 2-2150 must first exhaust any review procedures that may be set forth in the Guidelines for Annual Review of Faculty or the Guidelines for Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty, as applicable, before filing a grievance.
Retaliation complaints. A complaint that a faculty member has been the victim of retaliation for bringing or participating in the investigation of a complaint under HOP 3-3020 (“Nondiscrimination Policy”), HOP 3-3031 (“Prohibition of Sexual Assault, Interpersonal Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Sex Discrimination”), or HOP 7-1230 (“Misconduct in Science and Other Scholarly Activities”) must be brought under the HOP provisions that governed the complaint that led to the alleged retaliatory action.
Sexual assault, interpersonal violence, stalking, sexual harassment, or sex discrimination. A complaint that a faculty member has been the victim of sexual discrimination, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, interpersonal violence, stalking, or sexual harassment must be brought under HOP 3-3031 (“Prohibition of Sexual Assault, Interpersonal Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Sex Discrimination”).
Disputes arising from Medical School’s Medical Service, Research, and Development Plan (MSRDP). Any disciplinary action, performance issue, conduct issue, or other action arising under the Medical School’s MSDRP and related agreements or the Medical School faculty member’s annual memorandum of appointment is governed by the MSDRP bylaws.
Tenure denial or non-reappointment of tenure-track faculty member. A decision not to grant tenure or to reappoint a tenure-track faculty member is governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, as supplemented by section E of this policy (“Faculty Grievance Policy – Decision Not to Reappoint”).
Termination. The procedures by which a tenured faculty member may be terminated for good cause or a non-tenured faculty member may be terminated for good cause before the expiration of the stated period for appointment are governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, as supplemented by HOP 2-2320 and section D of this policy (“Faculty Grievance Policy – Termination”).

Faculty Grievance Policy – General Process

Scope. This section C sets forth the procedures for most faculty grievances. Some types of issues, however, must be resolved through other procedures. See Section B.2 above.

Informal resolution. Before filing a grievance, a faculty member must ordinarily seek to informally resolve a complaint. Faculty members are strongly encouraged to consult with a Faculty Ombuds. Faculty members may also consult with the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee or the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility. A faculty member need not pursue informal resolution if the faculty member is grieving:
1. discipline imposed or proposed under HOP 2-2320 (“Faculty Discipline Policy”), 3-3020 (“Nondiscrimination Policy”), 3-3031 (“Prohibition of Sexual Assault, Interpersonal Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Sex Discrimination”), or 7-1230 (“Misconduct in Science and Other Scholarly Activities”); or
2. a matter related to the faculty member’s evaluation under HOP 2-2150 or 2-2151.

Bringing a formal grievance. A faculty member initiates a grievance by submitting a written petition to the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Office of General Faculty.
1. Standardized form. Petitions should be made using the standardized form found at https://facultycouncil.utexas.edu/faculty-grievance-intake-form.
2. Contents of petition. The petition must include:

a short summary – not more than one page – of the petition;
the facts relevant to the grievance, including the name of the administrator or administrators who took the adverse action;
the right or rights the faculty member claims have been violated;
the redress the grievance seeks;
a summary of attempts to informally resolve the issue;
arguments in support of the faculty member’s claim and redress sought; and
supporting documentation.

Notice to administrator. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly provide a copy of the petition to the administrator or administrators who the grievant identifies as having taken the action that is the subject of the grievance.

Overview of the review process. The review of a grievance may consist of three stages. First, an initial-review committee will assess the petition and determine: whether the grievance is one that must be resolved through other procedures; whether additional attempts at informal resolution must be pursued; and whether the grievance (or a part of the grievance) warrants moving to the second stage. Second, an investigative committee will be convened to investigate the grievance. The investigation will include some or all of the following: reviewing a response from the administrator who took the action that is the subject of the petition, interviewing the grievant and administrator, interviewing or obtaining written statements from other witnesses, and reviewing relevant documentary and other evidence. The investigative committee will issue a report with its findings. Third, the decision of the investigative committee may be appealed to the President.

First stage: Assessment of grievance by initial-review committee. Within 10 working days of the filing of the written petition, an initial-review committee shall meet and assess the grievance.
1. Committee membership.
  1. Composition. The initial-review committee comprises three members: the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee, one of the Faculty Ombuds (selected by the Office of General Faculty), and the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor.
  2. Selection; substitution of committee member. If the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee or a Faculty Ombuds is unable to serve on the committee, the Office of General Faculty shall select another member of the Faculty Grievance Committee or another Faculty Ombuds to serve. If the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor is unable to serve, the Office of General Faculty should select, in consultation with the dean of the Law School (or the dean’s designee if the dean recuses), a faculty member to serve.
  3. Notice; challenge to committee member. The Office of General Faculty will promptly provide to the grievant and administrator the names of the initial-review committee members. The grievant and administrator may, within 3 working days, request the recusal of a committee member because of a conflict of interest described in Section C.8 below. But the recusal decision rests solely with the challenged committee member.

Assessment of the grievance.

Basis. The initial-review committee shall base its assessment on the petition (including any supporting documentation submitted by the grievant) and any information that the Faculty Ombuds who sits on the committee is able to provide.
Appropriate process. The initial-review committee shall first decide whether the grievance (or a part of the grievance) concerns a matter that must be pursued through other processes. See Section B.2 above. If a majority of the committee decides that the grievance must be pursued through another process, it shall notify the grievant, the Office of General Faculty, and the administrator, and the grievance will be terminated. If a majority of the committee decides that a part of the grievance must be pursued through another process, it shall notify the grievant, the Office of General Faculty, and the administrator, and the grievance will be terminated as to that part.
Additional informal resolution. If the initial-review committee decides that the grievance concerns a matter that may be pursued through this procedure, the committee shall then consider whether additional attempts at informal resolution are likely to result in a resolution of the matter. If a majority of the committee so decides, it shall notify the grievant, the Office of General Faculty, and the administrator that the grievant must try to resolve the matter informally before the committee will continue its assessment of the grievance.

If the grievant is unable to resolve the matter informally within 15 working days of receiving the notification, the grievant may submit in writing to the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Office of General Faculty a request that the initial-review committee further consider the grievance. This request must include a summary of the grievant’s attempts to resolve the matter informally.

Decision to move to investigative stage. If the initial-review committee decides that additional attempts at informal resolution are not likely to result in a resolution of the matter or that the grievant has satisfied the requirement to pursue additional attempts at informal resolution, the committee shall decide whether the grievance should move to the investigative stage. The committee shall consider whether – looking at the facts and the claims in the light most favorable to the grievant – the petition (or a part of the petition) fails either to state any valid ground for redress or to seek any redress that could be granted. If the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor: agree that the petition (or a part of the petition) fails to do so, the committee shall dismiss the grievance (or a part of the grievance). Otherwise, the grievance will move to the investigative stage. Such a dismissal is a final decision and concludes the grievance process.

The committee shall promptly notify the grievant, the Office of General Faculty, and the administrator of the results of its deliberations. If the committee decides that the grievance should move to the investigative stage, the notification to the administrator shall also request that the administrator provide to the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Office of General Faculty, within 10 working days, a written response to the petition and supporting documentation.

Second stage: Consideration by the investigative committee.
1. Committee membership. Within 5 working days of the notification that the grievance will move to the investigative stage, the Office of General Faculty shall appoint an investigative committee.
  1. Composition. The investigative committee comprises three members drawn randomly from the Faculty Grievance Committee by the Office of General Faculty. If a member of the committee becomes unable to serve, the Office of General Faculty should select by random drawing a substitute member.
  2. Notice; challenge to committee member. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly provide to the grievant and administrator the names of the investigative committee members. The grievant and administrator may, within 3 working days, request the recusal of a committee member because of a conflict of interest described in Section C.8 below. The chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee, in consultation with that the Faculty Grievance Committee Resources Advisor, shall determine whether a committee member is recused.
2. Initial evaluation of grievance.
  1. Initial meeting with Faculty Grievance Committee chair. The chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and/or the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor should promptly meet with the investigative committee to explain the committee’s role, review the nature of the complaint set forth in the petition, and answer questions committee members may have about the process.
  2. Decision whether to proceed to full investigation. Within 5 working days after the deadline for the administrator to submit a written response and supporting documentation, the investigative committee shall decide whether to sustain or dismiss the grievance (or a part of the grievance) or to proceed to a full investigation. If a majority of the committee believes that additional information is needed to resolve the grievance (or a part of the grievance), it should proceed to a full investigation.
  3. Decision to proceed to full investigation – notice. If the investigative committee decides that the grievance should proceed to a full investigation, it shall promptly notify the grievant, administrator, provost, and Office of General Faculty of its decision. The notice shall include an invitation to the grievant and administrator each to submit in writing: (a) the names of individuals who have relevant information and who they would like to have the committee contact; and (b) a list of questions they would like the committee to pose to particular individuals. This information should be submitted to the Office of General Faculty within 5 working days of receipt of the committee’s decision. The notice shall also instruct the grievant and administrator as to how they may access the material already submitted and that will be submitted by the other side.
  4. Decision not to proceed to full investigation – report. If the investigative committee believes that additional information is not needed to resolve the grievance or a part of the grievance, it shall submit a written report to the grievant, administrator, provost, and Office of General Faculty. The report should set forth, with respect to any part of the grievance for which the committee believes additional information is not needed:

the nature of the grievance or part of the grievance;
the committee’s factual findings;
the committee’s conclusion regarding whether to sustain or dismiss the grievance or part of the grievance;
the basis for its conclusion; and
any recommendations it deems appropriate to make regarding redress for the grievant.

The grievant and administrator may, within 5 working days of receiving the committee’s report, submit to the Office of General Faculty written comments on the report. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly forward those comments to the investigative committee. Within 5 working days of receiving the comments, the committee shall consider them and modify its report, or not, as it deems fit. It shall submit its final report, with the grievant’s and administrator’s comments attached, to the grievant, administrator, provost, and Office of General Faculty. If the committee decides to sustain or dismiss the grievance (or a part of the grievance), the grievant and administrator shall be promptly notified of the right to appeal under Section C.7 below.

Full investigation. The investigative committee should begin its full investigation as soon as practicable after the deadline has passed for the grievant and administrator to submit the names of individuals they would like the committee to contact and the list of questions they would like the committee to pose. The committee should endeavor to complete its work as quickly as is practicable.

Third Stage: Appeal to the president. Both the grievant and the administrator may appeal an investigative committee’s decision to sustain or dismiss a grievance. Within 5 working days after receiving the committee’s decision, the appealing grievant or administrator must submit an appeal to the Office of the President and the Office of General Faculty. The appeal must detail the reasons why the appellant believes the committee’s decision was erroneous and the relief the appellant seeks. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly provide a copy of the appeal to the opposing side and a copy of the committee’s final report (with the grievant’s and administrator’s attached comments) to the Office of the President. The president shall, within 10 working days of receiving the appeal, render a written decision, which may accept, reverse, or modify the committee’s decision. The president should submit the decision to the Office of General Faculty, which shall promptly provide copies to the grievant and administrator. The president’s decision is final and concludes the grievance process. If, however, the appeal concerns the committee’s decision not to proceed to a full investigation regarding only part of a grievance, the president has the discretion to postpone deciding the appeal until the investigative committee has submitted its final report regarding the balance of the grievance.

General Provisions.
1. Time limits. A grievant or administrator may submit to the Office of General Faculty a request for an extension of a time deadline. The request must be filed before the time deadline has expired. It should be in writing and should briefly state the reason for the request. The Office of the General Faculty must promptly provide the relevant decision-maker with the request. The chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee shall decide whether to grant an extension of the time deadline for filing a grievance. The initial-review committee, the investigative committee, and the president shall decide whether to grant an extension for time deadlines that pertain to, respectively, the first, second, and third stages of this grievance process.
2. Conflict of interest. A faculty member shall not serve as a member of either the initial-review or investigative committee if the faculty member (a) was involved in the events that gave rise to the grievance, (b) could reasonably be expected to be interviewed or questioned by the investigative committee, (c) has a pending grievance, complaint, or lawsuit against the University or one of its employees, or (d) otherwise cannot judge the merits of the grievance fairly and impartially. A committee member who decides that any of these conditions applies may step down from serving on the committee at any stage of the process.

Faculty Grievance Policy – Termination for good cause of a tenured faculty member or of a non-tenured faculty member for good cause before the expiration of the stated period of appointment

Governing procedures. The procedures by which the administration may decide to terminate a tenured faculty member for good cause or a non-tenured faculty member for good cause before the expiration of the stated period of appointment are set forth in Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 1 -5, as supplemented by HOP 2-2320 and this section D.

Review by provost and president; alternative dispute resolution. Before the president may decide that a faculty member may be terminated for good cause, the administration shall follow the procedures set forth in Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 2 and 3, and HOP 2-2320. The faculty member shall be afforded the right to present a grievance to the provost in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 2, and to meet with the president and to respond to the allegations and supporting evidence in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 3.

Procedures governing hearing by hearing tribunal. When a faculty member is entitled to a hearing before a hearing tribunal under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54, the provisions of that section govern the hearing, as supplemented by the following paragraphs 4 through 12.

Composition of hearing tribunal. The hearing tribunal shall be composed of three persons selected randomly from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers. Each member of the hearing tribunal must hold academic rank at least equal to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination. And the hearing tribunal may not include a faculty member who might be called as a witness in the hearing or whose fairness or objectivity may reasonably be questioned. If there is not a sufficient number of faculty members of at least equal rank able to serve on the hearing tribunal, the president and chair of the Faculty Council will jointly choose additional tribunal members.

Notice of tribunal membership; challenge. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly – and no fewer than eight working days before the hearing commences – provide written notice to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination of the hearing tribunal’s membership. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54.5, the faculty member may seek to recuse a tribunal member by challenging the member’s fairness or objectivity. The faculty member must submit the challenge to the Office of General Faculty within 3 working days of receiving notice of the tribunal membership. The recusal decision is to be made by the challenged tribunal member. If the challenged tribunal member grants the challenge, the president shall appoint a substitute member from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers.

Timing for convening hearing. The hearing tribunal should make every effort to convene the hearing within fifteen working days after the panel members are appointed. The Office of General Faculty shall, at least ten working days before the hearing convenes, provide notice to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination and the Office of the President of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Virtual hearing permitted. The hearing tribunal may, in its discretion, order that the hearing be held in person, by teleconferencing, or some combination of the two.

Hearing closed. The hearing shall be closed.

Right to representation. Both the faculty member challenging the proposed termination and the administration have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. If the faculty member is not represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by up to two advisors; if represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by one other advisor.

Obtaining witnesses, documents, or other evidence.
1. Participation encouraged; retaliation prohibited. The administration and other members of the University community are encouraged to cooperate fully with the requests to participate in the hearing. The hearing tribunal may draw a negative inference from the administration’s lack of cooperation. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against an individual for participating or declining to participate in any way.
2. Opportunity to obtain evidence within University’s control. The faculty member challenging the proposed termination shall be afforded an opportunity to obtain relevant evidence within the control of the University, except for evidence that is confidential or exempted from disclosure by law.
3. Providing notice of witnesses and documents. At least three working days before the hearing, the faculty member challenging the proposed termination and the administration must provide the other and the hearing tribunal a list of the witnesses to be called and copies of documents and other exhibits to be submitted in evidence. The Office of General Faculty, in consultation with the hearing tribunal, will provide instructions as to how this is to be accomplished. But notice need not be provided of impeaching or rebuttal witnesses whose identity cannot reasonably be determined beforehand. Even if a party fails to provide proper notice, the hearing tribunal, in its discretion, may permit a witness to testify or a document or other exhibit to be introduced.

Conduct of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54.1 – 54.6. The following rules also apply:
1. Burden of proof. Under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54.4, the administration bears the burden of proving, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, good cause for termination.
2. Order of presentation. The administration has the right to make the first opening argument, present its evidence first, and make the final closing argument.
3. Admissibility of evidence. The hearing tribunal shall admit evidence that is relevant and not unduly prejudicial or time-consuming. The Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply.
4. Recording and transcription of hearing. The proceedings shall be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and a copy of the verbatim transcript shall be supplied to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination.
5. Adjournments. The hearing tribunal may adjourn to enable either party to investigate evidence for which a claim of surprise is made.
6. Length of hearing. The hearing tribunal may impose reasonable limits on the amount of time each side has to present its case.
7. Concealed carry of handguns prohibited. If the hearing is conducted in person, pursuant to HOP 8-1060 (“Campus Concealed Carry”), the concealed carry of handguns shall be prohibited in areas in which the hearing is being conducted. Notice conforming to Texas Penal Code section 30.06 shall be provided.
8. Public statements. Except for routine announcements, such as those relating to the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by the parties, hearing tribunal members, or Faculty Grievance Committee members shall be avoided, as far as possible, until a final decision is reached.

Findings and recommendations. Within 10 working days of the completion of the hearing, the hearing tribunal shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54.6, as well as any supplementary suggestions it deems proper concerning the disposition of the case. The report shall also include any minority findings, recommendations, or supplementary suggestions. The hearing tribunal shall deliver the original of the report to the president and a copy to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination and to the Office of General Faculty. The Office of General Faculty shall provide the president with the original transcript of the hearing and the exhibits.

Review by the president and Board of Regents. Review by the president of the hearing tribunal’s findings and recommendations is governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54.7. Review by the Board of Regents of the president’s decision is governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.

Former Faculty Grievance Policy – Summary Dismissal Termination of Tenured Faculty Member or a Non-Tenured Faculty Member Before the Expiration of the Stated Period of Appointment.

Bringing a formal grievance and request for hearing. A faculty member initiates a grievance of Summary Dismissal by submitting a written petition to the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Office of General Faculty.
1. Standardized form. Petitions should be made using the standardized form found at https://facultycouncil.utexas.edu/faculty-grievance-intake-form.
2. Contents of petition. The petition must include:

a short summary – not more than one page – of the petition;
the facts relevant to the grievance, including the name of the administrator or administrators who took the adverse action;
the right or rights the faculty member claims have been violated;
the redress the grievance seeks;
arguments in support of the faculty member’s claim and redress sought;
supporting documentation; and
a request for hearing.

Deadline. A faculty member must initiate the grievance and request for hearing within 7 days of the issuance of the written determination of Summary Dismissal.
Notice to administrator. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly provide a copy of the petition to the administrator or administrators who the grievant identifies as having taken the action that is the subject of the grievance.

Procedures governing hearing by hearing tribunal. When a faculty member is entitled to a hearing before a hearing tribunal under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 4, the provisions under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5.1-5.7 govern the hearing, except that the burden is to prove Serious Misconduct as defined in HOP 2-2320, sec. VII(C). Additionally, those sections are supplemented by the following paragraphs 3 through 12.

Composition of hearing tribunal. The hearing tribunal shall be composed of three persons selected randomly from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers. Each member of the hearing tribunal must hold academic rank at least equal to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination. And the hearing tribunal may not include a faculty member who might be called as a witness in the hearing or whose fairness or objectivity may reasonably be questioned. If there is not a sufficient number of faculty members of at least equal rank able to serve on the hearing tribunal, the president and chair of the Faculty Council will jointly choose additional tribunal members. The president may request counsel from the System Administration’s Office of General Counsel to advise the hearing tribunal.

Notice of tribunal membership; challenge. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly – and no fewer than eight working days before the hearing commences – provide written notice of the hearing tribunal’s membership to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5.5, the faculty member may seek to recuse a tribunal member by challenging the member’s fairness or objectivity. The faculty member must submit the challenge to the Office of General Faculty within 3 working days of receiving notice of the tribunal membership. The recusal decision is to be made by the challenged tribunal member. If the challenged tribunal member grants the challenge, the president shall appoint a substitute member from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers.

Timing for convening hearing. The hearing tribunal should make every effort to convene the hearing within fifteen working days after the panel members are appointed. The Office of General Faculty shall, at least ten working days before the hearing convenes, provide notice to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and the Office of the President of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Virtual hearing permitted. The hearing tribunal may, in its discretion, order that the hearing be held in person, by teleconferencing, or some combination of the two.

Hearing closed. The hearing shall be closed.

Right to representation. Both the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and the administration have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. If the faculty member is not represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by up to two advisors; if represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by one other advisor.

Obtaining witnesses, documents, or other evidence.
1. Participation encouraged; retaliation prohibited. The administration and other members of the University community are encouraged to cooperate fully with the requests to participate in the hearing. The hearing tribunal may draw a negative inference from the administration’s lack of cooperation. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against an individual for participating or declining to participate in any way.
2. Opportunity to obtain evidence within University’s control. The faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination shall be afforded an opportunity to obtain relevant evidence within the control of the University, except for evidence that is confidential or exempted from disclosure by law.
3. Providing notice of witnesses and documents. At least three working days before the hearing, the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and the administration must provide the other and the hearing tribunal a list of the witnesses to be called and copies of documents and other exhibits to be submitted in evidence. The Office of General Faculty, in consultation with the hearing tribunal, will provide instructions as to how this is to be accomplished. But notice need not be provided of impeaching or rebuttal witnesses whose identity cannot reasonably be determined beforehand. Even if a party fails to provide proper notice, the hearing tribunal, in its discretion, may permit a witness to testify or a document or other exhibit to be introduced.

Conduct of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5.1 – 5.6. The following rules also apply:
1. Burden of proof. The administration bears the burden of proving, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, Serious Misconduct for Summary Dismissal termination.
2. Order of presentation. The administration has the right to make the first opening argument, present its evidence first, and make the final closing argument.
3. Admissibility of evidence. The hearing tribunal shall admit evidence that is relevant and not unduly prejudicial or time-consuming. The Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply.
4. Recording and transcription of hearing. The proceedings shall be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and a copy of the verbatim transcript shall be supplied to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination.
5. Adjournments. The hearing tribunal may adjourn to enable either party to investigate evidence for which a claim of surprise is made.
6. Length of hearing. The hearing tribunal may impose reasonable limits on the amount of time each side has to present its case. Both sides shall be afforded the same amount of time.
7. Concealed carry of handguns prohibited. If the hearing is conducted in person, pursuant to HOP 8-1060 (“Campus Concealed Carry”), the concealed carry of handguns shall be prohibited in areas in which the hearing is being conducted. Notice conforming to Texas Penal Code section
  30.06 shall be provided.
8. Public statements. Except for routine announcements, such as those relating to the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by the parties, hearing tribunal members, or Faculty Grievance Committee members shall be avoided, as far as possible, until a final decision is reached.

Findings and recommendations. Within 10 working days of the completion of the hearing, the hearing tribunal shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations. The recommendations may be to affirm, reverse, or reconsider the Summary Dismissal termination. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5.6, the tribunal may also provide any supplementary suggestions it deems proper concerning the disposition of the case. The report shall also include any minority findings, recommendations, or supplementary suggestions. The hearing tribunal shall deliver the original of the report to the president and a copy to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and to the Office of General Faculty. The Office of General Faculty shall provide the president with the original transcript of the hearing and the exhibits.

Final determination by the president. Review by the president of the hearing tribunal’s findings and recommendations is governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 4, and University of Texas System Policy 198, sec . 4.The president’s decision on the matter is final and unappealable.

Faculty Grievance Policy – Decision Not to Reappoint a Tenure-Track Faculty Member or Tenure-Track-Eligible Instructor

Governing procedures. Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6, as supplemented by the following provisions, governs the filing and resolution of a grievance brought by a full-time, tenure-track professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or instructor who has received notice under:
1. Regents’ Rule 31002, sec. 1, that the faculty member will not be reappointed and that the faculty member’s appointment will expire at the end of the academic year; or
2. Regents’ Rule 31002, sec. 1, and Regents Rule 31007, sec. 5, that the faculty member will not be reappointed and that the next academic year will be the terminal year of the faculty member’s appointment.

This section does not govern a faculty member who is terminated for good cause before the expiration of the stated period of the faculty member’s appointment. Terminations for good cause are governed by section D. Nor does it govern a faculty member who is denied tenure but is eligible to be again considered for tenure.

Review by provost. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.1, a faculty member may present a grievance in person or through a representative to the provost challenging a non-reappointment decision and the provost shall meet with the faculty member.

Written request for hearing tribunal. Within 15 working days after a faculty member meets with the provost, the faculty member may request a review by a hearing tribunal by submitting a written request to the president. The request must describe in detail the facts the faculty member is relying on to prove that the decision was made for reasons that are unlawful under the Constitution or laws of Texas or the United States. The faculty member must also send a copy of the written request to the Office of General Faculty and the provost.

President consults with provost, Faculty Grievance Committee. Within 15 working days after the faculty member submits a written request for review by a hearing tribunal, the provost shall submit to the president an analysis of the faculty member’s allegations that the decision not to reappoint was made for reasons that are unlawful under the Constitution or laws of Texas or the United States. The president shall also ask the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor jointly to review the materials submitted by the faculty member and the provost and to provide their analysis regarding which claims, if any, should be subject to review by a hearing tribunal.

President’s decision. Within 15 working days after reviewing the analysis provided by the provost and the Faculty Grievance Committee chair and Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor, the president shall decide whether the facts alleged by the faculty member, if proven with credible evidence, support a conclusion that the decision not to reappoint was made for unlawful reasons. If the president so decides, a hearing tribunal will be convened to hear the matter. If the president decides the decision was not made for unlawful reasons, the president’s decision is final. In either case, the president should give written notice of the decision to the faculty member and the Office of General Faculty.

Composition of hearing tribunal. The hearing tribunal shall be composed of three persons selected randomly from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers. Each member of the hearing tribunal must hold academic rank at least equal to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision. And the hearing tribunal may not include a faculty member who might be called as a witness in the hearing or whose fairness or objectivity may reasonably be questioned. If there is not a sufficient number of faculty members of at least equal rank able to serve on the hearing tribunal, the president and chair of the Faculty Council will jointly choose additional tribunal members.

Notice of tribunal membership; challenge. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly – and no fewer than eight working days before the hearing commences – provide written notice to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision of the hearing tribunal’s membership. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54.5, the faculty member may seek to recuse a tribunal member by challenging the member’s fairness or objectivity. The faculty member must submit the challenge to the Office of General Faculty within 3 working days of receiving notice of the tribunal membership. The recusal decision is to be made by the challenged tribunal member. If the challenged tribunal member grants the challenge, the president shall appoint a substitute member from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers.

Timing for convening hearing. The hearing tribunal should make every effort to convene the hearing within 15 working days after the president notifies the faculty member of the decision that a hearing tribunal should be convened. The Office of General Faculty shall, at least ten working days before the hearing convenes, provide notice to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and the Office of the President of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Virtual hearing permitted. The hearing tribunal may, in its discretion, order that the hearing be held in person, by teleconferencing, or some combination of the two.

Hearing closed. The hearing shall be closed.

Right to representation. Both the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and the administration have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. If the faculty member is not represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by up to two advisors; if represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by one other advisor.

Obtaining witnesses, documents, or other evidence.
1. Participation encouraged; retaliation prohibited. The administration and other members of the University community are encouraged to cooperate fully with the requests to participate in the hearing. The hearing tribunal may draw a negative inference from the administration’s lack of cooperation. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against an individual for participating or declining to participate in any way.
2. Opportunity to obtain evidence within University’s control. The faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision shall be afforded an opportunity to obtain relevant evidence within the control of the University, except evidence that is confidential or exempted from disclosure by law.
3. Providing notice of witnesses and documents. At least three working days before the hearing, the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and the administration must provide the other and the hearing tribunal a list of the witnesses to be called and copies of documents and other exhibits to be submitted in evidence. The Office of General Faculty, in consultation with the hearing tribunal, will provide instructions as to how this is to be accomplished. But notice need not be provided of impeaching or rebuttal witnesses whose identity cannot reasonably be determined beforehand. Even if a party fails to provide proper notice, the hearing tribunal, in its discretion, may permit a witness to testify or a document or other exhibit to be introduced.

Conduct of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54.1 – 54.6, except where otherwise provided by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.2. The following rules also apply:
1. Burden of proof. Under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.2(a), the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision bears the burden of proving, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, that the non-reappointment decision was made for reasons that are unlawful under the Constitution or laws of Texas or the United States. The administration need not state the reasons for its non-reappointment decision or offer supporting evidence unless the faculty member presents credible evidence that, if unchallenged, proves the decision was made for unlawful reasons.
2. Order of presentation. The faculty member has the right to make the first opening argument, present evidence first, and make the final closing argument.
3. Admissibility of evidence. The hearing tribunal shall admit evidence that is relevant and not unduly prejudicial or time-consuming. The Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply.
4. Recording and transcription of hearing. The proceedings shall be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and a copy of the verbatim transcript shall be supplied to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision.
5. Adjournments. The hearing tribunal may adjourn to enable either party to investigate evidence for which a claim of surprise is made.
6. Length of hearing. The hearing tribunal may impose reasonable limits on the amount of time each side has to present its case.
7. Concealed carry of handguns prohibited. If the hearing is conducted in person, pursuant to HOP 8-1060 (“Campus Concealed Carry”), the concealed carry of handguns shall be prohibited in areas in which the hearing is being conducted. Notice conforming to Texas Penal Code section 30.06 shall be provided.
8. Public statements. Except for routine announcements, such as those relating to the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by the parties, hearing tribunal members, or Faculty Grievance Committee members shall be avoided, as far as possible, until a final decision is reached.

Findings and recommendations. Within 10 working days of the completion of the hearing, the hearing tribunal shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.2(c). The report shall also include any minority findings and recommendations. The hearing tribunal shall deliver the original of the report to the president and a copy to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and to the Office of General Faculty. The Office of General Faculty shall provide the president with the original transcript of the hearing and the exhibits and the faculty member with a copy of the transcript and exhibits.

Review by the president. Based on the record of the hearing, the president may approve, reject, or amend the hearing tribunal’s findings and recommendations.
1. Opportunity to present arguments. Upon receipt by the president of the hearing tribunal’s report and the hearing transcript and exhibits, the president shall give the parties ten working days to submit written arguments based on the hearing record.
2. Time for decision. Once the deadline for submitting written arguments has passed, the president shall review the hearing record and the parties’ written arguments. The president should try to provide a written decision within ten working days. If the president needs additional time, the president should promptly notify the parties and the Office of General Faculty and inform them when a decision will be rendered.
3. Finality of decision. The president’s decision to approve, reject, or amend the hearing tribunal’s findings and recommendations is final.

Forms & Tools

None

Frequently Asked Questions

None

Related Information

None

History

Modified: December 1, 2023 (Interim Policy)
*substantive revisions made in response to changes in the law from Senate Bill 18, of the 88th Texas Legislature, 2023 session
Next scheduled review: August 2024

Previously Modified: March 10, 2023

Previously Modified: June 14, 2022
Previous editorial change made February 23, 2016, April 21, 2016, June 14,2022

Previously HOP 3.18