3 ms·
IANAL, but it seems like from the PDF copy of the complaint, the university did not follow policy, in fact they disregarded a warning not to take action against
by MerelyMortal 5y ago
IANAL, but it seems like from the PDF copy of the complaint, the university did not follow policy, in fact they disregarded a warning not to take action against the professor.
The copy-and-pasted emails contained in the complaint also sound like slander to me.
- filmgirlcw 5y agoThe warning said “further inquiry is warranted before action can be taken.” That inquiry is what happened when he was placed on administrative leave. And less than three weeks later, he was reinstated. He's classifying it as a suspension but the university is going to say this was an investigation. A court will decide who is correct, assuming this isn’t thrown out on its face (which is what I am betting will happen). He doesn’t have tenure, which makes his rights at UCLA even more tenuous as it is — the university could have just opted not to renew his contract. But they took him off administrative leave and found he hadn’t violated any policies after the inquiry that HR recommended. We don’t know if the university followed policy or not. Nothing in the complaint proves that it didn’t, and it could very well be read that it did, based on the facts he made in the claim.
- MerelyMortal 5y agoIsn't placing someone on administrative leave, taking action?