Appendix F: Faculty Ombuds and Faculty Hearing Committee

I. Purpose

Duke University (University), with the concurrence of the Academic Council, has established a centralized Office of the Ombuds and University Ombuds and a Faculty Hearing Committee (FHC). The Office of the Ombuds and University Ombuds and the FHC shall function in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth below. As set forth in its Charter, the Office adheres to and has adopted the International Ombuds Association (“IOA”) Standards of Practice and the Code of Ethics for organizational Ombuds programs.

II. The Office of the Ombuds and University Ombuds

The mission of the Office of the Ombuds is to enhance an ethical, supportive, and responsive culture for all members of the University community by providing confidential, impartial, informal, and independent conflict resolution services and problem-solving support.  The Office of the Ombuds also elevates emerging trends or concerns to the attention of University leadership to improve fairness and effectiveness at a systems level.

The Office of the Ombuds is staffed with full-time professional Ombuds and is led by the University Ombuds. The University Ombuds shall report directly to the president of Duke University. The president will consult with the Executive Committee of the Academic Council (ECAC) for assistance in the search and selection of the University Ombuds and, likewise, the University Ombuds will consult with ECAC regarding the hiring of other professional ombuds within the Office of the Ombuds. The president will consult with ECAC annually to solicit feedback on the work of the Office of the Ombuds.

 B. Authority

The Office of the Ombuds and University Ombuds shall address concerns or inquiries from faculty and instructional staff related to problems in the workplace or alleged instances of unfairness, impropriety, or insensitivity. In addition, the Ombuds shall have the authority to discuss concerns from faculty and instructional staff including but not limited to the following matters:

1. The university’s policy concerning academic freedom and academic tenure as set forth in Appendix D of this handbook;

2. The university’s policy of equal treatment in employment, without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex, genetic information, or age;

3. Dismissal for misconduct or neglect of duty;

4. Termination of appointment prior to its expiration date;

5. Disputed claims by a faculty member to the existence of tenure;

6. Allegations of violation of academic freedom;

7. Allegations of violation of academic due process with respect to an adverse employment or disciplinary action, including allegations of biased or prejudiced conduct by a decision-maker of a substantial nature that likely had a material impact on the outcome of the proceedings;

8. Allegations of adverse employment action involving discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex, genetic information, or age. Adverse employment actions include actions with respect to the member's rank, salary, fringe benefits, sabbatical and other leaves with or without compensation, workload or work assignment, promotion, tenure, and extension or termination of employment.

9. Allegations of damaging instances of harassment directed against faculty and instructional staff by other members of the university community after failure of a university officer or agency to resolve the matter.

10. Faculty and instructional staff may consult with the Ombuds at any time. However, after a complaint has been filed with the Faculty Hearing Committee, consultation with the Ombuds shall be limited to questions about the FHC’s formal processes, functions, and related procedural matters.

C. Function

The Office of the Ombuds is a confidential, informal, independent, and impartial resource for faculty and instructional staff. The Ombuds provides faculty and instructional staff with guidance on a range of issues, including communication and conflict management skills. The Ombuds listens to the concerns of faculty and instructional staff, clarifies issues, identifies options, serves as a strategic thought partner, provides referrals and other relevant information, and facilitates one-on-one and group conversations, as appropriate. Consistent with standards set forth by the International Ombuds Association (IOA), the Ombuds “promotes equitably administered processes but does not advocate on behalf of anyone.” Among other things, it is expected that:

1. The Ombuds will practice active listening, ask strategic questions, provide information, and help faculty and instructional staff identify and evaluate available options. With the permission of the inquiring faculty or instructional staff member, the Ombuds will facilitate communications, review documentation and other relevant materials, or make referrals.

2. With the permission of the inquiring faculty or instructional staff member, the Ombuds may confer and discuss the concerns of faculty and instructional staff with appropriate academic officers.

3. The Ombuds will issue an annual report to the president and ECAC. These reports will provide broad, de-identified information about the program and usage, including data, trends and descriptions of outreach and educational activities in a manner that protects confidential information and consistent with generally-accepted organizational Ombuds practices. The Ombuds may also prepare additional periodic reports for other campus stakeholders, schools, and/or departments, as appropriate, such as the Office for Faculty Advancement.

4. The Ombuds will operate independently of existing administrative structures. The Ombuds is not an official of the university and has no authority to make decisions on behalf of the university or on behalf of individual faculty, to conduct formal investigations, to override policies or decisions, or to provide legal advice. The Ombuds shall be available to answer questions about how to file a formal written complaint with the FHC, as described in III.D below, and to meet with faculty and instructional staff before the initiation of any formal hearings or investigations under university processes. After the initiation of a formal hearing or investigation with the FHC, the Ombuds’ role shall be limited as described in II.B.10. The Ombuds, upon request, shall have access to such university records, accounts, files, and other sources of information as may be pertinent to the concern of the faculty or instructional staff member, unless such access is otherwise restricted by law.

D. Confidentiality

1. Confidentiality is essential to the Ombuds function and helps create a safe place for faculty and instructional staff to voice concerns, evaluate issues, understand university processes, identify options, and address conflict.

2. The Ombuds shall not disclose information of a private or confidential nature, except: 1) with the express permission of the inquiring faculty or instructional staff, and at the sole discretion of the Ombuds; or 2) where the Ombuds determines there is imminent risk of serious physical harm or in cases of suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation of a child or a disabled or elder adult; or 3) where the Ombuds determines it is necessary to defend themselves against a formal complaint of professional misconduct related to a specific matter.  The Ombuds shall oppose disclosing confidential information in any formal, administrative or legal matter, unless an appropriate judicial or regulatory authority determines that disclosure is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice or that disclosure is required because the interests served by disclosure clearly outweigh the interests served by Ombuds confidentiality.

3. The Ombuds is not authorized to receive notice on behalf of the university of any formal complaint to the university. For faculty and instructional staff wishing to place the university on notice of any formal complaint, charge, grievance, lawsuit or other claim, the faculty or instructional staff member must file such notice in the appropriate university office. The Ombuds will refer those wishing to place the university on notice of claims to the appropriate office such as the Office for Institutional Equity (OIE), Human Resources, the Duke Office of Scientific Integrity (DOSI) or the Office of Audit, Risk and Compliance (OARC). Conversations with the Ombuds do not toll or affect any time limits by which notice of claims must be provided to the university. The Ombuds is not a Campus Security Authority under the Jeanne Clery Act of 1990 as amended nor is the Ombuds a mandatory reporter under Title IX.

4. To the extent allowed by law, Duke University will protect the confidentiality of 1) communications between faculty and instructional staff and the Ombuds, and 2) other activities undertaken by the Ombuds pursuant to this Appendix.

 5. The Ombuds may at the Ombuds’ discretion discontinue providing services to a faculty or instructional staff member who is not using the Ombuds’ services in good faith or is not abiding by the Ombuds’ terms of service.

 For more information about the scope and role of the Ombuds, please see the Duke University Ombuds Charter, visit the Ombuds website, and/or contact the Office of the Ombuds directly.

III. The Faculty Hearing Committee

A. Purpose and Selection

1. The Faculty Hearing Committee (FHC) is a review body constituted by the Academic Council and its Executive Committee in furtherance of faculty governance. Its purpose is to provide Faculty Members with a process for seeking review and recommendations from an unbiased panel of peers in instances within the FHC’s jurisdiction, as defined herein.

2. The FHC consists of at least 12 and up to 18 regular rank faculty members (as defined in Chapter 2 of the Faculty Handbook) nominated by the Executive Committee of the Academic Council and elected by the Council at large. In its nominations, the Executive Committee shall seek a reasonable representation of the university's academic community. The Executive Committee shall appoint one member of the FHC to act as Chair.

3. FHC members shall serve for three-year terms and may be reelected. However, no person shall serve more than six consecutive years. Departing members shall nonetheless conclude cases pending before them at the time of the expiration of their terms. Vacancies arising during an academic year may be filled by appointment by the Executive Committee of the Academic Council until the next regular election of FHC members.

B. Jurisdiction

1. In General. The FHC shall have jurisdiction to consider complaints from faculty concerning one or more of the following matters, except that the faculty hearing process is not applicable to faculty who are subject to a collective bargaining agreement:

a. Allegations of violations of the university’s policies concerning academic freedom and academic tenure as set forth in Appendix D of the Faculty Handbook.

b. Allegations of significant adverse employment action involving discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex, genetic information, or age. Examples of adverse employment actions include but are not limited to actions with respect to a member’s rank, salary, fringe benefits, sabbatical and other leaves (with or without compensation), workload or work assignment, promotion, tenure, and extension or termination of employment.

c. Dismissal for misconduct or neglect of duty.

d. Termination of appointment prior to its expiration date.

e. Allegations of material procedural unfairness or violation with respect to an adverse employment action. (Adverse employment action has the same meaning here as in B.1.b.) A claim of material procedural unfairness or violation may be based on allegations (i) that the decision-maker did not follow applicable university procedures in deciding upon the adverse employment action, (ii) that the decision-maker did follow applicable university procedures but that those procedures are fundamentally unfair, or (iii) that the decision-maker acted out of bias or prejudice that materially impacted the decision to take the adverse employment action.

f. Allegations of significant adverse employment action relating to damaging instances of harassment, other than those outlined in B.1.b., directed against a faculty member by another member (or members) of the university community after failure of a university officer or office to resolve the matter.

2. Title IX matters. In the case of a complaint filed by a faculty member with the FHC following a determination by the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) that the faculty member engaged in conduct in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (relating to sex discrimination in higher education), the FHC’s jurisdiction is limited to review of sanctions (significant adverse employment actions) imposed on the faculty member based on OIE’s determination. The FHC does not have jurisdiction to review OIE’s finding of a Title IX violation, or to review any remedy issued to a Title IX complainant or any other person whose equal access to education programs or activities was limited or denied by sex discrimination.
   

C. Filing of Complaint

1. The FHC process commences when a Faculty Member files a written Complaint with the Chair of the FHC. A Complaint may be filed only by an individual Faculty Member and not on behalf of a group or class of faculty. In instances of identical or closely related complaints filed by multiple Faculty Members, the Chair may convene a panel to consider in a single proceeding such multiple complaints.

2. The Complaint shall:

a. State the action or actions complained of;

b. Confirm that all other university action in the matter is complete, or, if not, explain why special circumstances justify FHC’s consideration of the matter;

c. Provide a detailed description of the events that gave rise to the Complaint;

d. Include attachments, exhibits, and statements that support the allegations in the Complaint;

e. Identify persons known or believed to have contributed to the adverse decision or action that affected the Faculty Member; and

f. Propose a desired remedy.

3. The Chair shall serve as the presiding officer on the panel. If the Chair is unable to serve on the panel, the Chair shall select another member of the FHC to preside on the matter.

4. If the Chair determines that jurisdiction is in question, a panel of at least three FHC members, including the Chair or presiding member, shall confer to resolve jurisdiction. If the panel finds that the Complaint is not within FHC jurisdiction, the Chair shall inform the Faculty Member who filed the Complaint.

5. Upon receipt of a Complaint and following a determination of jurisdiction, the Chair shall determine who is the appropriate Respondent or Respondents based upon allegations in the Complaint. In making the determination, the Chair shall take into account any input from University officials concerning the appropriate Respondent(s). If the Complaint is based upon action taken against the Faculty Member by the Member’s department, the department chair will ordinarily be designated as the Respondent. In cases involving dismissal or termination, the Respondent is the President or the President’s designee.

6. The Chair shall notify the Respondent or Respondents of the matter and provide copies of the Faculty Member’s Complaint and supporting materials.

7. The Chair may require a written response from the Respondent or Respondents and shall provide a copy of any response to the Faculty Member who filed the Complaint.

D. Hearing Procedure

1. If the Chair determines that a Complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the FHC, the Chair shall appoint a Panel to consider the matter and, unless not necessary, conduct a hearing.

2. The Panel shall be drawn from the current members of the FHC. At least one member of the Panel shall be trained in law. The Chair shall notify both parties of the names of the Panel members. Either party may challenge any Panel member on grounds of personal interest or bias. If the Chair agrees that a challenge is warranted, the Chair shall appoint a replacement. The Chair or the Chair’s designate shall act as the presiding officer of the Panel.

3. In cases of denial of tenure or denial of reappointment, Panels shall consist of five members. In all other cases, the chair of the FHC may, after notifying all parties and considering any objections, name a Panel of fewer than five, but not fewer than three, members. Former FHC members may be appointed in cases of necessity.

4. Hearing

a. The Panel may consider issues in advance of any hearing and resolve any issues for which there is no material factual dispute necessitating a hearing.

b. The purpose of any hearing is to afford the parties opportunity to support their positions and to afford the Panel the opportunity to gather additional material information from parties and witnesses.

c. If a hearing is required, it shall be held at a time and place mutually agreeable to the Panel, the Faculty Member, and the Respondent(s). In case of dispute, the presiding officer shall set the time and place.

d. Prior to the hearing, the presiding officer may discuss with the parties the plan for the hearing.

e. The hearing shall be conducted in private unless the Faculty Member, Respondent(s), and Panel all agree otherwise. The Panel shall have the discretion to permit attendance of, or call as witnesses, other individuals relevant to the matter.

f. If the President, Provost, or Executive Vice-President for Health Affairs is a Respondent, they may attend the hearing or designate a representative to attend.

g. All parties may have an advisor in attendance at the hearing. The advisor may not take an active part in the hearing.

h. If the complaining Faculty Member has difficulty securing the attendance of witnesses, the university administration shall request such witnesses to appear. If a witness declines to appear, but submits a written statement, either party may respond to the written statement.

i. All evidence, written and oral, shall be recorded by a means furnished by the university.

j. All parties shall be provided an opportunity, within reasonable limits set by the Panel, to present relevant evidence at the hearing, including the opportunity to:

i. Present their own statement about relevant issues raised by the Complaint;

ii. Call witnesses and question all witnesses, by whomever called, and/or submit questions to the presiding officer to be posed to any witness;

iii. Introduce documents or other exhibits in support of any claim or response;

iv. Rebut any evidence.

k. The presiding officer shall make determinations relating to the admission or exclusion of evidence.

l. The presiding officer shall ensure that all participants are treated with respect and conduct themselves professionally.

m. The Panel, upon request, and unless prohibited by law, shall have access to such university records, accounts, files, and other sources of information as may be relevant to issues raised in the Complaint.

n. If any party objects to the Panel hearing any evidence on grounds of confidentiality or privacy, the Chair or presiding officer, after consultation with university counsel, shall initially review the requested evidence without providing it to other participants, and shall determine whether substantially equivalent evidence is available by other means that would resolve any objection on grounds of confidentiality or privacy, whether redaction of portions of the evidence would resolve any issues, or whether the evidence must be disclosed to ensure fairness of process.

o. If any party fails to produce evidence in that party’s possession or control that the Chair or presiding officer has required be produced, and the evidence is not otherwise protected by law, the Panel may presume, where circumstances warrant, that the evidence would be unfavorable to the party who failed to produce it.

p. The Panel and the parties shall not disclose information of a private or confidential nature obtained in FHC proceedings, except as directed below, or where required by law.

E. Findings and Recommendations of Panel

1. Except as stated in paragraph E.2, the burden shall be on the Faculty Member to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts support the Faculty Member’s claims.

2. In cases involving dismissal for misconduct or neglect of duty, or in the case of termination of an appointment prior to its expiration date, the burden shall be on the Respondent to prove by a preponderance of the evidence misconduct or neglect of duty justifying dismissal or termination.

3. The Panel shall issue a Report of its findings and recommendation, if any. The report shall be by majority vote and shall be based on the information provided in the Complaint, in any response, and at the hearing. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Report should be issued within 60 days of the hearing.

4. In all cases within its jurisdiction in which a violation is found, the FHC may recommend any remedy consistent with university policy.

5. The Chair shall provide the Hearing Panel’s Report to the Faculty Member, the Respondent(s), the chair of the Academic Council, the Vice President for Institutional Equity, the relevant Dean (or other appropriate designee identified by the Provost), the Provost or the Executive Vice-President for Health Affairs, as appropriate. If the Provost or the Executive Vice-President for Health Affairs is a Respondent in the matter, the Report shall also be sent directly to the President.

6. The FHC’s recommendation shall be implemented by the Provost or the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs, as appropriate, unless the Provost or the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs determines that: (1) the matter was clearly outside the jurisdiction of the FHC; (2) the Report’s recommendations were (a) not supported by substantial evidence; (b) clearly erroneous; or (c) in violation of university policy; or (3) non-implementation is required by other extraordinary circumstances. The Provost or the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs shall state in writing the reasons for not implementing the FHC recommendations. The Faculty Member and the panel shall be informed of the decision of the Provost or the Executive Vice-President for Health Affairs and shall be given the opportunity to present reasons why the Report’s recommendations should be accepted. If the Provost or the Executive Vice-President for Health Affairs determines that implementation of the FHC panel decision would be imprudent, impractical, or unnecessarily repetitious, the Provost or the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs may request that the FHC modify or amend the Report’s recommendations.

F. Appeals

1. A Complainant may appeal in writing to the Provost or the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs within 10 business days of receipt of the Faculty Hearing Committee decision giving reasons why they believe that the decision is wrong and specifying actions they believe should have been taken. Notice of any such appeal shall be simultaneously provided to the Respondent(s) and the panel, all of whom may then reply to the appeal in writing within 10 business days of receipt of the appeal. The Provost or the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs’ decision shall be based on the report of the panel and written submissions by the parties. The Provost or the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs may confer with the presiding officer if desired.

2. The Respondent(s) or Complainant may appeal the decision of the Provost or the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs to the President within 10 business days after receipt of the decision. Notice of any such appeal shall be simultaneously provided to the adverse party and the FHC. The adverse party and/or the FHC may, within 10 business days of receipt of the appeal, submit to the President reasons why the decision of the Provost or Executive Vice President for Health Affairs should be upheld. The President normally shall make a decision within 30 days of the request for review.

3. In cases where the President, at the completion of an FHC matter, upholds the dismissal of a faculty member or termination of appointment prior to its expiration date, the faculty member may request further review by the Executive Committee of the Duke University Board of Trustees. This request must be made in writing to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees within 10 business days after receipt of the decision by the President. If the Executive Committee chooses to consider taking action in the case, its review shall be based on the record of the FHC proceeding, the report of the panel, the decision of the Provost or Executive Vice President for Health Affairs, and the decision of the President on appeal. The Executive Committee may consult with the presiding officer. The Executive Committee may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of the FHC.

G. Records

For each complaint filed with the FHC, an electronic and/or paper file shall be maintained in the office of the Academic Council for retention of all records created pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sections C through F of these rules. Such file shall be maintained for at least three years. Upon conclusion of each FHC matter, the Chair or presiding officer in the matter shall provide all such records to the Executive Assistant of the Academic Council.

IV. Records

A file in the office of the Academic Council shall be maintained for retention of all records created pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sections II and III of this Appendix. Such records shall be kept for at least three years.

Revised and adopted September 17, 1998; September 2001; September 2014; May 2017; September 2018; May 2023; May 2025
In the May 2023 revision, Appendix N became Appendix F.