11.1 PRINCIPLE AND RATIONALE.
The University of Iowa encourages its faculty, staff, and students to make good faith disclosures of University-related misconduct. The commitment to improve the quality of the University through such disclosures is vital to the well-being of the entire campus community. Retaliation as a response to such disclosure will not be tolerated. Retaliation, whether actual or threatened, destroys a sense of community and trust that is central to a quality environment. The University, therefore, wishes to make clear that it considers acts or threats of retaliation in response to such disclosures to constitute a serious violation of University policy.
[top]

11.2 DEFINITIONS.

a. "Good faith disclosure" means disclosure of University-related misconduct made with a belief in the truth of the disclosure which a reasonable person in the whistleblower's position could hold based upon the facts. A disclosure is not in good faith if made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the disclosure.

b. "University-related misconduct" includes any activity by a University department or by an employee that is undertaken in the performance of the employee's official duties, whether or not such action is within the scope of the individual's employment, and that is in violation of any state or federal law or regulation or University regulation or policy, including but not limited to corruption, bribery, theft of University property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, discrimination, sexual harassment, civil rights violations, misuse of University property and facilities, or willful failure to perform duty.

c. "Whistleblowing" means good faith reporting of real or perceived University-related misconduct.

d. "Whistleblower" means any student, staff, or faculty who in good faith reports real or perceived University-related misconduct.

e. "Retaliation" means any adverse action or credible threat of an adverse action taken by the University, or member thereof, in response to a whistleblower's good faith disclosure of University-related misconduct. It does not include the University's decision to investigate a good faith disclosure of University-related misconduct.
[top]

Actions are considered retaliatory if they are in response to a good faith disclosure of real or perceived University-related misconduct and the actions have a materially adverse effect on the working or academic conditions of the whistleblower, or if the faculty, staff member, or student can no longer effectively carry out his or her University responsibilities.

The University will make every reasonable effort to stop retaliation immediately, to conduct a complete and thorough investigation of alleged acts of retaliation in a timely manner, to provide remedies to victims of retaliation, and to sanction the perpetrators of retaliation as appropriate.

The act of a good faith disclosure of University-related misconduct shall not be used to make any decision to the whistleblower's detriment, or to subject the whistleblower to harassment such that it creates a hostile work or learning environment.

To encourage and protect whistleblowers, it is University policy that no reference to the good faith disclosure of University-related misconduct shall be made in personnel files, letters of recommendation, performance appraisals, or any other permanent evaluative documents without the concurrence of the whistleblower.

Reports of alleged University-related misconduct that are not made in good faith are not protected under this policy. Those who make disclosures not in good faith will be disciplined as appropriate through regular University procedures. Irrespective of the origin or the intent of the allegations, in the event the allegations are not substantiated, the University in consultation with the accused shall take all reasonable steps within the control of the University to restore the reputation of the accused to the extent that it was damaged by the investigation and proceedings, for example, expunging all references to the allegations in the personnel records of the accused.
[top]

11.4 SANCTIONS.
Anyone who violates the anti-retaliation policy is subject to disciplinary action. Following an appropriate investigation and subject to the procedures which are part of the policies governing the relevant type of appointment at the University, the faculty, student, or staff member may be subject to sanctions, including:

a. reprimand,

b. probation,

c. suspension,

d. demotion,

e. reassignment,

f. termination,

g. expulsion,

h. no-contact order, or

i. building prohibition order.

11.5 PROCEDURES.

a. Informal. The University encourages the informal resolution of complaints. Informal complaints should be concluded within 30 calendar days of their inception. Where this is not reasonably possible, the person processing the complaint should notify the complainant in writing that conclusion of the complaint will be delayed and indicate the reasons for delay. The procedures used to resolve complaints informally may vary from department to department depending upon whether the accused is a faculty member, staff member, or student. However, individuals who are handling informal complaints should follow the following guidelines:
(1) Inform the complainant of formal procedure options and that the identity of the complainant and the nature of the charge will be disclosed to the accused if a formal investigation commences.

(2) Inform the complainant that any time he or she is not satisfied with the informal process, he or she can initiate a formal complaint.

(3) Prior to hearing details of a complaint, inform the complainant that in some cases the University has a legal obligation as a mandatory reporter to inform outside agencies of University related misconduct, e.g., informing federal agencies of federally grant supported activities that resulted in scientific misconduct.

(4) To the extent possible, work with the parties in a confidential manner to achieve an informal resolution.

(5) If in your judgment the accusation represents a serious violation of University policy and you subsequently orally advise the complainant to proceed with formal action, additionally inform the complainant in writing of this recommendation.

(6) Contact your supervisor or the Office of General Counsel if you are unclear about your responsibilities in handling an informal complaint.

b. Formal.
(1) Filing Procedures. A person may choose among a number of offices when filing a formal complaint. If, however, the complaint involves allegations of research misconduct, the person may only file her or his complaint with the University of Iowa Research Integrity Officer. In these cases, "The University of Iowa Anti-Retaliation Policy for Reporting Misconduct in Research" is in effect and supersedes this policy. A whistleblower who wishes to receive the protections described by this policy shall file his or her formal retaliation complaint with an appropriate University official as described below within 180 days from the date the whistleblower became aware or should have become aware of the alleged retaliation. Any person may file a formal complaint against a student, staff member, or faculty member (including teaching assistants) for violating the Anti-Retaliation Policy. Depending upon the status of the person accused, a complaint may be filed with one of the following offices:
(a) Faculty or Instructor. If the accused is a faculty member, teaching assistant, or other instructor, complainants may contact the dean of the college, or in such cases when the accused is the dean, the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost;

(b) Staff Member. If the accused is a staff member (Professional and Scientific, organized Merit staff, or non-organized Merit staff), complainants may contact the accused person's department head, or in such cases when the accused is the department head, the dean or vice president responsible for the unit employing the accused person; or

(c) Student. If the accused is a student, complainants may contact the Department of Residence Services; in the event that incident occurred in the residence halls, the Office of the Vice President for Student Services and Dean of Students or the Dean of the Graduate College.

In lieu of the offices listed above, retaliation complaints may be made to the office that handled the original complaint. In the case of issues dealing with financial matters, complaints may be filed at the Office of the Internal Audit. Complaints of retaliation that stem from sexual harassment, discrimination, and civil rights violations stemming from complaints originally filed in the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity may be filed at the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity. A person may also seek the services of the Office of the Ombudsperson in filing a complaint of retaliation.

(2) Time Period for Investigating Formal Complaints. Investigations of formal complaints should be concluded within 45 calendar days of their inception. Where it is not reasonably possible to conclude the investigation within that amount of time, the responsible University official will notify the complainant in writing that conclusion of the investigation will be delayed and indicate the reasons for the delay.

(3) Resolving a Complaint. Ordinarily the person who is assigned to resolve a complaint will interview the person accused in order to determine if there is a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of policy has occurred. During the investigation process, the complaint may be resolved informally by mutual agreement of the accused and the complainant. If the complaint is not resolved informally by mutual agreement and the complainant wants to proceed, then the matter shall be referred to the appropriate administrator as described below. In the event that the appropriate administrative official as described below concludes that there is a reasonable basis for believing that the Anti-Retaliation Policy was violated, and if an informal resolution of the complaint still has not been achieved, formal action will be taken.

(4) Persons Responsible for Taking Formal Action and Governing Provisions. The decision to take formal action will be made by one of the following persons or their respective designees:

(a) Faculty. In cases involving faculty members, formal action decisions are made by the chief academic officer of the University. Governing procedure is the General Faculty Dispute Procedures (III-29) and that portion of those procedures dealing with faculty ethics (III-29.7);

(b) Graduate Assistants, including Teaching Assistants. In cases involving graduate assistants, formal action decisions are made by the chief academic officer of the University. For organized graduate assistants, the governing appeal procedure is the grievance procedure described in the COGS contract;

(c) Professional and Scientific Staff. In cases involving professional and scientific staff members, formal action decisions are made by the vice president (or Executive Vice President and Provost) responsible for the unit employing the accused party. Governing appeal procedures are described in subsection III-28.4;

(d) Organized Merit Staff. In cases involving organized merit staff members, formal action decisions are made by the department head responsible for the unit employing the accused party. Governing appeal procedures are the grievance procedures described in the AFSCME contract;

(e) Non-organized Merit Staff. In cases involving non-organized merit staff members, formal action decisions are made by the department head responsible for the unit employing the accused party. Governing appeal procedures are those available under the Regents' Merit System Rules; or

(f) Students. In cases involving students, formal actions are taken by the Vice President for Student Services and Dean of Students. The governing procedure is the Judicial Procedure for Alleged Violations of the Code of Student Life.

c. At any time before the complaint is fully resolved, the complainant may submit a request to the responsible official to take interim actions to protect the complainant against any adverse action.
[top]

REVIEW
Examples of retaliation and possible remedies include:

1. A professional and scientific staff member who reports that a supervisor was using office resources for personal financial gain, receives a significantly lower merit raise on July 1 than his or her co-workers. A remedy may include reassigning the responsibility of evaluation, promotion, salary increase, etc., to another supervisor in the unit.

2. A full professor reports that his or her department chair is awarding salary increases on criteria other than merit. Subsequently, the department chair refuses to endorse the professor's grant proposal without reason. A remedy may include having someone else review the professor's grant proposal.

3. A merit staff member reports that a co-worker in their department has been misusing sick leave. Following the report, the merit employee claims retaliation, in that he or she is no longer invited to social lunches - an activity the co-worker usually initiates among the office staff. The claim of retaliation in this case is personal, and the University would offer no remedy.

4. A graduate student believes he or she has been denied entrance into a Ph.D. program because of the actions of a specific professor. The student subsequently brings plagiarism charges against the professor. Or: A technical staff member is about to be fired. When the staff member learns of his or her impending firing, he or she charges his or her supervisor with theft of University equipment. In both cases, a University investigation demonstrates that these reports were made in bad faith. No remedy would be provided to the complainants. Since these reports were made in bad faith, the complainants are subject to University discipline.

5. Student Mike reports that student Bill is sexually harassing Student Jane. Upon learning of Mike's reports, Bill physically threatens Mike during the two classes Mike and Bill have in common. Remedies may include transferring Bill from the two commonly attended classes to other classes and imposing a no contact order on Bill in relation to Mike.
[top]