Category Archives: Legal issues

RCMP release sketch of suspect in UBC sexual assaults

CBC News, November 5, 2013– RCMP have released a composite sketch of the suspect in a string of sexual assaults at the University of British Columbia this year.

Sgt. Peter Thiessen says the suspect in question is a Caucasian male, with dark or olive skin, in his late 20s to early 30s. He is slim in build and measures between 5 foot 8 and 6 foot 2.

Thiessen is asking anybody who has information about the suspect to contact the RCMP’s tipline at 778-290-5291 or 1-877-543-4822.

Six sexual assaults have taken place on the UBC campus over the past several months. Police say they were likely committed by the same suspect.

The most recent assault, reported Oct. 27, involved a young woman walking home from Gage Hall on Student Union Boulevard shortly before 1:30 a.m. She noticed a shadow behind her and was grabbed from behind. When she flailed her arms, the suspect ran off, police had said.

The other five reported incidents occurred April 19, May 19, Sept. 28, Oct. 13 and Oct. 19.

View sketch: CBC News

George Mason University course to examine Trayvon Martin case

Holly Hobbs, Fairfax Times, July 18, 2013– As the nation reflects on the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, a college course this fall will offer an academic look at the case’s impact outside of the courtroom.

George Mason University Professor Rutledge Dennis, a professor of sociology and anthropology, will teach “From Homer Plessy to Trayvon Martin: Issues in Race, Culture, and Politics,” which he said would look at historic cases involving race and their impacts on society. The course title has been abbreviated on Mason’s website: Plessy to Martin: Race and Politics.

“I hope our students will get out of it a sense of how racial, political and cultural issues impact how we interact,” Dennis said.

While the course aims to introduce students to historic themes through a contemporary example, Dennis and the university garnered much criticism online, mostly from conservative bloggers and media outlets like The Daily Caller, The National Review and Red Alert Politics.

“I have received a lot of nasty, hateful emails about this course because people assume it’s a course [only] about Trayvon Martin,” Dennis said. “Trayvon Martin is just one case.”

The course begins with coverage of the landmark 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, which upheld “separate but equal” racial segregation of public facilities. Students also will study other historic cases, such as the 1931 arrests of the “Scottsboro Boys,” a group of nine black teenagers who were accused of raping two white women in Alabama. The course includes a number of contemporary high-profile trials like the 1992 trials of Los Angeles police officers accused of beating construction worker Rodney King and the murder trial of former NFL running back O.J. Simpson, which ended in 1995.

Many of the trials included in the course syllabus occurred before most current undergraduate students were born. The Trayvon Martin case offers a current example and context for undergrads, Dennis said.

“The Trayvon Martin case is important academically because race and issues around race are academic issues,” Dennis said, adding that the humanities often study gender and class; so why not race? “While this case did not begin as a racial case, it ended as one.”

Mason Provost Peter Stearns says criticism of curriculum is not a common occurrence for the university, but it is also not unheard of.

“Regularly, university faculty deal with topics that have different viewpoints. [Previously] George Mason University has been accused of being too liberal and too conservative,” he said. “One of the challenges in teaching is you want to make sure students understand the historical context and themes. But we also want to make sure they can apply this knowledge to current issues.”

Dennis said he hopes his course will offer students the opportunity to debate why Martin’s death and Zimmerman’s trial sparked intense media coverage and debate.

“I think it got attention for many people because we have an unarmed teenager who was shot by someone of another ethnic group,” Dennis said. “Young black men have been taken advantage of by the system. … And this becomes, for many, another example of a young black man being taken advantage of by the system.”

As of Wednesday, 16 students had registered for Dennis’ class (AFAM 390), which is cross-listed as both an African and African American Studies and Sociology/Anthropology course.

Chan v UBC discrimination case sent back to BC Human Rights Tribunal

The University of British Columbia’s petition to dismiss Dr. Jennifer Chan’s complaint of racial discrimination must go back to the BC Human Rights Tribunal says a 29 May 2013 BC Supreme Court’s judgment. The BCHRT’s decision on 24 January 2012 to hear the Chan v UBC and others [Beth Haverkamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, Rob Tierney] case was moved to the Supreme Court for a judicial review. In addition to the BCHRT decision and Supreme Court judgment, the Ubyssey’s (UBC student newspaper) feature article provides a background to the case.

In the Supreme Court judgment, Madam Justice Loo argues that the BCHRT must assess whether “the complaint has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.” A decision within the BCHRT to hear the case must address UBC’s argument that “internal university processes [used to hear Chan’s appeals] qualified under the Code as ‘proceedings’ that had appropriately addressed the substance of” Chan’s complaint. Chan “asserts that she has exhausted the internal complaint mechanism of UBC and that it was flawed.”

Lessons of Harvard’s secret email search

Dan Gillmor, The Guardian, March 11, 2013— According to Harvard Universityemail subject lines are not “content”. This remarkable claim comes in a university statement, sardonicallycalled a “partial apology” by the Boston Globe, attempting to explain why Harvard semi-searched email accounts of 16 “resident deans” to find out who’d leaked information about a student cheating scandal to the press.

The statement attempted to put to rest a mini-uproar set off by theGlobe’s initial report on the leaker probe methods. In attempting to explain what had happened, and to assure the Harvard community that people’s emails weren’t being scanned wholesale, the statement answered some questions but only provoked others.

Most of all, the entire episode highlighted several realities in today’s working world: notably, the folly of using an employer’s email system for any purpose that might ever prove controversial.

I won’t even attempt to sort out the Harvard explanation; it’s too convoluted. But I do want to point to the bizarre assertion mentioned at the top of this piece. The statement says, in part:

“The search did not involve a review of email content; it was limited to a search of the subject line of the email that had been inappropriately forwarded. To be clear: no one’s emails were opened and the contents of no one’s emails were searched by human or machine.”

I have news for the deans under whose names this statement appeared. Like most people who send email, I try hard to make the subject line relevant enough that the recipient will be inclined to open the missive and read it. Other highly relevant material in my email includes the name of the person I’m sending it to; the date; the time; the internet address of the machine I’m using; and the network I’m sending from. None of those is the message itself, but they are “content” in every way that matters. That data form the basis for all kinds of inferences and knowledge about me.

I take for granted that Harvard, like all employers, has a right to look at pretty much anything it pleases on the machines that are part of its network, and I’d put administrative email accounts, as these were, fairly high on the list. That doesn’t mean Harvard is necessarily doing the right thing, or that any employer exercising its internal snooping rights, except in the rarest of circumstances, is being honorable with its employees.

It does mean that employees should always assume that their employers’ networks are under surveillance, at least internally.

Read More: The Guardian

“Premier’s plan is flawed:” BCTF responds to plan to undermine bargaining

Premier Christy Clark’s proposed plan for a 10-year deal with public school teachers  ignores court rulings, contradicts government’s own legislation, and risks scuttling a positive bargaining framework on the eve of its expected ratification by  the BC Teachers’ Federation and the BC Public School Employers’ Association.

“The premier’s plan is flawed in a number of significant ways,” said BCTF President Susan Lambert.

“The key problem is that it ignores the ruling of the BC Supreme Court that teachers have the right to bargain working conditions, such as class size and class composition. The Liberals’ own Bill 22 also allows for these issues to be negotiated in this round but her new plan requires teachers to give up this hard-won right. Over the past decade, when Liberal policy regulated learning conditions, class sizes grew and support for students with special needs suffered,” Lambert said.

As a consequence, BC has the worst student-educator ratio in the country, according to the latest data from Statistics Canada. In order to bring BC’s teacher staffing levels just up to the national average, the province would have to hire an astounding 6,800 more teachers.

Another major problem is the indexing of teachers’ salaries to average increases of other government employees. “This is fundamentally unfair because it effectively prohibits teachers from negotiating for their own salaries,” Lambert said. “Under such a scheme government has all the cards. The average of net zero is zero.” BC teachers’ salaries are lagging far behind those of other teachers in Canada, and the gap will only widen under this plan, she added.

Lambert questioned the government’s timing on today’s announcement, given that it comes one day before the beginning of the BCTF’s Representative Assembly and the BCPSEA’s annual general meeting. Representatives of both organizations are slated to vote on a new Framework Agreement which offers a positive process for the upcoming round of bargaining.

“In recent months we’ve quietly had productive conversations with the employer about how to achieve a smoother more effective round, and it’s most unfortunate that government chose to intervene at this time,” Lambert said. “The BCTF will continue to recommend ratification of the Framework Agreement and we hope this abrupt announcement from government will not prevent BCPSEA from doing the same.”

On the surface the premier’s rhetoric sounds conciliatory after more than a decade of conflict between the BCTF and the BC Liberals but, in reality, her plan is yet another effort to severely limit teachers’ constitutional right to bargain.

Read More: BCTF News Release

Chan v UBC Hearing Scheduled at BC Supreme Court

The BC Supreme Court has scheduled a Hearing date for the Jennifer Chan v UBC and others [Beth Haverkamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, Rob Tierney] racial discrimination case for Tuesday 13 November 2012 at 10am.  In January this year, BC Human Rights Tribunal decided to move the case to Hearing. In March, UBC petitioned to the BC Supreme Court for a judicial review to challenge the BCHRT’s decision. The Hearing is now in front of the BC Supreme Court and open to the public:

The Supreme Court is located at 800 Smithe Street (between Hornby and Howe).

The case involves the David Lam Chair in Multicultural Education selection process in Fall 2009. Please see the Ubyssey’s (UBC student newspaper) feature article for background to the case.

Two new, similar complaints were accepted for filing by the BCHRT:
1) by an aboriginal Law Professor at UBC alleging denial of Tenure and Promotion on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, family status and sex.

2) by an anonymous Professor in BC alleging denial of Tenure and Promotion on a basis of her ancestry and place of origin.

Workplace bullying: Family of Journal Editor Who Committed Suicide Sues U. of Virginia

The Chronicle: Family of Journal Editor Who Committed Suicide Sues U. of Virginia

Two years after Kevin Morrissey, a former managing editor of the Virginia Quarterly Review, killed himself following complaints he made about workplace bullying by his boss, the former VQR editor Ted Genoways, Mr. Morrissey’s family has filed a $10-million wrongful-death lawsuit against the University of Virginia, which publishes the award-winning journal.

The suit also names as defendants several current and former university employees, including Mr. Genoways and John T. Casteen III, who is president emeritus and continues as a faculty member at the university.

The lawsuit, filed last Wednesday in Virginia circuit court on behalf of Mr. Morrissey’s siblings and his father by Douglas R. Morrissey, one of Mr. Morrissey’s brothers, says the university failed to adequately respond to numerous complaints Mr. Morrissey made about Mr. Genoways in the weeks before his death. Mr. Morrissey complained at least 25 times, the suit says, to the offices of the president, human resources, and employee relations, saying Mr. Genoways had banned him from the journal’s office for unspecified “unacceptable workplace behavior.”

Legal battle ends, “larger struggle continues” for professor denied tenure because of her politics

Legal battle ends, “larger struggle continues” for professor denied tenure because of her politics

The North Carolina Supreme Court won’t consider a petition of discretionary review by professor Terri Ginsberg, who was denied tenure several years ago after her outspoken criticism of Israeli policies.

Ginsberg, a film scholar, has said that following her public criticism of Israeli policies, she endured immediate retaliation from the administration of North Carolina State University, where she was a professor of film studies. As I reported in January 2010, she was “punished with partial removal from — and interference in — duty, non-renewal of contract and rejection from a tenure-track position” in 2008.

U. of California at San Diego Settles Racial-Harassment Complaints

U. of California at San Diego Settles Racial-Harassment Complaints

The University of California at San Diego has reached a settlement with the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education after an investigation of racial-harassment complaints on the campus.

The complaints stemmed from several incidents, including public displays of hanging nooses and a Ku Klux Klan-style hood, that began last year and seemed to take aim at African-American students. The incidents prompted student protests, and the president of the University of California system, Mark G. Yudof, responded to the apparent racism on his Facebook page. “It has no place in civilized society, and it will not be tolerated—not on this particular campus, not on any University of California campus,” he wrote.

Update on BC Human Rights Tribunal complaints against UBC

Workplace Blog has learned that in addition to Professor Jennifer Chan’s racial discrimination complaint against the University of British Columbia, there is at least one additional racial discrimination complaint against UBC lodged with the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

Wang, Tai, Wang v. The University of British Columbia, Churg, Barfoot, Wright (BCHRT Case 6120) has been scheduled for a hearing regarding BC Human Right Code Section 13 Employment – Ancestry, Colour, Mental Disability, Physical Disability, Place of Origin, Race. The complainants, who were laboratory technicians in the UBC Faculty of Medicine, filed their original complaint in 2008.

According to the BCHRT March 2012 schedule, hearing dates for Wang et al v. UBC are: August 13 to 17, 20 to 24, 27 to 31, September 10 to 14, 17 to 21, 24 to 28, 2012. Hearing dates often change at the last moment. Call the Tribunal at 604-775-2000 or toll free at 1-888-440-8844 to see if a hearing will proceed as scheduled.

Documents relevant to specific BCHRT cases (e.g., original complaints and responses) are available for public review 90 days prior to scheduled hearing date. To obtain documents call the BCHRT at 604 775-2000.

Documents related to the Wang, Tai, Wang complaint will be available May 13, 2012.

Documents related to Chan v. UBC are available now. Call BCHRT at 604 775-2000.

UBC asks BC Supreme Court to review racial discrimination complaint

The Ubyssey: UBC asks BC Supreme Court to review racial discrimination complaint

UBC has applied to the BC Supreme Court for a judicial review of a professor’s discrimination complaint.

A BC Human Rights Tribunal (HRT) decision called for a full judicial hearing of a complaint made in May 2010 by UBC Education professor Jennifer Chan. But the university is arguing that UBC’s internal review process has already put the case to rest.

Chan alleges that she was a victim of racial discrimination when considered for one of the university’s research chairs.

Chan, who is of Chinese descent, was a finalist for the Lam Chair in Multicultural Education but was not selected. She has argued that sloppy appointment procedures allowed racial bias to creep into the process. Chan filed a human rights complaint in May 2010. Earlier this year, the HRT declined UBC’s application to dismiss the complaint.

“The university believes the BC Human Rights Tribunal made some important errors in its preliminary rulings on the case of Associate Professor Chan,” said Lucie McNeill, Director of UBC Public Affairs.

McNeill said the university disagrees with the HRT’s decision because they believe Chan’s case was dealt with by UBC’s equity procedures.

“The HRT is essentially saying [that] irrespective of the internal process we have through our equity office, that somebody is entitled to that last final appeal at the human rights tribunal,” said McNeill. “But things should only go to appeal if they’re justified to go to an appeal.”

In writing the decision, Tribunal Member Norman Trerise argued that requiring an employee to go through an internal process and then denying them the right to an appeal with the HRT “essentially pulls the rug out from under that faculty member.”

“The university believes that this case is actually not correct and that interpretations at the HRT were not proper,” said McNeil. “[The university] has a responsibility to stand up and say ‘no, we cannot let this stand as precedent.’”

In an email statement to The Ubyssey, Chan said she has exhausted her pro-bono legal support and will have to self-represent.

“UBC is further delaying the complaint process, adding legal costs and stress,” she wrote. “UBC should play fair and let the HRT hearing go ahead as scheduled with full disclosure of evidence.”

McNeill denied that the university is trying to delay the case.

“The university doesn’t want to commit more time and resources to a lengthy hearing,” she said.

“This is not about avoiding or delaying tactics or anything like that. We take complaints of discrimination very seriously.”

You may also be interested in:

Does UBC have an equity gap? A look at the independence and integrity of the Equity Office

“Mission Impossible” Mediator for BC Labour Dispute

Setting a stage certain for failure, ex-UNBC President Charles Jago, appointed as mediator in the labour dispute between the BC Teachers’ Federation and Government, described the assignment as “mission impossible.”  Jago is off to a rough start, with less than 12 hours in, with this off-handed remark, doudts about his expertise, and concerns about his political and financial support of the BC Liberal party.

BCTF President Susan Lambert commented that she “had not heard of Jago before the announcement” this morning and “also noted he does not appear to have any experience as a mediator.”  “I’m sure he is very accomplished person,” Lambert said, “but I am concerned about his ability to mediate this dispute and his ability to understand the issues that separate both parties.”

The BCTF bargaining team will meet with Jago, but Lambert “expressed concern about the perception of bias because of his donations to the B.C. Liberal Party.” “Of course that would concern me,” said Lambert after hearing about the donations.

Read more, CBC News

Court rejects UIC union

Inside Higher Ed: Court Rejects Faculty Union

Almost a year ago, faculty members at the University of Illinois at Chicago filed papers to unionize. The drive at the university was seen as a major victory for academic labor, which has struggled in recent years to organize at research universities. And at a time when the treatment of those off the tenure track is an increasingly important issue to faculty leaders, the new union was to have combined tenure-track and adjunct faculty members. Since then, the union has been engaged in a legal fight with the university, which has argued that Illinois law does not allow joint units for tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty members. Along the way, the union won most of the skirmishes, but that ended on Thursday.

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/23/appeals-court-rejects-faculty-union-u-illinois-chicago#ixzz1qFOD1Hhh
Inside Higher Ed

Chan v UBC Human Rights Tribunal Hearing Schedule

The BC Human Rights Tribunal has scheduled Hearing dates for the Jennifer Chan v UBC racial discrimination case for: June 11 to 15, 25 to 29, and July 3 to 6 and 9 to 13, 2012

BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170 – 605 Robson Street
Vancouver, BC

All are welcome to attend. For information on the case, see the recent UBC student newspaper, Ubysseyfeature article and the BCHRT for decision to hear the Chan v UBC and others [Beth Haverkamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, Rob Tierney] case.

Anti-Union Legislation Passes in British Columbia

The draconian, anti-union Educational Improvement Act, Bill 22, passed in the BC Legislature late afternoon today on party lines.  BCTF President Susan Lambert lambasted the legislation as it was passing: “Bill 22 hurts students and attacks teachers’ rights.  It will only make working and learning conditions worse…. Bill 22 ignores the BC Supreme Court ruling last year, which found that contract- stripping legislation regarding class size and composition was unconstitutional.”   The BC Federation of labour tweeted that “Bill 22 passed against overwhelming opposition from BCers. BC Liberals disrespect voters, as they disrespect teachers… BC Liberals chose nasty partisan politics over good of BC’s kids with Bill 22.  Disrespect for teachers will hurt education.”

It’s a sad day for collective bargaining rights in the province. The BCTF meets this weekend in an AGM to debate and decide on the next steps.

Student News on Chan v UBC Racial Discrimination Case

The Managing Editor for the Ubyssey, UBC’s student newspaper, reported in a feature article in this morning’s issue on the Chan v UBC and others racial discrimination case to be heard by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) this summer. Jonny Wakefield reports:

The threshold to dismiss a complaint at the BCHRT is low. Since 2006, it appears that no cases against UBC have gone to a full judicial hearing. But one professor’s complaint has survived numerous attempts by the university to have it thrown out. The hearing, scheduled this summer, will be one of the very few times that the university has had to deal with a complainant in a public forum.

That discrimination complaint came from Jennifer Chan. Chan is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education. In May 2010, she filed a complaint of racial discrimination with the BCHRT, naming the university and four employees—among them senior administrators—as respondents. Chan, who is Chinese Canadian, alleges she was not selected for a prestigious research chair in part because of her race.

That appointment was to the Lam Research Chair in Multicultural Education. Chan was shortlisted for the chair in October 2009 and when it was announced that another candidate—a white woman—was given the appointment, Chan started to make complaints about bias in the process.

In short, Chan said the search committee of five members from the Faculty of Education broke every hiring rule in the book. It failed to keep any records of its procedures, including how the search was conducted and what criteria were used to determine merit. The committee also failed to consult Chan’s references, which included former Lam Chair holders. The Ubyssey contacted Chan’s references independently and confirmed that they had not been contacted regarding her application.

“A lot of my students would ask for references for their part-time summer jobs,” she said. “This endowment chair is a very prestigious position. Why were external references not contacted? Was it because the candidate was predetermined? Or was it because of some other factor?”

One of those factors, she argues, was her race.

See Ubyssey 15 March 2012 pp. 6-7 for more, and BCHRT for decision to hear the Chan v UBC and others [Beth Haverkamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, Rob Tierney] case.

BC Ministry Proposes to Make Teachers Pay for Job Action

BCTF President Lambert (Photo by Rick Ernst, PNG)

As if Bill 22 could not get worse for labour, the British Columbia Ministry of Education proposed today to make teachers pay for past job action.  The BCTF rejected out of hand Minister Abbott’s proposal that teachers retroactively make up work lost to job action.  BCTF President Susan Lambert scoffed that “Minister Abbott is ignoring a commonly accepted labour relations principle: struck work is simply not done.”  Increasingly, the BC Liberals seem intent on decimating long-established principles of labour and, as UBC Professor Joel Bakan wrote in the Vancouver Sun, wanting to play fast and loose with labour law.  “Governments are obliged to govern according to law,” said Bakan. “That is what distinguishes democracies from tyrannies. As a fundamental democratic principle, the rule of law is seriously jeopardized when governments play fast and loose with constitutional and international laws, as this government is now doing with Bill 22.”

Attempting to slow the the rushed passage of the questionable legislation, the NDP’s John Horgan introduced an amendment today to delete most of Bill 22 and bring in a mediator to, although it will be defeated, introduce fairness into the process. The amendment states: “it is not in the best interests of the education system in British Columbia for the government to legislate teachers back to work when an independent mediator could be appointed by the government and the Labour Relations Board to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation.”

Read more: Vancouver Sun

BC Leg Bill 22 “Offences” Draconian

BC Legislature Bill 22, undermining teachers’ / BCTF rights to fair bargaining and job action.  BOO !

Offences:

(1) An employee, the BCTF or an officer of the BCTF or of a local of the BCTF or a representative of the BCTF or of a local of the BCTF, who contravenes section 3 (1) (b), (c) or (e), as the case may be, commits an offence and is liable to the following:

(a) in the case of an employee, a fine amount of not more than $475 for each day on which the offence occurs;

(b) in the case of the BCTF, a fine amount of not less than $1.3 million for each day on which the offence occurs;

(c) in the case of an officer of the BCTF or of a local of the BCTF or a representative of the BCTF or of a local of the BCTF, a fine amount of not less than $2 500 for each day on which the offence occurs.

Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Race-Conscious Admissions at U. of Texas

The Chronicle: Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Race-Conscious Admissions at U. of Texas

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it would take up a lawsuit challenging race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas, setting the stage for it to reconsider affirmative-action policies that it had ruled constitutional in 2003, before its composition significantly changed.

Michigan Senate Approves Bill to Block Unions by Graduate Research Assistants

The Chronicle: Michigan Senate Approves Bill to Block Unions by Graduate Research Assistants

A Republican-sponsored bill that would bar graduate research assistants at Michigan’s public universities from unionizing has been approved by the State Senate. Consideration of the bill coincides with debates over whether research assistants at the University of Michigan should be classified as students, not as employees entitled to collective-bargaining rights. The bill, which now heads to the House, threatens to upend a case pending before an administrative-law judge, who is scheduled to deliver her recommendation to the Michigan Employment Relations Commission on March 13.