The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Texas profs settle lawsuit
Posted by Elie Dolgin
[Entry posted at 14th April 2009 04:53 PM GMT]
The University of Texas System settled a lawsuit yesterday (Apr. 13) agreeing to give hiring priority to more than 2,400 University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) employees who were fired in the wake of Hurricane Ike, which decimated the island campus in Galveston.
The association, which advocates for faculty members and support staff at Texas higher education institutions, and three Galveston residents sued the UT System last December, alleging that the mass layoffs were done in secret, closed-door meetings that violated the Texas Open Meetings Act. The UT System, which admitted no wrongdoing and maintained that the firings complied with state law, agreed to pay $22,500 in legal fees to the faculty group's lawyer, Joe Jaworski, and to establish an official "re-employment list" for the next three years. When new jobs are posted, former employees will have 20 business days to apply and will be hired if they are deemed the most qualified candidate. "If new positions open up, given the needs of the institution as it gets rebuilt then [the fired staff] will be considered," Barry Burgdorf, vice chancellor and general counsel for the UT System, told The Scientist. Whether these employees are rehired "really depends on who applies and what we think of them in relation to the position." UTMB has no plans to recreate the exact same positions that existed before the hurricane, Burgdorf noted. Under the agreement, former staff members who are not rehired and feel they were wrongly denied re-employment can demand an arbitration hearing from Susan Sousson, an independent Houston-based judge. "It's beautiful," said Jaworski, "because it's final, it's binding, and it's independent." Jaworski, however, doubts that this is the end of UTMB's legal troubles. "Personal lawsuits are in the pipeline and they're coming," he said. Currently, around 30 faculty members, many of whom were tenured, are appealing their terminations through special UTMB hearings. If those fail, the fired faculty "will have to pursue litigation after the kangaroo court hearings of their appeals," Jaworski said. Johnson said that there were "a number of successes" in the settlement, but "the most important one was the one that's not visible" -- that is, it reflects the "tremendous upsurge" in support that the former staff received from local residents and non-fired UTMB employees, which the UT officials finally recognized. He noted that the lawsuit was filed when Galveston was "floundering" from the devastation wrought by Ike. The open meetings lawsuit "proved to be a focal point for standing up to UTMB and UT and insisting that the institution get rebuilt on Galveston Island," he said. Last month, the UT System board of regents announced that it plans to rebuild UTMB and its hospital in Galveston rather than move the medical school off-island. Related stories: [31st March 2009] [4th December 2008] [2nd December 2008] |
Rate this article
If tenured profs must file a class-action lawsuit against wrongful firing...
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-04-15 16:24:15]
[Comment posted 2009-04-15 16:24:15]
That just about says it all about how (un-)ethical and fair job environments are in even supposedly the most meritorious profession of science in America is, in reality, doesn't it? Well, welcome to America where unethical job hiring, promotions, or firing is still practiced on the sly against the backdrop of the official nondiscriminatory propaganda.
"Crafted" job postings?
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-04-15 11:15:24]
[Comment posted 2009-04-15 11:15:24]
I have seen many situations where the listing for hiring or for a contract was crafted to a particular individual. A physiology professor with 20 years teaching might not be hired for a tenure track physiology position if the posting also requires that he/she teach one physiology section in French (or Spanish, or Veitnamese), or be able to teach one medical statistics class. Positions can be tailored if there is a person in mind who will cost less. It is done with bids all the time.
Tricking Point in The Texas Profs-UT Regents Settlement
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-04-15 09:43:10]
[Comment posted 2009-04-15 09:43:10]
I was not particularly happy with that settlement. Why? Because I realized that it actually tricked many people into the belief that such a settlement is a good outcome for employees fired from UTMB in November 2008 (including faculty, secretaries, nurses, technicians, etc.).
The core of the Texas Profs Lawsuit was to show: (1) the UT-Regents met in closed session on November 12, 2008 to produce the "financial exigency" motion and its application at UTMB; (2) that the Regents violated the Texas Open Meetings Act, and (3) that because of this violation the Regents' "November 12, 2008 decision authorizing up to 3800 firings of UTMB-Galveston employees [was] invalid," meaning that the Regents' November 12, 2008 motion declaring a "financial exigency" situation at UTMB should be voided, which would involve the re-hiring of all employees (regarding of their employment status, e.g., secretaries versus faculty or nurses) who were fired in November 2008.
That settlement, howeer, did not address point three above, but instead gave the illusion to fired employees that they would be re-hired but under the following conditions: (1) The fired employee most show that he/she is still qualified for the same job; (2) the fired employee most show that he/she is the most qualified person for the job in those cases when other qualified individuals also apply for the same job; (3) the fired employee most keep track of all posting of opening jobs and be sure to re-apply within 20 days following the announcement of the particular job. In addition, after a given number of years, point three would not apply.
The tricking point among the above three conditions is that the hiring committee would not find it difficult to show that the fired employee is not "qualified" for the job (e.g., because that job now requied additional skills that the fired employee did not have prior to November 2008); that new applicants are, indeed, more qualified for the job, relative to the fired employee (e.g., becasue the new applicant perhaps has more formal-educational training, relative to the fired employee); and fired employees migh easily miss the deadline to apply because they are very busy either in their new job or searching for a different job.
Another very significant tricking point in that settlement is that it did not specifically address the termination of tenured and non-tenured faculty. The process to re-hire a secretary, for example, is very different from the process to re-hire a tenured (or non-tenured) faculty. I wonder why that settlement did not address this particular tricking situation.
The core of the Texas Profs Lawsuit was to show: (1) the UT-Regents met in closed session on November 12, 2008 to produce the "financial exigency" motion and its application at UTMB; (2) that the Regents violated the Texas Open Meetings Act, and (3) that because of this violation the Regents' "November 12, 2008 decision authorizing up to 3800 firings of UTMB-Galveston employees [was] invalid," meaning that the Regents' November 12, 2008 motion declaring a "financial exigency" situation at UTMB should be voided, which would involve the re-hiring of all employees (regarding of their employment status, e.g., secretaries versus faculty or nurses) who were fired in November 2008.
That settlement, howeer, did not address point three above, but instead gave the illusion to fired employees that they would be re-hired but under the following conditions: (1) The fired employee most show that he/she is still qualified for the same job; (2) the fired employee most show that he/she is the most qualified person for the job in those cases when other qualified individuals also apply for the same job; (3) the fired employee most keep track of all posting of opening jobs and be sure to re-apply within 20 days following the announcement of the particular job. In addition, after a given number of years, point three would not apply.
The tricking point among the above three conditions is that the hiring committee would not find it difficult to show that the fired employee is not "qualified" for the job (e.g., because that job now requied additional skills that the fired employee did not have prior to November 2008); that new applicants are, indeed, more qualified for the job, relative to the fired employee (e.g., becasue the new applicant perhaps has more formal-educational training, relative to the fired employee); and fired employees migh easily miss the deadline to apply because they are very busy either in their new job or searching for a different job.
Another very significant tricking point in that settlement is that it did not specifically address the termination of tenured and non-tenured faculty. The process to re-hire a secretary, for example, is very different from the process to re-hire a tenured (or non-tenured) faculty. I wonder why that settlement did not address this particular tricking situation.
Qualified
by Michael Zimmer
[Comment posted 2009-04-14 18:36:18]
[Comment posted 2009-04-14 18:36:18]
When new jobs are posted, former employees will have 20 business days to apply and will be hired if they are deemed the most qualified candidate.
So if they weren't on the list, even if they were deemed the most qualified candidate, they might *not* get hired?
Comment on this blog