UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-LA CROSSE
SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY
CONDUCT SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY
ACTION
I. Sexual harassment is impermissible and
unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action in accordance with
applicable due process requirements including but not limited to reprimand,
temporary suspension, expulsion or discharge. Conduct is defined
as sexual harassment if:
A. A University employee or student behaves
toward another employee or student in any of the following ways:
1. making sexual advances, or
2. requesting sexual favors, or
3. making physical contacts commonly understood
to be of a sexual nature, or
4. addressing sexually demeaning comments
or gestures to a specific person or group of persons, or
5. attempting to punish or penalize a person
or persons for rejection or objecting to such behavior, and if
B. The conduct occurs under the following circumstances:
1. a. the conduct is unwanted by
the person(s) to whom it is directed, and
b. the person
responsible for the action knew or a reasonable person would clearly have
understood that the conduct was unwanted; and
c. because of
its flagrant or repetitious nature, conduct either
i. seriously interferes with the work or learning performance of
the person(s) to whom the conduct was directed;
or
ii. makes the university work or learning environment intimidating
or hostile or demeaning to a person of average sensibilities; or
2. submission to such conduct is made either
explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment; or
3. submission to or rejection of such conduct
by an individual is used as the basis for employment or educational decisions
affecting the individual.
C. Consensual romantic and/or sexual relationships
where a definite power differential between the parties exists may constitute
sexual harassment if the effect of such a relationship interferes with
an individual's academic or professional performance or if it creates an
intimidating environment upon its termination. Thus, it is in the
interest of UW-L to provide clear direction and educational opportunities
to the university community about the potential risks associated
with consensual romantic and/or sexual relationships
where a definite power differential between the parties exists.
These relationships
are of concern for two primary reasons:
1. Conflicts of interest may arise in connection
with consensual romantic and/or sexual relationships between UW-L employees
and students or between supervisors and subordinates. University
policy precludes individuals from evaluating the work or academic performance
of others with whom they have intimate familial
relationships, or from making hiring, salary, or similar financial decisions
concerning such persons. These same
principles apply to consensual romantic and/or sexual relationships, and
require, at a minimum, that appropriate arrangements
be made and recorded for objective decision-making with
regard to the student, from a position of evaluating or influencing the
evaluation of the consenting or previously
consenting partner in terms of grading, recommendations on hiring, retention,
promotion or salary.
2. Abuse of power differential in consenting
romantic and/or sexual relationships has the potential for serious consequences
even when conflict of interest issues are resolved. Individuals entering
into such relationships must recognize that:
a. the reasons
for entering such a relationship may be a function of the power differential;
b. where such differentials
exist, even in a seemingly consensual relationship, there are limited after-the-fact
defenses against charges of sexual harassment; and
c. the individual
with the power in the relationship should expect to bear the burden of
responsibility.
II. Allegations of sexual harassment should
be made in accordance with the provisions of the following document on
informal and formal hearing procedures.
HEARING PROCEDURES
I.
Initiating a Complaint
Anyone who wishes to lodge an allegation of sexual
harassment should so inform the Affirmative Action Officer either orally
or in writing within 30 days of the last occurrence. Alternately,
department chairs or unit supervisors may be advised of the allegation
if the complainant prefers.
II. Treatment
of Complaints
The Affirmative Action Officer or the chair or
supervisor will respect the wishes of the person making the complaint regarding
further investigation and will not carry a specific complaint forward without
that person's explicitly written permission and instruction. An attempt
to penalize a person bringing a complaint or any other form of retaliation
is prohibited and will be treated as a separate incident to be reviewed
in its own right.
III. Preliminary
Discussions
The Affirmative Action Officer or the chair or
supervisor who has received a complaint should collect information from
the person making the complaint. If it seems advisable and if the
complainant wishes to pursue the matter, the investigator should then discuss
the issue discreetly with the person against whom the complaint has been
made, protecting the identity of the complainant if that is possible.
The investigator should also explain all the appropriate procedures and
options to all of the people involved.
On the basis of these preliminary discussions,
the investigator must recommend whether or not the complaint should be
pursued, and the complainant should decide whether to pursue the complaint
and if so by what methods.
IV. Informal
Procedures
The options for informal procedures include:
A. separate confidential meeting(s) with
the appropriate parties involved
B. joint confidential meeting(s) of the
appropriate parties and departmental chair or supervisor, or
C. joint confidential meeting(s) of the
appropriate parties involved.
The goal of all preliminary
discussions of the informal procedures is mediation and conciliation.
If these efforts are not successful in resolving the problem, the
parties should move to the formal hearing procedures.
D. When the informal procedures are concluded,
a written confidential report of each complaint and its outcome will be
filed at the Affirmative Action Office by the person investigating the
complaint. The sole purpose of this report is to document the incidence
of complaints filed against a specific individual within a three-year period.
If after three years no further complaints
have been lodged by or about either involved party, the report and any
related records shall be destroyed,
following procedures outlined in Wisconsin Statues, Section 16.61.
V.
Formal Hearing Procedures
If the informal procedures do not result in a
satisfactory resolution of the problem, then a Formal Hearing Panel may
be called into session. However, if this step is to be taken, then
fairness dictates that both parties to the dispute will be identified.
If any sanctions are to be recommended and recorded, the accused must have
the opportunity to confront his/her accuser. If the person lodging
the allegations wishes to postpone such a confrontation, then the panel
will set a time-limit which appears reasonable, depending upon the
circumstances and reasons given. The formal hearing proceedings may
be terminated by mutual agreement of petitioner and respondent at any step.
Either party may seek the help of legal counsel at any stage of the hearing.
A. Complaint
1. Initiation of a Formal Hearing
Any person may initiate
a formal petition for a hearing regarding any matters of substance alleged
to be sexual harassment, as defined by the University guidelines.
2. The Petition
A petition form shall
be available in the Affirmative Action Office. The petition shall
provide:
a. the petitioner's name
b. the respondent's name
c. a detailed statement as to the specific
facts by the petitioner which alleged to constitute sexual harassment
d. additional information such as statements
by witnesses and other documentation which support the petitioner's allegations
e. a statement of the possible outcome
of the hearing
f. a statement regarding academic freedom
3. Receipt of Petition and Duties of Affirmative
Action Officer
The completed petition
shall be submitted to the Affirmative Action Officer. The Affirmative
Action Officer shall review the contents of the petitions with the petitioners.
The Affirmative Action Officer shall note the time and date of receipt
of the petition and additional information submitted by the petitioner
to the respondent within seven (7) calendar days. At the time of
receipt of the petition, the Affirmative Action Officer shall request
that the respondent select one Hearing Panel member from the remaining
members of the Hearing Panel Register. The third member of the panel
will be chosen from the register by the other two panel members.
If the petitioner, respondent, or panel members do not exercise their selection
option within seven (7) calendar days of being duly notified by the Affirmative
Action Officer, then the Affirmative Action Officer shall select the Hearing
Panel member(s) on their behalf from the register.
B. The Hearing Register and Panel
1. The Hearing Register
The formal Hearing Panel
shall be selected from a register of persons nominated from the various
constituencies (faculty, academic staff, classified,
and students) within the University, with at least five from each group.
The Affirmative Action Officer shall request these nominations annually
through the appropriate channels in each instance. A balance of male
and female membership shall be maintained.
2. The Hearing Panel
The Hearing Panel shall
be comprised of three members from the register. The petitioner and
the respondent shall each select one member of the register to serve
on the Hearing Panel. The third member shall be selected by
the other two members on the panel. If the two members selected by
the petitioner and respondent cannot agree on the panel member, the Affirmative
Action Officer shall select the third member.
3. The Hearing Panel Chairperson
The three Hearing Panel
members shall elect a chairperson who has the responsibilities to convene
the panel, chair the formal hearing, and assure that a decision is rendered
and a copy provided to identified interested parties within the specified
time limits.
4. Time Lines
A decision shall be
rendered by the Hearing Panel within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt
of the petition. The panel may, by majority
vote, grant an extension of up to twenty (20) calendar days for good cause
if requested by petitioner, respondent, or a panel member.
All written evidence
to be presented at the hearing shall be provided to both parties, the Hearing
Panel Chairperson, and the Affirmative Action
Officer, ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing. Such evidence
shall include written statements, documentation, and a list of possible
witnesses who may testify. Any written evidence not provided at least
ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing may be excluded by majority
vote of the Hearing Panel.
C. The Hearing Panel: Procedure
1. Hearing Panel Chairperson's opening
statement regarding:
a. jurisdiction for the hearing
b. identification of parties present at
the hearing including legal counsel for the parties
c. exact nature of petitioner's allegations
d. burden of proof which rests with the
petitioner
e. the possible outcome of the hearing
f. a statement of the possible outcome
of the hearing
g. a statement regarding academic freedom
h. record of the hearing (an electronic
recording of the hearing shall be kept)
2. Opening statements - petitioner followed
by respondent
3. Presentation of evidence
a. all witnesses shall testify under oath
or affirmation
b. witnesses shall first be questioned
by the party calling them, cross-examined by the adverse party,
and questioned by panel members
4. Sequence of presentation of evidence
a. petitioner presents evidence
b. respondent presents evidence
c. petitioner presents rebuttal evidence
d. respondent presents rebuttal evidence
5. Closing statements, petitioner followed
by respondent
D. Decisions
1. The Hearing Panel Decision
a. The Hearing Panel shall determine, by
majority vote, whether the allegations made by the petitioner are true
and whether, if they are true, the behavior constitutes sexual harassment
as defined under the university guidelines.
b. Any panel member who disagrees with
a decision by the majority shall write a dissenting opinion explaining
the nature of his/her disagreement.
c. If the Hearing Panel's decision is that
the allegations are not true or that the behavior does not constitute
sexual harassment as defined under the university guidelines, the hearing
will be terminated. If the Hearing Panel's
decision is that the allegations are true and the behavior does constitute
sexual harassment as defined under the university
guidelines, the panel shall forward recommendations to the Chancellor regarding
disciplinary actions to be taken. At the same time, the panel shall
advise both the petitioner and the respondent
of its recommendation.
d. Such disciplinary actions may include
but are not limited to: reprimand, temporary suspension, expulsion,
or discharge. All appropriate due process shall be observed in any
of these disciplinary actions.
2. The Chancellor's Decision
Unless advised that
the Hearing Panel's recommendations have been appealed, the Chancellor
shall act on those recommendations within sixteen (16) calendar days of
the receipt of them from the panel. In the event of an appeal to
the appropriate committee(s), the Chancellor shall await the report of
the appeals committee but should not delay the decision longer than forty-five
(45) calendar days.
3. Appeals
Appeals of the recommendations,
including recommendations of disciplinary actions, of the Hearing Panel
by either the petitioner or respondent may be made to the appropriate existing
faculty committee (UWS and UWL 4.0) academic staff committee (UWS and UWL
11.0) or student committee (UWS 17). Represented classified staff
may appeal using procedures stipulated in their respective collective bargaining
agreements.
The appeals procedures
for non-represented employees is given in Wisconsin Statue 230.44.
Such appeals should be made within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt
of the panel's recommendations.
Approved by UW System Board of Regents,
February 1982. Revised February 17, 1992 with the addition of I.C.
in accord with UW System consensual relationship statement and guidelines.