Any person working or studying at MIT who believes that he or she has been unjustly treated or that the Institute's stated policy of nondiscrimination has been violated is encouraged to seek to solve the problem or to seek redress through the procedures outlined below. The procedures provide paths available in most situations for faculty members and the academic, administrative, research, and support staffs and, separately, the paths available to students.
In some instances, separate procedures have been established for particular groups of employees and for particular issues and are not described in this section. The Medical Department, for example, has a complaint procedure for patients regarding health care and related services (as provided in Section 9.6.4 below) and for medical staff regarding their clinical privileges (as provided in the Medical Department ByLaws).
It is the Institute's policy that individuals will not be reprimanded or discriminated against for initiating an inquiry or complaint. It is also the Institute's policy to recognize and respect the rights of any individual against whom a complaint has been brought.
If a complainant asks to use the Institute's internal process after taking a complaint to a government agency, court, or other formal process outside the Institute, the Institute may have the complaint investigated and resolved by those responsible for representing the Institute in the outside process. If a complainant who has initiated an internal complaint later decides to take that complaint outside the Institute, the Institute may similarly have the complaint investigated and resolved by those responsible for representing the Institute in the outside process.
Normally, while a complaint is being pursued internally, a complainant is expected to represent himself or herself directly; individuals are free to obtain the support and assistance of a coworker or fellow student or any other MIT associate in presenting their concerns. An MIT associate is a current member of the MIT community, i.e., a student, faculty member, staff member, or other employee, but not an attorney and not a member of the complainant's immediate family (parent, sibling, spouse, or child), so that issues of familial loyalty do not cloud the resolution of the complaint.
While employees will normally represent themselves, they may ask to be represented by a co-worker. Employees have a legal right to be represented by a co-worker at meetings that are held pursuant to the investigation of a complaint. In this eventuality, the employee and the co-worker representative must be allowed to consult prior to the start of the meeting and to caucus during the course of the meeting. The co-worker representative can advise the employee prior to answering a question. The co-worker representative can ask questions of the employee, the investigator, or others present at the meeting. However, even where a co-worker representative is present, the investigator may engage the employee directly in a question and answer exchange. Questions about the role of the co-worker representative should be directed to the Human Resources Office.
Within seven Institute working days of the complaint handler's receipt of the complaint, it should be acknowledged orally or in writing to the person who filed the complaint.
The complaint should be investigated as promptly as reasonably feasible. The complainant and the respondent should be regularly informed by the complaint handler, orally or in writing, of the status of the investigation. Such communications should in general occur at least every two weeks, unless the complainant and the respondent mutually agree to a longer period of time. At any time that either the complainant or the respondent feels that the complaint is not being dealt with as promptly as it should be, he or she may ask the next higher level of supervisor of the complaint handler to look into the timeliness of the investigation. (The right to go to the next higher level does not mean that the investigation of the complaint will be moved to that higher level, although that option is possible if the supervisor decides it is appropriate to do so in a particular case.)As a general rule, in cases that are not complex, the complaint should be decided within 75 days after it is received, unless the complainant and the respondent mutually agree to a longer time, or circumstances justify a longer time to investigate and decide the complaint, in which case the complaint handler should notify the complainant and the respondent orally or in writing that more time will be needed.
Once a complaint is decided, if either the complainant or the respondent wants to have the outcome reviewed by the next higher level of supervisor of the complaint handler, he or she should seek that review promptly. Further review may be denied as untimely if the request is not made within 90 days after the decision. The same time periods for acknowledgment, communication, and decision apply to the supervisor's review, as does the time for seeking any further review of the supervisor's decision.
Complaint handlers must protect privacy as much as possible; they cannot guarantee complete confidentiality. For example, people who might have information relevant to a case may learn of the complaint in the course of an investigation. The assurance of privacy may also be qualified by the duty placed by law on persons receiving complaints of particular types.
These procedures serve also as the complaint and grievance procedures for employees and for students as required by all relevant state and federal legislation, specifically including concerns about race, gender, disability, color, nationality, age, sexual orientation, and veteran's status (including sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title IX of the Federal Education Amendments of 1972) and all other forms of proscribed discrimination. Questions on this subject may be addressed to the Special Assistants to the President (ombudspersons) or the Equal Opportunity Officer. (See also Section 7.1.1 Nondiscrimination Policy.)
9.6.1 Complaints by Those Who Work at MIT
All employees at MIT who are represented by a labor union are covered by collective bargaining agreements that include grievance and arbitration procedures and equal opportunity provisions.
Everyone else who works at MIT who has a concern, complaint, or inquiry related to his or her employment at the Institute should seek first to discuss the work situation and problems with his or her immediate supervisor. If the complaint is against another person who works at MIT, it may be resolved directly with the person complained against or with that person's immediate supervisor. Supervisors are expected to provide a supportive environment that fosters open communication related to work life at the Institute and are encouraged to resolve work problems and grievances in the immediate work environment, if possible.
If the problem is not resolved with the immediate supervisor, individuals may choose to discuss the situation with successively higher supervisors in the office, department, laboratory/center, or School up to the level of the cognizant dean, vice president, associate provost, or the Director of the Lincoln Laboratory.
If the complaint is against a student and is not resolved directly with the student or with the assistance of the faculty advisor or the Office of the Dean of Students and Undergraduate Education (ODSUE), it may be submitted in writing for a formal hearing by a hearing panel in the ODSUE or the Committee on Discipline. (Detailed information is available in the publication Student Conflict Resolution and Discipline at MIT, accessible electronically at <http://web.mit.edu/committees/conf-res/>, and in Committee on Discipline Rules and Regulations, also accessible electronically at <http://web.mit.edu/committees/cod/>. Both publications are available from the ODSUE.) Such complaints may also be taken to the Campus Police, when appropriate.
Alternatively, or simultaneously with respect to the line of supervision above, an individual may discuss a problem and seek help in its resolution from the departmental administrator and/or human resources officer in the Human Resources Office, or a personnel representative at the Lincoln Laboratory. An individual may also pursue a problem with successively higher supervisors within Personnel up to the Director of Personnel for Employee Relations on the campus or the Personnel Manager at the Lincoln Laboratory.
Complaints that pertain to faculty appointment and promotion matters should be pursued within the appropriate academic lines of supervision in the relevant department and School. An alternative route for an academic matter raised by a faculty member may include seeking advice from the Officers of the Faculty or the Chair of the Committee on Faculty-Administration.
In most instances, it is expected that individuals will proceed, if necessary, up through the appropriate lines of supervision specified above. There may be unusual circumstances, however, when the need for information or advice about a work situation may warrant direct inquiries to anyone in the lines of supervision. In addition, any individual who has a concern may at any time raise the matter informally and confidentially with one of the Special Assistants to the President (ombudspersons). Either of them will discuss alternatives with the individual and, if asked, may be able to help resolve the problem on an informal basis.
In the case of a complaint relating to a negative tenure decision, if the complaint is not successfully resolved within the academic lines of supervision in the relevant department and School, the aggrieved faculty member may write to the Provost requesting further review of the process that led to the decision. The Provost will decide if there is sufficient reason to warrant a review. If the Provost concludes that further review of the process is warranted, he or she will, in consultation with the Officers of the Faculty, establish a mechanism to determine the adequacy and fairness of the process. Following such review, the final decision will be made by the Provost in consultation with the President. (Appeals from termination of tenure are outlined in Section 3.3 Termination of Tenure.)
9.6.2 Complaints by Students at MIT
Students who believe they have been treated improperly for any reason are encouraged to raise their concerns. Students who have difficulty in their living groups should raise these problems within the living group and with graduate residents and housemasters, as appropriate. Concerns related to the broader Institute community, including but not confined to academic or work situations, should be raised directly with professors, instructors, departmental advisors, immediate supervisors, Campus Police, or other Institute officials, as appropriate to the nature of these problems.
If a problem cannot be resolved among the individuals involved, students should seek assistance from their department head or dean. Alternatively, they may ask for advice and assistance from the Office of the Dean of Students and Undergraduate Education or the Graduate Education Office. A concern may also be raised at any time with either of the Special Assistants to the President (ombudspersons), who can discuss alternatives with the individual and, if asked, may be able to help resolve the problem on an informal basis.
If the complaint is against another student and cannot be resolved otherwise, the ODSUE may assist, or the case may be referred to a hearing panel in the ODSUE or the Committee on Discipline. Please refer to Student Conflict Resolution and Discipline at MIT, available from the ODSUE and accessible electronically at <http://web.mit.edu/committees/conf-res/>, or The MIT Bulletin for further information. Detailed procedures of the Committee on Discipline are stated in Committee on Discipline Rules and Regulations, also available from the ODSUE and accessible electronically at <http://web.mit.edu/committees/cod/>.
9.6.3 Independent Investigation Panel for Complaints of Harassment and Discrimination
Complaints of harassment or discrimination in violation of MIT policies made by any member of the MIT community against a faculty member normally are handled in the department or local academic unit of the faculty member being charged. The route of appeal is from the department head, to the dean of the relevant School, to the provost.
A complainant or respondent who believes that an impartial investigation in the department or local academic unit of the respondent will not be possible may request that the elected Officers of the Faculty, serving in the capacity of an Independent Investigation Panel, initiate or take over investigation of the complaint. This process cannot, however, be evoked as an appeal of an investigation that has already been completed. If a complaint against a faculty member also involves allegations against a staff member or student, the Chair of the Faculty should consult with the relevant senior officer about how to handle that portion of the complaint.
Either party may request an Independent Investigation Panel. To do so, he or she should address a request to the Chair of the Faculty in a letter, along with a copy of the formal written complaint. The letter of request should specify in detail the efforts that have been made for resolution within the department or local academic unit, and put forth the reasons for the claim that an investigation cannot be done impartially in the local department or academic unit. The Chair of the Faculty will then convene the elected faculty officers to compose the Independent Investigation Panel, with the Chair of the Faculty, or his or her designate, acting as chair of the Panel. Before making a decision on the request, the Panel can suggest alternative processes to the parties to obtain a prompt and fair resolution, although this step is not required. The Panel can either accept the request and appoint one or more investigators, or decline the request for independent review. Written notice of this decision will be sent to all parties, with a copy to the provost’s office.
If the Panel concludes that an investigation outside the local academic or departmental unit is appropriate, the Panel will select senior faculty members only to serve as investigators. The Panel will prepare a charge for the investigator(s) to examine the relevant facts of the complaint and to decide whether the totality of the facts establishes that it is more likely than not that harassment or discrimination occurred.
The investigator's report should contain a brief statement of fact and findings and a conclusion as to whether harassment or discrimination occurred. The report should also contain an appendix containing all documents, notes, confidential materials, and information gathered in connection with the investigation, including notes of the investigator. The investigator can conclude one of the following: that harassment or discrimination occurred; that harassment or discrimination did not occur; or that the investigator cannot determine whether harassment or discrimination occurred. The Panel can either accept the report as initially presented, or seek further facts, if warranted.
The Panel will submit the report to the complainant and respondent, to the department head or appropriate dean, and to the provost. The Appendix shall not be made available to either the respondent or the complainant. The report, including the Appendix, will be retained only in the Office of the Provost, the sole custodian of all documents surrounding the investigation.
The Independent Investigation Panel and the investigator are not authorized to make recommendations for administrative action. Such actions are the sole responsibility of the respective department head of the complainant or the respondent, who is expected to take appropriate action and to report that action to the provost.
If, in the judgment of the IIP, a potential conflict of interest exists in applying these procedures in a particular case, the IIP may modify these procedures, as it deems appropriate, and will notify the complainant and respondent of the modifications.
Throughout the investigation, the parties are expected to represent themselves directly, without the presence of an attorney. Both complainant and respondent may, however, be accompanied by any member of the MIT community who is not a family member or an attorney. The Chair of the Panel should provide progress reports to the parties, as appropriate.
The entire investigation process will be kept as confidential as possible and legally allowable. While there is no set timetable, the investigation process will proceed as expeditiously as possible.
For more information, contact the Office of the Provost <http://web.mit.edu/provost/>.
9.6.4 Medical Department Patient Grievances
The MIT Medical Department serves a large proportion of the MIT community, including family members. The relationship between the patient and the physician or other health-care provider is, necessarily, a very close and personal one. Conflicts or misunderstandings may occasionally arise between patients and members of the department. Patients should feel free to raise issues or concerns about their care or about any aspect of the department's service to them. Ordinarily, the best way to do this is directly with the physician or other provider of service. If the outcome is not satisfactory, or if there is a preference to talk over the problem with someone else, the patient should call or write to the member of the Medical Department staff who is designated as Patient Advocate.
The Patient Advocate will work with the patient and the health-care provider or other staff members involved to resolve the issue and to achieve a common understanding. The patient may be assisted by a family member or another member of the MIT community in presenting the complaint.
If this effort is not successful in resolving the problem, the patient may appeal in writing or through the Patient Advocate to a panel of three senior members of the Medical Department staff. Two members are appointed by the Director of the Medical Department to the review panel each year. The patient may select the third member from among a list of four to eight staff members provided by the Patient Advocate.
A patient not satisfied with the decision of the panel may appeal, in writing, to the MIT Medical Management Board, a body including members of the MIT Corporation and the MIT administration, as well as the Director and Executive Director of the Medical Department. Within the MIT community, the decision of that body will be final.
The sole exception to the above procedure will be appeals by members of either the Traditional or Flexible MIT Health Plans concerning decisions by Health Plans management staff regarding payment of a claim. An individual dissatisfied with a claims decision may submit a written complaint to the Executive Director, who will review the complaint and send a response. An individual dissatisfied with a claims decision may appeal to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts or may follow the appeals procedure described above.
Once a complaint is initiated, policies common to all complaints will govern the review process.
Search | Section
Contents | P&P Contents | P&P Index | Updates
Comments to
policies@mit.edu