Appeals Process for Denial of Promotion

Submitted by admin on Thu, 01/30/2020 - 16:12

Grounds for Appeals

The two bases for appeal are: violation of substantive due process or violation of procedural due process.  Violation of substantive due process means that: (1) the decision was based upon an illegal or constitutionally impermissible consideration; e.g., upon the candidate's gender, race, age, nationality, handicap, sexual orientation, or on the candidate's exercise of protected First Amendment freedoms (i.e., freedom of speech); or (2) the decision was based on erroneous information or misinterpretation of information, or the decision was clearly inconsistent with the supporting materials (APT Policy Section V.B.1.b).

Violation of procedural due process arises when the decision was negatively influenced by a failure during the APT review:  (1) to take a procedural step or (2) to fulfill a procedural requirement established in APT Policy or review procedures of a Department or College.  Violations occurring prior to the review process are not a basis for an appeal (APT Policy Section V.B.1.b).

The Appeals Process

A request for an appeal must be made in writing to the President within 60 calendar days of notification of the decision not to grant tenure, promotion, reappointment, or emeriti status (APT Policy Section V.B.1.a). The request must detail the basis for the appeal and evidence to support the claims. The grounds for the appeal must be within the purview of those identified in the University APT Policy (APT Policy Section V.B.1.b).  Faculty members with questions regarding this process should contact the Office of Faculty Affairs.  The President will determine whether to grant the request for an appeal based on the criteria stated above.

If an appeal request is granted, an Appeals Committee is formed (APT Policy Section V.A). The appellant has an additional 60 days in which to submit materials related to the case to the Office of Faculty Affairs. The appellant should be aware that these materials will be shared with the Appeals Committee, and with parties against whom allegations are made and any other persons deemed necessary by the Committee (APT Policy Section V.B.1.a).

The Committee will meet with the Appellant, and other parties, and investigate the case, as it deems appropriate (APT Policy Section V.B.1.d.3).  If there were any objections to evaluators submitted by the appellant during the process of selection of external reviewers, this information may be requested. The Committee may not substitute its academic judgment for the judgment of those in the review.

The Committee makes a recommendation to the President who makes the final decision (APT Policy Section V.B.1.d.4). When the President supports the findings of the APT Appeals Committee, and authorizes corrective action to be taken, the Provost has the responsibility for oversight and implementation of any such corrective action. (APT Policy Section V.B.1.e.1)

Last Updated: