Topline Summary:
Our elected Bargaining Committee met with the JHU admin on Monday for the 14th time. We introduced our other new Committee member, Andrew Chelius, and were joined by eight postdoc observers. This session focused entirely on the role of the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), so no counterproposals were exchanged. OIE presented on their role, and we gave testimony and asked a series of questions. We learned that the Dean has ultimate and exclusive authority over sanctions or remedies, OIE does not have sufficient authority to consistently enforce resolutions, and there is no time limit on investigations. We aim to win a contract that allows us to make this process more transparent, timely, and enforceable while still working with OIE to resolve cases of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) Presentation:
The JHU admin has repeatedly pushed for OIE to have exclusive authority over harassment, discrimination, and retaliation cases; in other words, we could not grieve or enforce outcomes through our Grievance and Arbitration procedure. To evaluate the role of OIE and to inform our counterproposal, we requested that OIE present at a bargaining session, and we heard from both the Interim Vice Provost and the ADA Compliance Officer for OIE.
The Interim Vice Provost of OIE explained how OIE deals with discrimination, harassment, and retaliation reports. She described how OIE responds when they receive a report from an individual or a mandated reporter; the protocol is to reach out to the impacted individual and offer supportive resources and interim measures and begin gathering information. OIE only covers discrimination, harassment, or retaliation based on a protected category, and it does not investigate conflicts over “management style” or a “hostile work environment.” Notably, she said that there is no time limit on reporting to OIE, and individuals can file reports even after leaving Hopkins.
The Interim Vice Provost then described their case load. Prior to 2024, the annual case load was about 900-950, but that number increased to about 1500 in 2024 when they improved their tracking and reporting. Only 24% of cases go on to a formal investigation process. Even with the formal process, the resolution is often informal, with the impacted and accused individuals coming to an agreement (e.g. no-contact order) without elevating the issue. In the case of a formal resolution, OIE makes a recommendation, but the Dean ultimately decides sanctions or remedies, if any.
She then presented several common myths about OIE and attempted to refute them. Individuals have control over what information they share with OIE, but OIE is not confidential and the accused is notified of who accused them when a formal investigation begins. She also emphasized that OIE investigations may result in sanctions such as faculty suspension, student expulsion, and separation from employment. She again emphasized informal resolutions, giving the examples of coaching and group trainings for departments. Finally, OIE tries to proactively prevent retaliation by performing anti-retaliation planning with the impacted individual.
Next, the ADA Compliance Officer described the process for religious or disability accommodations, which are offered for physical and mental conditions that substantially limit an individual. These are evaluated by the PI, HR, and the department to determine if an accommodation causes “undue hardship” and decide if it will be enacted. Accommodations are almost always temporary, and the example durations given were 3, 6, and 12 months. The process for requesting religious accommodations is similar, although the standard for undue hardship can be lower.
Testimony and Q&A:
One of our Bargaining Committee members then shared his experience with OIE, when he was harassed by his PI over his disability. Though HR should have reached out to OIE immediately according to policy, he was not connected with OIE for some time, and HR persistently warned him not to go to OIE unless he was absolutely certain discrimination had occurred. Ultimately, the information OIE finally sent him was not useful, and he was discouraged from filing a formal report. When we asked OIE if they train HR departments on how to talk to employees about OIE, they claimed that they do, despite this example of a gross failure in that policy.
In Q&A, OIE clarified that they consider us staff, not students, but they did not come prepared with any statistics specific for postdocs. They reiterated that only the Dean can decide to enforce any sanctions or remedies, regardless of conflict of interest. While OIE handles if remedies are not followed, such as breaking a no-contact order, they did not clarify what authority they have to do so, and we know of at least one case where a no-contact order was broken without consequence. This is exactly why being able to formally grieve cases of discrimination and harassment through the Union is critical to enforce resolutions like no-contact orders.
Notably, sanctions are confidential, meaning that an impacted individual will not know if there are any consequences at all. OIE was not able to provide any statistics on how often sanctions or remedies are imposed. When we asked about a postdoc being improperly fired, they said that re-hire may be a potential remedy, but they emphasized sanctions on the accused, and the decision would ultimately be up to the Dean. We then asked if OIE is at all independent from Hopkins, and while they claimed to be a “neutral investigative service,” they are not independent from Hopkins and its interests.
OIE was unable to give definitive answers or estimates on our questions about timelines, although they emphasized that investigations can take a long time. OIE confirmed that they follow the graduate workers’ contract, which has stipulations for strict timelines and regular updates during investigations for grad workers. We therefore plan to use our contract language to ensure a fair, timely, and transparent OIE process, given the issues with OIE that came to light during this bargaining session.
What can you do today to support winning a great first contract?
Although no counterproposals were passed during this session, we continue to make progress, which you can follow in the Bargaining Tracker. As we continue bargaining, we still have work to do that will take all of our participation to win the improvements we’ve been fighting for here at JHU. Doing the following will help tremendously in our collective effort:
-
Sign our Open Letter: Supportive postdocs across JHU are going around to gather signatures that show the JHU admin that we stand united in our aspirations to win a great contract, and that we need it now. Read and sign the open letter today!
-
Sign up to be an observer for a future bargaining session: Engage directly in negotiations! The more of us who attend bargaining sessions, the more the JHU admin understands how committed we all are to winning a great contract. We are in the process of scheduling more sessions through the end of the year.
Please reach out to us at this email or individually if you have any questions or thoughts about our bargaining process.
In solidarity,
Andrew Chelius, Health, Behavior, and Society
Austin Ramsey, Cell Biology
Ben Seicol, Otolaryngology/ Head & Neck Surgery
Cat LaCourse, Pediatrics
Jaime Eugenin von Bernhardi, Neuroscience
Saakshi Dulani, Physics & Astronomy, Philosophy
Tianyu Cao, Pathology
PRO-UAW Bargaining Committee