Printed on: 08/19/2019. Please go to http://policy.umn.edu for the most current version of the Policy or related document.

Administrative Policy

Retaliation

Responsible University Officer(s):

University President
Chief Compliance Officer

Policy Owner(s):

Chief Compliance Officer

Policy contact(s):

Boyd Kumher

Date Revised:

Jul 17, 2017

Effective Date:

Jul 17, 2017

Policy Statement

No member of the University community may retaliate against an individual because of the individual’s good faith participation in:

reporting or otherwise expressing opposition to, suspected or alleged misconduct;
participating in any process designed to review or investigate suspected or alleged misconduct or non-compliance with applicable policies, rules, and laws; or
accessing the Office for Conflict Resolution (OCR) services.

A causal relationship between the good faith participation in one of these activities and an adverse action is needed to demonstrate that retaliation has occurred.

Reporting Retaliation Concerns

Individuals who believe that retaliation is occurring or has occurred, as a result of their good faith participation in one of the above referenced activities, should follow the reporting options available to them in the Administrative Policy: Reporting Suspected Misconduct.

Reports of retaliation will be reviewed and investigated in the same manner in which other concerns of misconduct are handled. Any University member who engages in retaliation may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or expulsion.

Intentionally False Reports/Information

Individuals who, knowingly or intentionally, file a false report or provide false or misleading information in connection with an investigation may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment, or expulsion.

Reason for Policy

Retaliation is prohibited in the following Board of Regents Policies: Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Stalking and Relationship Violence, Code of Conduct, and Conflict Resolution Process for Employees. It is important that University community members feel comfortable coming forward to report potential misconduct so that the University has an opportunity to investigate an allegation of misconduct and take action where needed.

Procedures

Forms/Instructions

Appendices

Frequently Asked Questions

Contacts

Subject	Contact	Phone	Email
Primary Contact	Boyd Kumher	612-626-7852	bkumher@umn.edu
Retaliation related to discrimination, harassment, nepotism and sexual misconduct claims or investigations	Tina Marisam, EOAA	612-624-9547	marisam@umn.edu
Retaliation related to research misconduct claims or investigations	Frances Lawrenz	612-625-2046	lawrenz@umn.edu
Retaliation related to the Office for Conflict Resolution services	Julie Showers, OCR	612-624-0884	showers@umn.edu
All other claims of retaliation	Office of Human Resources	Human Resources Consultant or Local Human Resources Professional	Human Resources Consultant or Local Human Resources Professional

Definitions

Adverse Action: Any action that might deter a reasonable person from engaging in reporting suspected or alleged misconduct, expressing opposition to alleged misconduct, participating in an investigation related to a misconduct allegation, or accessing the Office for Conflict Resolution services. Examples of adverse action include, but are not limited to: impeding the individual’s academic advancement; departing from any customary academic or employment practice regarding the individual; firing, refusing to hire, or refusing to promote the individual; transferring or assigning the individual to a lesser position in terms of wages, hours, job classification, job security, employment or academic status; and threatening or marginalizing an individual. In some situations, retaliatory conduct may also include inappropriate disclosure of the identity of the individual who has made a complaint protected by this policy.
Good Faith Participation: Reporting, or otherwise expressing opposition to, misconduct based on a reasonable belief that misconduct has occurred. Or, honestly participating in an investigation of misconduct or accessing conflict resolution services.
Investigation: The steps taken to analyze all relevant information regarding suspected or alleged misconductand then determine whether sufficient evidence exists to find that misconduct occurred.
Misconduct: A violation of local, state, or federal law or University policy, or noncompliance with sponsor regulations or requirements.
Report in Good Faith: A report made by an individual who reasonably believes that misconduct has occurred and reports the incident.
Retaliation: Taking an adverse action against an individual because of the individual’s good faith participation in reporting suspected or alleged misconduct, expressing opposition to alleged misconduct, participating in an investigation related to a misconduct allegation, or accessing the Office for Conflict Resolution services. See also Adverse Action.) A causal relationship between good faith participation in reporting and an adverse action is needed to demonstrate that retaliation has occurred.
University Community Members: University faculty, staff, and students, are generally defined as members of the University community. The General Counsel may designate additional groups as members of the University community.

Responsibilities

All Individuals: Report good faith concerns about retaliation. Be truthful and cooperative in investigations of alleged retaliation.
Central Offices that Receive Reports: Follow procedures for handling reported concerns.
Chief Compliance Officer: Administer the UReport reporting service. Work collaboratively with responsible offices to address concerns of retaliation and communicate results of these efforts according to established procedures. Consult with senior leaders as appropriate. Communicate potential serious misconduct to the President and the Board of Regents. Annually notify employees of responsibility to report concerns and where to report them.
Collegiate/Unit Administrators: Follow procedures for handling reported concerns.
Deans, Vice Presidents, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors: Ensure timely follow-up and resolution of reported retaliation in the respective college or unit. Ensure that retaliation in response to the good faith reporting of violations of law or University policy does not occur. Ensure that supervisory staff are appropriately trained on how to prevent retaliation.
Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action: Investigate concerns of retaliation related to discrimination, harassment, nepotism and sexual misconduct claims or investigations. Communicate information regarding concerns received to proper administrators. Consult with the Chief Compliance Officer and General Counsel as appropriate.
Human Resources Consultant or Local Human Resources Professional: Investigate concerns of retaliation. Communicate information regarding concerns received to proper administrators. Consult with the Chief Compliance Officer and General Counsel as appropriate.
Research Compliance Office: Investigate concerns of retaliation related to research misconduct claims or investigations. Communicate information regarding concerns received to proper administrators. Consult with the Chief Compliance Officer and General Counsel as appropriate.

Related Information

Board of Regents Policies:

Administrative Policies:

History

Effective:: July 2017 - 1. Provides core language to be used in any administrative policy that addresses retaliation for reporting suspected or alleged misconduct (violation of law, rule, regulation or policy.) 2. Covers the University’s position on false reporting or providing false information in an investigation.

Document Feedback