Faculty Grievance Procedure

Handbook of Operating Procedures 2-2310 (Interim)

Effective September 1, 2025
Executive Sponsor: Executive Vice President and Provost
Policy Owner: Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

Policy Statement

The University is committed to providing fair procedures for faculty members seeking redress for grievable actions. State law requires that the University’s administrative leadership makes decisions in a manner that promotes efficiency, accountability, and responsiveness to state priorities, workforce needs, and the institution’s mission. It also provides that only the president, executive vice president and provost, or their administrative designee may be involved in decision-making regarding review of a faculty grievance. This Policy implements faculty grievance in a manner that meets these requirements while also including faculty input in the process.

Reason for Policy

This Policy details the types of matters for which a faculty member may seek redress via this grievance process and the applicable grievance procedures. It also clarifies when other policies and processes apply to a faculty complaint or grievance.

Scope & Audience

This Policy applies to individuals holding an academic title contained in Regents’ Rule 31001 (Section 2), with the exception of student titles, and the Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOP) 2-2010.

Definitions (specific to this policy)

Administrator:
A department chair, dean, director, or other institutional officer (e.g., president, executive vice president and provost).

Designee Administrator:
An administrator designated by the executive vice president and provost to assist with any aspect of the grievance process. There may be more than one administrator so designated.

Discipline:
A sanction the University imposes upon a Faculty Member subsequent to a finding that the Faculty Member has: (a) violated a University, UT System, and/or Board of Regents policy or rule; (b) engaged in conduct that adversely affects the Faculty Member’s performance of employment responsibilities; or (c) engaged in conduct outside the scope of employment that adversely affects the mission or reputation of the University (e.g., commission of a crime, etc.).

Discipline includes, but is not limited to, a formal written reprimand, assigned professional development/training activities, ineligibility for promotion or salary increases, suspension with or without pay, reduction in pay, demotion, and termination. Discipline must be recorded in writing and must become part of the Faculty Member’s personnel file.

The following do not constitute Discipline: Interim measures taken pending resolution of a University investigation or review; administrative actions taken by the University to safeguard the University’s own resources; oral reprimands and oral counseling; informal written corrections; and the assignment or change of workload responsibilities, such as teaching and committee service, which are governed by HOP 2-2170 (Faculty Workload and Reporting Requirements). An action taken by an administrator against a faculty member that does not qualify as discipline, may not be grieved except when it is actionable on a basis set out in Section VII.A.1 of this Policy.

Faculty Member:
Any individual holding an academic title contained in Regents’ Rule 31001 (Section 2), with the exception of student titles, and HOP 2-2010.

Faculty Panel Advisors:
A group of faculty members, tenured or full professor in the professional track, appointed by the executive vice president and provost to assist in providing advice to the executive vice president and provost and his or her Designee Administrators managing faculty grievance matters.

Summary Dismissal:
Expedited due process to effect prompt termination of tenured faculty or all other faculty before the expiration of their appointment upon a determination of serious misconduct.

Website (for policy)

https://secure4.compliancebridge.com/utexas/public/getdoc.php?file=2-2310

Contacts

CONTACT

DETAILS

WEB

Phone:

Website:

Email:

Responsibilities & Procedures

General Provisions

Actions for which redress may be sought. A faculty member may seek redress, as permitted below, of any of the following actions taken by an administrator against the faculty member:

Discipline imposed under HOP 2-2320 (“Faculty Discipline Policy”):
- discipline imposed without good cause or without a determination of Serious Misconduct as the basis;
- discipline that, even though imposed for good cause or because of serious misconduct, is so inappropriate in kind or so disproportionate to the faculty member’s misconduct as to be unreasonable.
Discipline imposed under HOP 3-3020 (“Nondiscrimination Policy”):
- discipline that, even though imposed upon a finding of good cause, is so inappropriate in kind or so disproportionate to the faculty member’s misconduct as to be unreasonable.
Discipline imposed under HOP 3-3031 (“Prohibition of Sexual Assault, Interpersonal Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Sex Discrimination”):
- discipline, imposed under a Track C proceeding, that is so inappropriate in kind or so disproportionate to the faculty member’s misconduct as to be unreasonable.
- The kind and severity of discipline imposed under a Track A or B proceeding are not grievable. Nor is whether there was good cause to impose discipline under a Track A, B, or C proceeding.
Discipline imposed under HOP 7-1230 (“Misconduct in Science and Other Scholarly Activities”):
- discipline that, even though imposed for good cause, is so inappropriate in kind or so disproportionate to the faculty member’s conduct as to be unreasonable.
- Whether there was good cause to impose discipline is not grievable.
Any action that violates the faculty member’s academic freedom.
Any action that violates the faculty member’s rights under federal law, state law, or University of Texas System or University policy, or the faculty member’s contractual rights.
Termination for good cause of a tenured faculty member or termination for good cause of a non-tenured faculty member before expiration of appointment.
Summary Dismissal for Serious Misconduct.
A decision not to grant tenure or to reappoint a tenure-track faculty member that violates the faculty member’s rights under federal or state law.

Retaliation prohibited. A faculty member has the right to seek redress under this Policy. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against a faculty member for exercising this right.

Joint faculty/staff appointment. Generally, if a faculty member has both a faculty and administrative or staff appointment, the faculty member may seek redress under this Policy only with respect to actions that affect the terms and conditions of the faculty appointment. Matters relating to the terms and conditions of the administrative or staff appointment may be addressed only through available administrative or staff grievance procedures. If a dispute arises regarding whether an action affects the terms and conditions of the faculty appointment or the administrative or staff appointment, the executive vice president and provost, or his Designee Administrator, has sole discretion to determine whether the matter may be addressed under this Policy. They may seek the advice of the Faculty Panel Advisors in making this determination.

Process For Seeking Redress

Informal resolution strongly encouraged. Faculty members are strongly encouraged to seek to informally resolve a dispute with an administrator. In some instances, faculty members must pursue informal resolution before filing a formal grievance. See section C.2 below.

Other processes for redress. When informal resolution fails or is impracticable, a faculty member should ordinarily seek redress under section C (“Faculty Grievance Policy – General Process”) below. But for certain types of issues, the faculty member must seek redress through other procedures:

Discrimination other than sexual discrimination. A complaint that alleges a faculty member has been the victim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, citizenship, veteran status, or genetic information must be brought under HOP 3-3020 (“Nondiscrimination Policy”).
Rating pursuant to Annual Review or Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation. A faculty member who complains about the rating given to the faculty member pursuant to an Annual Review under HOP 2-2151 or a Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation under HOP 2-2150 must first exhaust any review procedures that may be set forth in the Guidelines for Annual Review of Faculty or the Guidelines for Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty, as applicable, before filing a grievance.
Retaliation complaints. A complaint that a faculty member has been the victim of retaliation for bringing or participating in the investigation of a complaint under HOP 3-3020 (“Nondiscrimination Policy”), HOP 3-3031 (“Prohibition of Sexual Assault, Interpersonal Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Sex Discrimination”), or HOP 7-1230 (“Misconduct in Science and Other Scholarly Activities”) must be brought under the HOP provisions that governed the complaint that led to the alleged retaliatory action.
Sexual assault, interpersonal violence, stalking, sexual harassment, or sex discrimination. A complaint that a faculty member has been the victim of sexual discrimination, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, interpersonal violence, stalking, or sexual harassment must be brought under HOP 3-3031 (“Prohibition of Sexual Assault, Interpersonal Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Sex Discrimination”).
Disputes arising from Medical School’s Medical Service, Research, and Development Plan (MSRDP). Any disciplinary action, performance issue, conduct issue, or other action arising under the Medical School’s MSDRP and related agreements or the Medical School faculty member’s annual memorandum of appointment is governed by the MSDRP bylaws.
Tenure denial or non-reappointment of tenure-track faculty member. A decision not to grant tenure or to reappoint a tenure-track faculty member is governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, as supplemented by section E of this policy (“Faculty Grievance Policy – Decision Not to Reappoint”).
Termination. The procedures by which a tenured faculty member may be terminated for good cause or a non-tenured faculty member may be terminated for good cause before the expiration of the stated period for appointment are governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, as supplemented by HOP 2-2320 and section D of this policy (“Faculty Grievance Policy – Termination”).

Faculty Grievance Policy – General Process

Scope. This section C sets forth the procedures for most faculty grievances. Some types of issues, however, must be resolved through other procedures. See Section B.2 above.

Informal resolution. Before filing a grievance, a faculty member must ordinarily seek to informally resolve a complaint. Faculty members are strongly encouraged to consult with a Faculty Ombuds. A faculty member need not pursue informal resolution if the faculty member is grieving:
1. discipline imposed or proposed under HOP 2-2320 (“Faculty Discipline Policy”), 3-3020 (“Nondiscrimination Policy”), 3-3031 (“Prohibition of Sexual Assault, Interpersonal Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Sex Discrimination”), or 7-1230 (“Misconduct in Science and Other Scholarly Activities”); or
2. a matter related to the faculty member’s evaluation under HOP 2-2150 or 2-2151.

Bringing a formal grievance. A faculty member initiates a grievance by submitting a written petition to the executive vice president and provost's designee.
1. Standardized form. Petitions should be made using the standardized form found at https://facultycouncil.utexas.edu/faculty-grievance-intake-form.
2. Contents of petition. The petition must include:

a short summary – not more than one page – of the petition;
the facts relevant to the grievance, including the name of the administrator or administrators who took the complained-of action;
the right or rights the faculty member claims have been violated;
the redress the grievance seeks;
a summary of attempts to informally resolve the issue;
arguments in support of the faculty member’s claim and redress sought; and
supporting documentation.

Notice to administrator. The Designee Administratior shall promptly provide a copy of the petition to the administrator or administrators who the grievant identifies as having taken the action that is the subject of the grievance.

Overview of the review process. The review of a grievance may consist of three stages. First, the Designee Administrator will assess the petition and determine: whether the grievance is one that must be resolved through other procedures; whether additional attempts at informal resolution must be pursued; and whether the grievance (or a part of the grievance) warrants moving to the second stage. Second, the Designee Administrator will begin to investigate the grievance. The investigation will include some or all of the following: reviewing a response from the administrator who took the action that is the subject of the petition, interviewing the grievant and administrator, interviewing or obtaining written statements from other witnesses, and reviewing relevant documentary and other evidence. The Designee Administrator will issue a decision with findings and rationale. Third, the decision and recommendations of the Designee Administrator may be appealed to the executive vice president and provost.

First stage: Assessment of grievance by Designee Administrator. Within 10 working days of the filing of the written petition, the Designee Administrator shall assess the grievance.

Assessment of the grievance.

Basis. The Designee Administrator shall base his or her assessment on the petition (including any supporting documentation submitted by the grievant) and any information that the Faculty Ombuds is able to provide.
Appropriate process. The Designee Administrator shall first decide whether the grievance (or a part of the grievance) concerns a matter that must be pursued through other processes. See Section B.2 above. Upon decision, the Designee Administrator shall notify the grievant, and the administrator, that the grievance, or a part of the grievance, will be terminated.
Additional informal resolution. If the Designee Administrator decides that the grievance concerns a matter that may be pursued through this procedure, then the Designee Administrator shall consider whether additional attempts at informal resolution are likely to result in a resolution of the matter. The Designee Administrator may consult Faculty Panel Advisor(s) in making this determination. If the Designee Administrator so determines, he or she shall notify the grievant, and the administrator that the grievant must try to resolve the matter informally before any further assessment of the grievance will occur.

If the grievant is unable to resolve the matter informally within 15 working days of receiving the notification, the grievant may submit in writing to the Designee Administrator a request for further consideration of the grievance. This request must include a summary of the grievant’s attempts to resolve the matter informally.

Decision to move to investigative stage. If the Designee Administrator decides that additional attempts at informal resolution are not likely to result in a resolution of the matter or that the grievant has satisfied the requirement to pursue additional attempts at informal resolution, he or she shall decide whether the grievance should move to the investigative stage. In making this assessment, he or she shall consider whether—looking at the facts and the claims in the light most favorable to the grievant—the petition (or a part of the petition) fails either to state any valid ground for redress or to seek any redress that could be granted. If the Designee Administrator, in consultation with a Faculty Panel Advisor, determines that the petition (or a part of the petition) fails to do so, then he or she shall dismiss the grievance (or a part of the grievance). Such a dismissal is a final unappealable decision and concludes the grievance process. If the grievance is not dismissed on these bases, the grievance will move to the investigative stage.

The Designee Administrator shall promptly notify the grievant and the administrator of the results of this review.

If the grievance will move to the investigative stage, the notification to the administrator shall also request that the administrator provide to the Designee Administrator, within 10 working days, a written response to the petition and supporting documentation. The grievant will have 5 business days to provide a written reply to the administrator’s response.

Second stage: Investigation. This stage allows the decision maker to take the necessary steps to develop an understanding of the underlying facts in order to make a determination on the merits of the grievance. This process should be conducted in an objective even-handed manner that prioritizes fairness and an accurate outcome while promoting efficiency.

Burden of proof. The grievant bears the burden of proving his or her claims by a preponderance of the evidence (that is, more likely than not).

Initial Review. Within 10 working days of receiving the grievant’s reply, or within 15 working days of receiving the administrator’s response, whichever is later, the Designee Administrator will review the petition including submitted documentation, the administrator response, and the grievant’s reply, if any, along with any information provided by the Ombuds.

If there’s adequate information to make a decision at this stage, the Designee Administrator, in consultation with Faculty Panel Advisor(s), shall provide a written decision to: uphold the administrative decision, reverse it, or change it in-part. Instances where there is likely adequate information to make a determination at this stage include those where the underlying facts are not in dispute or when there are University documents in the submitted materials that definitively address outstanding fact questions necessary to make a determination.

If there’s not adequate information to make a decision after an initial review, then the Designee Administrator shall proceed to Fact Development.

Fact Development. If more information is necessary to evaluate the grievance, then the Designee Administrator may take appropriate additional steps to develop a full understanding of the underlying facts. The Designee Administrator may consult Faculty Panel Advisor(s) for advice on what steps to consider. Those steps may include requesting that the grievant and administrator provide a list of names of individuals with relevant information and a list of follow-up questions for any persons with knowledge. They may also include interviewing or re-interviewing any persons involved, including the grievant and the administrator, and requesting information from other CSUs as necessary and relevant. The Designee Administrator shall conduct the investigation using their best judgment. In doing so, the Designee Administrator shall provide reasonable deadlines for every aspect of the investigation and may extend those deadlines for good cause.

All employees including grievant and administrator are required to participate in good faith with the Designee Administrator’s investigation. The Designee Administrator may draw a negative inference from either the grievant’s or administrator’s lack of cooperation, but not from a third-party’s lack of cooperation.

The grievant and the administrator may be represented by counsel or by an advisor who is not an attorney. The counsel or advisor may attend their client’s interview, but their role is limited to consulting with the client. The counsel or advisor may not ask or object to questions during the interview. No one else may attend an interview other than those persons providing technical assistance to the Designee Administrator.

Decision. This written decision, supported by an explanation of the relevant facts, rationale, the record materials, and a summary of any investigation steps, should be provided via email to the grievant and administrator, with a copy to the executive vice president and provost. It should also include any appropriate recommendations regarding redress for the grievant. If no notice of appeal or notice of review is issued, then the decision and its recommendations become final after the expiration of 3 working days.

Third Stage: Appellate Review by the executive vice president and provost. This stage allows the decision and recommendations of the Designee Administrator to be reviewed by the executive vice president and provost.

Notice of Appeal. The grievant or administrator may appeal the Designee Administrator’s decision to the executive vice president and provost, within 3 working days of receipt of the grievance determination, by notifying the Designee Administrator and the executive vice president and provost, by email, that they seek appellate review of the grievance determination. Any request for appellate review should include an explanation of the basis for seeking a review, including why the underlying decision is erroneous, and an explanation of relief sought.

Notice of Review. Within the same period for notice of appeal, the executive vice president and provost may independently decide to conduct an appellate review of the decision. In such a case, the executive vice president and provost will provide written notice to the grievant and administrator of the decision to review the grievance determination and may request any relevant written submissions necessary for the independent review.

Final Review and Determination. The executive vice president and provost will allow a reasonable time for the grievant and administrator to provide their written appeal submissions including the basis of appeal and related arguments, the response to the appeal submission, and a reply to the response.

The executive vice president and provost will review the Designee Administrator’s decision, the underlying materials provided to the Designee Administrator, and the appellate submissions, to provide the final determination within a reasonable time from the submission of the written appeal submissions. During the final review process, the executive vice president and provost may consult the Faculty Panel Advisors to receive advice and recommendations in making the final determination. The executive vice president and provost shall issue a final written determination including rationale that: affirms, reverses, or changes in-part the Designee Administrator’s grievance decision, or requires the Designee Administrator to engage in further factual development before making a grievance decision. This determination is final, cannot be appealed, and generally concludes the grievance process. If a matter is sent back to the Designee Administrator for further factual development, the process steps restart to allow a revised grievance decision on the new record, and a renewed appellate review. Upon decision after that appellate review, the grievance process is complete.

Conflict of interest. A faculty member shall not serve as a Faculty Panel Advisor to the Designee Administrator or the executive vice president and provost if the faculty member (a) was involved in the events that gave rise to the grievance, (b) could reasonably be expected to be interviewed or questioned as part of the investigation, (c) has a pending grievance, complaint, or lawsuit against the University or one of its employees, or (d) otherwise cannot judge the merits of the grievance fairly and impartially. Any participant in the process may raise conflicts of interest concerns. These concerns will be referred to the vice president for Legal Affairs and General Counsel and the chief compliance officer for joint review and decision.

Faculty Grievance Policy – Termination for good cause of a tenured faculty member or of a non-tenured faculty member for good cause before the expiration of the stated period of appointment

Governing procedures. The procedures by which the administration may decide to terminate a tenured faculty member for good cause or a non-tenured faculty member for good cause before the expiration of the stated period of appointment are set forth in Regents’ Rule 31008, Sections 1-6, modified as needed by any changes in law, and as supplemented by HOP 2-2320, and this Section D.

Review by provost and president; alternative dispute resolution. Before the president may decide that a faculty member may be terminated for good cause, the administration shall follow the procedures set forth in Regents’ Rule 31008, Sections 2-4, and HOP 2-2320. The faculty member shall be afforded the right to present a grievance to the executive vice president and provost, or another officer as designated by the president, in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 3, and to meet with the president and to respond to the allegations and supporting evidence in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 4.

Procedures governing hearing by hearing tribunal. When a faculty member is entitled to a hearing before a hearing tribunal under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6, the provisions of that section govern the hearing, as supplemented by the following paragraphs 4 through 12.

Composition of hearing tribunal. The hearing tribunal shall be composed of one Designee Administrator and three Faculty Panel Advisors. The Designee Administrator makes decisions during the grievance process in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors. Each member of the hearing tribunal must hold academic rank at least equal to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination. And the hearing tribunal may not include a faculty member who might be called as a witness in the hearing or whose fairness or objectivity may reasonably be questioned. If there is not a sufficient number of faculty members of at least equal rank able to serve on the hearing tribunal, the executive vice president and provost will choose additional tribunal members.

Notice of tribunal membership; challenge. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly – and no fewer than 8 working days before the hearing commences – provide written notice to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination of the hearing tribunal’s membership. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.5, the faculty member may seek to recuse a tribunal member by challenging the member’s fairness or objectivity. The faculty member must submit the challenge to the executive vice president and provost, or his or her delegate, within 3 working days of receiving notice of the tribunal membership for decision. The executive vice president and provost will make the recusal decision

Timing for convening hearing. The hearing tribunal should make every effort to convene the hearing within 15 working days after the tribunal is appointed. The Office of General Faculty shall, at least 10 working days before the hearing convenes, provide notice to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination and the Office of the President of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Virtual hearing permitted. The Designee Administrator, in their discretion, may order that the hearing be held in person, by teleconferencing, or some combination of the two.

Hearing closed. The hearing shall be closed.

Right to representation. Both the faculty member challenging the proposed termination and the administration have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing, regardless of whether the other decides to avail themselves of representation. If the faculty member is not represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by up to two advisors; if represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by one other advisor.

Obtaining witnesses, documents, or other evidence.
1. Participation encouraged; retaliation prohibited. The administration and other faculty and staff shall cooperate fully, when possible, with the hearing tribunal requests to participate in the hearing. Faculty and staff may submit a request to decline to participate in the hearing to the Designee Administrator. The Designee Administrator shall consider the basis for the request to decline and decide the request based on relevance, need for information uniquely held by the person, and any other concerns related to ensuring a fair hearing. The hearing tribunal may draw a negative inference from the administration’s lack of cooperation. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against an individual for participating in any way.
2. Opportunity to obtain evidence within University’s control. The faculty member challenging the proposed termination shall be afforded an opportunity to obtain relevant evidence within the control of the University, except for evidence that is confidential or exempted from disclosure by law. Whether materials sought are relevant, will be submitted to the Designee Administrator for decision.
3. Providing notice of witnesses and documents. At least 3 working days before the hearing, the faculty member challenging the proposed termination and the administration must provide the other and the hearing tribunal a list of the witnesses to be called, their expected testimony topics, and copies of documents and other exhibits to be submitted in evidence. The Designee Administrator, in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors, shall review the offered witness lists for relevance and confirm or reject offered witnesses on that basis. The Office of General Faculty, in consultation with the hearing tribunal, will provide instructions as to how this is to be accomplished. But notice need not be provided of impeaching or rebuttal witnesses whose identity cannot reasonably be determined beforehand. Even if a party fails to provide proper notice, the Designee Administrator, in their discretion, may permit a witness to testify or a document or other exhibit to be introduced. Hearing Tribunal requests to witnesses will issue following decisions on offered witnesses.

Conduct of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, secs. 6.1 – 6.6. The Designee Administrator, in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors, makes hearing decisions to promote a fair and efficient hearing process. The following rules also apply:
1. Burden of proof. Under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.4, the administration bears the burden of proving, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, good cause for termination.
2. Order of presentation. The administration has the right to make the first opening argument, present its evidence first, and make the final closing argument.
3. Admissibility of evidence. The Designee Administrator shall admit evidence that is relevant and not unduly prejudicial or time-consuming. The Texas Rules of Evidence apply.
4. Recording and transcription of hearing. The proceedings shall be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and a copy of the verbatim transcript shall be supplied to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination.
5. Adjournments. The Designee Administrator may adjourn the hearing to enable either party to investigate evidence for which a credible claim of surprise is made.
6. Length of hearing. The Designee Administrator may impose reasonable limits on the amount of time each side has to present its case.
7. Concealed carry of handguns prohibited. If the hearing is conducted in person, pursuant to HOP 8-1060 (“Campus Concealed Carry”), the concealed carry of handguns shall be prohibited in areas in which the hearing is being conducted. Notice conforming to Texas Penal Code section 30.06 shall be provided.
8. Public statements. Except for routine announcements, such as those relating to the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by the parties and hearing tribunal members shall be avoided, as far as possible, until a final decision is reached.

Findings and recommendations. Within 10 working days of the completion of the hearing, the Designee Administrator, with the advice and consultation of the Faculty Panel Advisors, shall submit a written report containing findings and recommendations in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.6, as well as any supplementary suggestions deemed proper concerning the disposition of the case. The hearing tribunal shall deliver the original of the report to the president and a copy to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination and to the Office of General Faculty. The Office of General Faculty shall provide the president with the original transcript of the hearing and the exhibits.

Review by the president and Board of Regents. Review by the president of the hearing tribunal’s findings and recommendations is governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.7. Review by the Board of Regents of the president’s decision is governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.7.

Former Faculty Grievance Policy – Summary Dismissal Termination of Tenured Faculty Member or a Non-Tenured Faculty Member Before the Expiration of the Stated Period of Appointment.

Bringing a formal grievance and request for hearing. A faculty member initiates a grievance of Summary Dismissal by submitting a written petition to the chair of the Office of General Faculty and the executive vice president and provost.
1. Standardized form. Petitions should be made using the standardized form found at https://facultycouncil.utexas.edu/faculty-grievance-intake-form.
2. Contents of petition. The petition must include:

a short summary – not more than one page – of the petition;
the facts relevant to the grievance, including the name of the administrator or administrators who took the adverse action;
the right or rights the faculty member claims have been violated;
the redress the grievance seeks;
arguments in support of the faculty member’s claim and redress sought;
supporting documentation; and
a request for hearing.

Deadline. A faculty member must initiate the grievance and request for hearing within 7 days of the issuance of the written determination of Summary Dismissal.
Notice to administrator. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly provide a copy of the petition to the administrator or administrators who the grievant identifies as having taken the action that is the subject of the grievance.

Procedures governing hearing by hearing tribunal. When a faculty member is entitled to a hearing before a hearing tribunal under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5, the provisions under Regents’ Rule 31008, secs. 6.1-6.7 govern the hearing, modified as needed by any changes in law, except that the burden is to prove Serious Misconduct as defined in HOP 2-2320, sec. VII(C). Additionally, those sections are supplemented by the following paragraphs 3 through 12.

Composition of hearing tribunal. The hearing tribunal shall be composed of a Designee Administrator and three Faculty Panel Advisors. The Designee Administrator makes decisions during the grievance process in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors. Each member of the hearing tribunal must hold academic rank at least equal to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination. And the hearing tribunal may not include a faculty member who might be called as a witness in the hearing or whose fairness or objectivity may reasonably be questioned. If there is not a sufficient number of faculty members of at least equal rank able to serve on the hearing tribunal, the executive vice president and provost will choose additional tribunal members. The president may request counsel from the System Administration’s Office of General Counsel to advise the hearing tribunal.

Notice of tribunal membership; challenge. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly – and no fewer than 8 working days before the hearing commences – provide written notice of the hearing tribunal’s membership to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.5, the faculty member may seek to recuse a tribunal member by challenging the member’s fairness or objectivity. The faculty member must submit the challenge to the executive vice president and provost, or his delegate, within 3 working days of receiving notice of the tribunal membership for decision.

Timing for convening hearing. The hearing tribunal should make every effort to convene the hearing within 15 working days after the tribunal is appointed. The Office of General Faculty shall, at least 10 working days before the hearing convenes, provide notice to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and the Office of the President of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Virtual hearing permitted. The Designee Administrator, in their discretion, may order that the hearing be held in person, by teleconferencing, or some combination of the two.

Hearing closed. The hearing shall be closed.

Right to representation. Both the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and the administration have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing regardless of whether the other decides to avail themselves of representation. If the faculty member is not represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by up to two advisors; if represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by one other advisor.

Obtaining witnesses, documents, or other evidence.
1. Participation encouraged; retaliation prohibited. Faculty and staff shall cooperate fully, as possible, with hearing tribunal requests to participate in the hearing. Faculty and staff may submit a request to decline to participate in the hearing to the Designee Administrator. The Designee Administrator shall consider the basis for the request to decline and decide the request based on relevance, need for information uniquely held by the person, and any other concerns related to ensuring a fair hearing. The hearing tribunal may draw a negative inference from the administration’s lack of cooperation. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against an individual for participating in any way.
2. Opportunity to obtain evidence within University’s control. The faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination shall be afforded an opportunity to obtain relevant evidence within the control of the University, except for evidence that is confidential or exempted from disclosure by law. Whether materials sought are relevant, will be submitted to the Designee Administrator for decision.
3. Providing notice of witnesses and documents. At least 3 working days before the hearing, the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and the administration must provide the other and the hearing tribunal a list of the witnesses to be called, their expected testimony topics, and copies of documents and other exhibits to be submitted in evidence. The Designee Administrator, in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors, shall review the witness list for relevance and confirm or reject offered witnesses on that basis. The Office of General Faculty, in consultation with the hearing tribunal, will provide instructions as to how this is to be accomplished. But notice need not be provided of impeaching or rebuttal witnesses whose identity cannot reasonably be determined beforehand. Even if a party fails to provide proper notice, the Designee Administrator, in their discretion, may permit a witness to testify or a document or other exhibit to be introduced. Hearing Tribunal requests to witnesses will issue following decisions on offered witnesses.

Conduct of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, secs. 6.1 – 6.6. The Designee Administrator, in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors, makes hearing decisions to promote a fair and efficient hearing process. The following rules also apply:
1. Burden of proof. The administration bears the burden of proving, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, Serious Misconduct for Summary Dismissal termination.
2. Order of presentation. The administration has the right to make the first opening argument, present its evidence first, and make the final closing argument.
3. Admissibility of evidence. The Designee Administrator shall admit evidence that is relevant and not unduly prejudicial or time-consuming. The Texas Rules of Evidence apply.
4. Recording and transcription of hearing. The proceedings shall be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and a copy of the verbatim transcript shall be supplied to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination.
5. Adjournments. The Designee Administrator may adjourn to enable either party to investigate evidence for which a claim of surprise is made.
6. Length of hearing. The Designee Administrator may impose reasonable limits on the amount of time each side has to present its case. Both sides shall be afforded the same amount of time.
7. Concealed carry of handguns prohibited. If the hearing is conducted in person, pursuant to HOP 8-1060 (“Campus Concealed Carry”), the concealed carry of handguns shall be prohibited in areas in which the hearing is being conducted. Notice conforming to Texas Penal Code section 30.06 shall be provided.
8. Public statements. Except for routine announcements, such as those relating to the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by the parties and the hearing tribunal members shall be avoided, as far as possible, until a final decision is reached.

Findings and recommendations. Within 10 working days of the completion of the hearing, the Designee Administrator, in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors, shall submit a written report containing findings and recommendations. The recommendations may be to affirm, reverse, or reconsider the Summary Dismissal termination. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.6, the Designee Administrator may also provide any supplementary suggestions deemed proper concerning the disposition of the case. The hearing tribunal shall deliver the original of the report to the president and a copy to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and to the Office of General Faculty. The Office of General Faculty shall provide the president with the original transcript of the hearing and the exhibits.

Final determination by the president. Review by the president of the hearing findings and recommendations is governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5, and University of Texas System Policy 198, sec. 4.

Faculty Grievance Policy – Decision Not to Reappoint a Tenure-Track Faculty Member or Tenure-Track-Eligible Instructor

Governing procedures. Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 7, modified as needed by any changes in law, and as supplemented by the following provisions, governs the filing and resolution of a grievance brought by a full-time, tenure-track professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or instructor who has received notice under:
1. Regents’ Rule 31002, sec. 1, that the faculty member will not be reappointed and that the faculty member’s appointment will expire at the end of the academic year; or
2. Regents’ Rule 31002, sec. 1, and Regents Rule 31007, sec. 5, that the faculty member will not be reappointed and that the next academic year will be the terminal year of the faculty member’s appointment.

This section does not govern a faculty member who is terminated for good cause before the expiration of the stated period of the faculty member’s appointment. Terminations for good cause are governed by section D. Nor does it govern a faculty member who is denied tenure.

Review by provost. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 7.1, a faculty member may present a grievance in person or through a representative to the executive vice president and provost, or another presidential designee, challenging a non-reappointment decision and the executive vice president and provost or designee shall meet with the faculty member.

Written request for hearing tribunal. Within 15 working days after a faculty member meets with the executive vice president and provost or designee, the faculty member may request a review by a hearing tribunal by submitting a written request to the president. The request must describe in detail the facts the faculty member is relying on to prove that the decision was made for reasons that are unlawful under the Constitution or laws of Texas or the United States. The faculty member must also send a copy of the written request to the Office of General Faculty and the executive vice president and provost

President consults with provost. Within 15 working days after the faculty member submits a written request for review by a hearing tribunal, the executive vice president and provost, in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors, shall submit to the president an analysis of the faculty member’s allegations that the decision not to reappoint was made for reasons that are unlawful under the Constitution or laws of Texas or the United States and whether any claims should be subject to review by a hearing tribunal.

President’s decision. Within 15 working days after reviewing the analysis provided by the executive vice president and provost, the president shall decide whether the facts alleged by the faculty member, if proven with credible evidence, support a conclusion that the decision not to reappoint was made for unlawful reasons. If the president so decides, a hearing tribunal will be convened to hear the matter. If the president decides the decision was not made for unlawful reasons, the president’s decision is final. In either case, the president should give written notice of the decision to the faculty member and the Office of General Faculty.

Composition of hearing tribunal. The hearing tribunal shall be composed of a Designee Administrator and three Faculty Panel Advisors. The Designee Administrator makes decisions during the grievance process in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors. Each member of the hearing tribunal must hold academic rank at least equal to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision. And the hearing tribunal may not include a faculty member who might be called as a witness in the hearing or whose fairness or objectivity may reasonably be questioned. If there is not a sufficient number of faculty members of at least equal rank able to serve on the hearing tribunal, executive vice president and provost shall choose additional tribunal members

Notice of tribunal membership; challenge. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly – and no fewer than 8 working days before the hearing commences – provide written notice to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision of the hearing tribunal’s membership. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.5, the faculty member may seek to recuse a tribunal member by challenging the member’s fairness or objectivity. The faculty member must submit the challenge to the executive vice president and provost, or his delegate, within 3 working days of receiving notice of the tribunal membership for decision.

Timing for convening hearing. The hearing tribunal should make every effort to convene the hearing within 15 working days after the president notifies the faculty member of the decision that a hearing tribunal should be convened. The Office of General Faculty shall, at least 10 working days before the hearing convenes, provide notice to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and the Office of the President of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Virtual hearing permitted. The Designee Administrator may, in their discretion, order that the hearing be held in person, by teleconferencing, or some combination of the two.

Hearing closed. The hearing shall be closed.

Right to representation. Both the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and the administration have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing, regardless of whether the other decides to avail themselves of representation. If the faculty member is not represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by up to two advisors; if represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by one other advisor.

Obtaining witnesses, documents, or other evidence.
1. Participation encouraged; retaliation prohibited. Faculty and staff shall cooperate fully, as possible, with the tribunal requests to participate in the hearing. Faculty and staff may submit a request to decline to participate in the hearing to the Designee Administrator. The Designee Administrator shall consider the basis for the request to decline and decide the request based on relevance, need for information uniquely held by the person, and any other concerns related to ensuring a fair hearing. The hearing tribunal may draw a negative inference from the administration’s lack of cooperation. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against an individual for participating in any way.
2. Opportunity to obtain evidence within University’s control. The faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision shall be afforded an opportunity to obtain relevant evidence within the control of the University, except evidence that is confidential or exempted from disclosure by law. Whether materials sought are relevant, will be submitted to the Designee Administrator for decision.
3. Providing notice of witnesses and documents. At least 3 working days before the hearing, the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and the administration must provide the other and the hearing tribunal a list of the witnesses, their expected topics of testimony, and copies of documents and other exhibits to be submitted in evidence. The Designee Administrator, in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors, shall review the witness list for relevance and confirm or reject offered witnesses on that basis. The Office of General Faculty, in consultation with the hearing tribunal, will provide instructions as to how this is to be accomplished. But notice need not be provided of impeaching or rebuttal witnesses whose identity cannot reasonably be determined beforehand. Even if a party fails to provide proper notice, the Designee Administrator, in their discretion, may permit a witness to testify or a document or other exhibit to be introduced. Hearing Tribunal requests to witnesses will issue following decisions on offered witnesses.

Conduct of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, secs. 6.1 – 6.6, except where otherwise provided by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 7.2. The Designee Administrator, in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors, makes hearing decisions to promote a fair and efficient hearing process. The following rules also apply:
1. Burden of proof. Under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 7.2(a), the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision bears the burden of proving, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, that the non-reappointment decision was made for reasons that are unlawful under the Constitution or laws of Texas or the United States. The administration need not state the reasons for its non-reappointment decision or offer supporting evidence unless the faculty member presents credible evidence that, if unchallenged, proves the decision was made for unlawful reasons.
2. Order of presentation. The faculty member has the right to make the first opening argument, present evidence first, and make the final closing argument.
3. Admissibility of evidence. The Designee Administrator shall admit evidence that is relevant and not unduly prejudicial or time-consuming. The Texas Rules of Evidence apply.
4. Recording and transcription of hearing. The proceedings shall be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and a copy of the verbatim transcript shall be supplied to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision.
5. Adjournments. The Designee Administrator may adjourn to enable either party to investigate evidence for which a credible claim of surprise is made.
6. Length of hearing. The Designee Administrator may impose reasonable limits on the amount of time each side has to present its case.
7. Concealed carry of handguns prohibited. If the hearing is conducted in person, pursuant to HOP 8-1060 (“Campus Concealed Carry”), the concealed carry of handguns shall be prohibited in areas in which the hearing is being conducted. Notice conforming to Texas Penal Code section 30.06 shall be provided.
8. Public statements. Except for routine announcements, such as those relating to the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by the parties and the hearing tribunal shall be avoided, as far as possible, until a final decision is reached.

Findings and recommendations. Within 10 working days of the completion of the hearing, the Designee Administrator, in consultation with the Faculty Panel Advisors shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 7.2(c). The Designee Administrator shall deliver the original of the report to the president and a copy to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and to the Office of General Faculty. The Office of General Faculty shall provide the president with the original transcript of the hearing and the exhibits and the faculty member with a copy of the transcript and exhibits.

Review by the president. Based on the record of the hearing, the president may approve, reject, or amend the hearing tribunal’s findings and recommendations.
1. Opportunity to present arguments. Upon receipt by the president of the hearing report, hearing transcript, and exhibits, the president shall give the parties 10 working days to submit written arguments based on the hearing record.
2. Time for decision. Once the deadline for submitting written arguments has passed, the president shall review the hearing record and the parties’ written arguments. The president should try to provide a written decision within 10 working days. If the president needs additional time, the president should promptly notify the parties and the Office of General Faculty and inform them when a decision will be rendered.
3. Finality of decision. The president’s decision to approve, reject, or amend the hearing report is final.

Forms & Tools

None

Frequently Asked Questions

None

Related Information

None

History

Modified to Interim: September 1, 2025

Modified: December 1, 2023 (Interim Policy)
*substantive revisions made in response to changes in the law from Senate Bill 18, of the 88th Texas Legislature, 2023 session
Editorial Revisions: May 22, 2024
Next scheduled review: August 2024

Previously Modified: March 10, 2023

Previously Modified: June 14, 2022
Previous editorial change made February 23, 2016, April 21, 2016, June 14,2022

Previously HOP 3.18