9.8 Complaint Resolution

MIT is committed to providing a prompt, fair and impartial process, with informal and formal options, to address concerns of harassment, discrimination, or other inappropriate conduct prohibited by MIT policy. The goals of the complaint resolution process are to stop inappropriate conduct, to respond effectively to allegations of inappropriate conduct, and to restore a productive and welcoming working, learning, or living environment.

9.8.1 Application of Policy 

The complaint resolution process described in Section 9.8 is available for any Complaint by an MIT community member that an MIT faculty member, staff member, postdoctoral scholar (fellow or associate), or student engaged in conduct that violates any of the following “Conduct Policies:”

Policies Related to Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment 

• Harassment when the alleged conduct is based on an individual’s protected class as defined in Section 9.3 (Section 9.5)
• Nondiscrimination (Section 9.3)
• Racist Conduct (Section 9.4)
• Retaliation when the alleged conduct is based on an individual’s protected class as defined in Section 9.3 (Section 9.7)
• Violence against Community Members (Section 9.6) based on an individual’s protected class

Policies Related to Other Inappropriate Conduct

• Harassment not based on an individual’s protected class (Section 9.5)
• Personal Conduct and Responsibilities Towards Students and Employees (Section 9.2)
• Introduction to Relations and Responsibilities Within the MIT Community (Section 9.1)
• Retaliation not based on an individual’s protected class (Section 9.7)
• Violence against Community Members (Section 9.6) not based on an individual’s protected class
• Policies, rules, or community standards that apply to students, including those set forth in the Mind and Hand Book and the Academic Integrity Handbook

Non-MIT community members may not file a Complaint against a faculty member, staff member, or postdoctoral scholar, but the Institute Discrimination and Harassment Response office ("IDHR") may file an Administrative Complaint (defined below) for allegations brought by a non-MIT community member that an MIT faculty member, staff member, or postdoctoral scholar violated one or more Conduct Policies.

MIT may determine on a case-by-case basis as set forth in the Committee on Discipline ("COD") Rules whether to permit a non-MIT community member to file a Complaint against a student or whether MIT should file an Administrative Complaint against a student. For purposes of this process, a student who is alleged to have violated one of MIT’s Conduct Policies while primarily acting in a capacity where they are paid by MIT for their services will be considered a staff member. 

This process generally does not apply to complaints against affiliates or other unpaid members of the MIT community (other than complaints against postdoctoral fellows).

This process does not apply to concerns that are raised about academic decisions (such as grade appeals, thesis issues, or authorship issues), allegations of research or academic misconduct, or to any other allegations where other internal complaint handling procedures have been established by MIT. This process also does not apply to reviews of conduct where a Complaint has not been filed, such as a review initiated by a manager or supervisor.  

For any Complaint made against an MIT faculty member, staff member, or postdoctoral scholar that does not allege a violation of a Conduct Policy, MIT will determine the process for review of the Complaint on a case-by-case basis. In any formal investigation involving faculty, staff, or postdoctoral scholar Respondents, the steps in Section 9.8.5.2 are usually followed. 

Procedures for reporting Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment, including sexual misconduct, intimate partner violence, and stalking, are available on the IDHR website. Information on formal complaint processes can also be found on the IDHR website.

9.8.2 Definitions

• Complaint: A written statement filed online, with IDHR, or with the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards ("OSCCS") or the COD alleging a violation of one of the Conduct Policies.  A Complaint may be filed by any member of the MIT community. A community member may also file a Complaint against a student by meeting with OSCCS.  MIT may determine on a case-by-case basis as set forth in the COD Rules whether to permit a non-MIT community member to be a Complainant against a student Respondent. A Complaint includes an Administrative Complaint.
• Complainant: The individual or office who files a Complaint or an Administrative Complaint.
• Administrative Complaint: (i) a Complaint filed by IDHR where a concern is raised by a non-MIT community member or by an MIT community member who does not want to be a Complainant, and where, in the judgment of IDHR, the concern warrants investigation; or (ii) a Complaint filed by an administrative office falling under the Chancellor (e.g., the Division of Student Life) against a student where an MIT community member or non-community member does not want to be a Complainant, and where, in the judgment of that administrative office, the concern warrants resolution through this complaint resolution process.  A single Administrative Complaint may be based on multiple consolidated reports about an incident.
• Respondent: The individual who is alleged to have violated one of the Conduct Policies.
• Faculty Panel:  A panel of three tenured faculty members who determine whether there is a violation of a Conduct Policy when the Respondent is a faculty member, a senior research scientist, senior research engineer, or senior research associate. The three faculty members serving on a particular Faculty Panel are selected by the Vice Provost for Faculty.
   

9.8.3 Informal Options for Resolving Complaints

When appropriate and possible, faculty, supervisors, managers, other employees, and students are encouraged to talk directly with one another about any concerns, with the goal of understanding perspectives and resolving differences informally, including after a Complaint has been filed. In the employment setting, supervisors are encouraged to address concerns informally and as early as possible (see Section 7.3.1).

In some cases, a more structured informal process may be selected by the Complainant and the Respondent, which may include facilitation of an agreement between the parties, individual or group educational or training programs, and coaching or counseling assistance. Community members are encouraged to seek assistance from other appropriate Institute resources, including IDHR, a human resources professional in their department, lab, center, or institute or in the Human Resources office, OSCCS, the Division of Student Life, or from an MIT Ombudsperson to informally resolve a concern.

In order to assist with informal resolutions, there may be a need to undertake informal factual inquiries, and informal resolutions should be documented when completed. With all informal resolution options, no determination is made as to whether a Conduct Policy was violated.

At any time, either the Complainant or the Respondent may end any attempt at informal resolution of a Complaint, in which case the relevant formal complaint resolution process begins or resumes under Section 9.8.4 or Section 9.8.5. IDHR, Human Resources, or COD/OSCCS may also decide that a Complaint needs to be formally resolved even if both the Complainant and the Respondent wish to resolve the matter informally.

See the IDHR website or Human Resources website for more information.

9.8.4 Formal Resolution of Complaints Against Student Respondents

For any Complaints filed against a student Respondent (including a current student, former student, student organization, or student residence hall) alleging a violation of a Conduct Policy, the Complaint will be resolved by the COD in accordance with the COD Rules, unless otherwise provided in this complaint resolution process or in Section 10.2 Procedures for Dealing with Student Academic Dishonesty.

In cases in which the Vice Chancellor for Student Life and the Chair of the COD determine, after consultation with the Vice President and General Counsel (or designee), that a Complaint against a student Respondent may give rise to substantial legal, financial, regulatory, or reputational risk to the Institute, the Vice Chancellor for Student Life (not their designee) must sit on and serve as a voting member at any COD Hearing, Panel Meeting, or Sanctioning Panel (as defined in the COD Rules) or must be consulted and agree with a decision to resolve the case through Administrative Resolution (as defined in the COD Rules). In the event that the Vice Chancellor for Student Life and the Chair of the COD do not agree on whether to resolve such a case through Administrative Resolution, the case must be resolved via COD Hearing, Panel Meeting, or Sanctioning Panel with the Vice Chancellor for Student Life (not their designee) as a voting member.

Except when an amendment would conflict with these Policies and Procedures or the Rules and Regulations of the Faculty, the COD, after consultation with the Faculty Policy Committee, may from time to time amend the COD Rules. One or both Vice Chancellors and the Office of the General Counsel must be consulted on and agree with substantive amendments or amendments that are required to comply with the law or regulations. 

9.8.5 Formal Resolution of Complaints Against Faculty, Staff, and Postdoctoral Scholar Respondents

9.8.5.1  Filing and Initial Assessment of a Complaint Against Faculty, Staff, and Postdoctoral Scholar Respondents

Any member of the MIT community may file a Complaint against a faculty member, staff member, or postdoctoral scholar online or with IDHR to initiate an investigation of an alleged violation of a Conduct Policy.  

The Complainant is encouraged to file a Complaint as soon as possible after the alleged conduct occurred. Although MIT does not impose a specific time limit for reviewing a Complaint, the Institute can respond more effectively to a Complaint that is filed while the underlying facts are recent. In its discretion, IDHR may decide not to undertake an investigation due to the passage of time.   

When a Complaint is filed against a faculty member, staff member, or postdoctoral scholar, IDHR does an initial assessment of the Complaint to determine whether the behavior would violate a Conduct Policy, assuming for purposes of this analysis that the factual allegations contained in the Complaint are true. If IDHR determines that:

• The Complaint does not state a violation of a Conduct Policy, IDHR closes the Complaint.
• The Complaint states a violation of a Conduct Policy in the category of Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment (see Section 9.8.1), IDHR will begin an investigation of the Complaint or attempt informal resolution.
• The Complaint states a violation of a Conduct Policy in the category of Other Inappropriate Conduct (see Section 9.8.1), the Complaint is referred to the Human Resources office to begin an investigation or attempt informal resolution.

IDHR will inform the Complainant of its initial assessment decision. IDHR’s initial assessment decision is final and cannot be appealed.

9.8.5.2 Investigation Process in Cases Involving Faculty, Staff, and Postdoctoral Scholar Respondents

The formal Investigation Process involving Complaints against faculty, staff, and postdoctoral scholar Respondents includes the following steps:

• The Complainant and Respondent are notified in writing of the name of the investigator, the nature of the allegations, and a summary of the process that will be followed.  A copy of the written notification is also provided to the Respondent’s supervisor or manager.
• The Complainant and Respondent meet separately with the investigator and provide any information they would like the investigator to consider.
• The investigator may interview witnesses, collect other information, and consult with other individuals or offices, all as the investigator deems appropriate.
• The Complainant and the Respondent have an opportunity to review a draft investigation report and provide comments to the investigator.
• The investigator uses a preponderance of the evidence standard (“more likely than not”) in drafting the investigation report.   

Investigations are usually completed within a reasonable period from the date the investigation begins. The IDHR website provides more information on the formal complaint process.

9.8.5.3 Findings and Discipline – Faculty Members, Senior Research Scientists, Senior Research Engineers, and Senior Research Associates

If the Respondent is a faculty member, senior research scientist, senior research engineer, or senior research associate, the investigator investigates and prepares a report with findings of fact and a recommendation as to whether the Respondent violated any Conduct Policy. The report is provided to a Faculty Panel. The Faculty Panel may meet or consult with the investigator or others but generally does not meet with the Complainant or the Respondent. The Faculty Panel decides if the Respondent violated one or more of the Conduct Policies.

If the Faculty Panel decides that the Respondent violated a Conduct Policy, the Faculty Panel recommends to the appropriate Dean (or other Academic Council member for some senior research scientists, engineers, and associates) what action should be taken in light of the finding. Examples of discipline include, but are not limited to, a reprimand (oral or written), a suspension, a salary reduction, a demotion, a removal of privileges, or termination of employment or appointment. See Section 3.4.2 Faculty Misconduct or Performance Below Standards regarding discipline for tenured faculty.

The Dean reviews the recommendation from the Faculty Panel and determines what discipline will be imposed or other action taken. If the Dean disagrees with the Panel’s recommendation, the Dean must meet with the Faculty Panel to discuss. If the Dean continues to disagree with the Faculty Panel’s recommendation after that discussion, the Dean must inform the Provost in writing of the reason(s) for their disagreement on discipline. In such cases, the Provost will make the final decision on discipline and will inform the Dean and the Faculty Panel of the decision.  

The investigation report and the Faculty Panel’s determination regarding any policy violation are confidentially shared with the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Respondent’s supervisor and/or higher level manager. If the Faculty Panel determines that the Respondent violated a Conduct Policy, the report and conclusions are also sent to the Respondent’s department/unit head and to the Dean of the unit in which the Respondent works.

The Respondent, IDHR, and Human Resources are provided written notice of any discipline. The Complainant is not generally provided with information about the discipline issued unless the discipline directly affects the Complainant, such as a “no contact” order. However, in cases alleging a violation of Section 9.5.1 Sexual Harassment, Section 9.5.1.2 Sexual Misconduct, Section 9.5.1.3 Gender-Based Harassment, Section 9.5.1.4 Title IX Sexual Harassment, or Section 9.5.2 Stalking, the Complainant and Respondent receive simultaneous notification in writing of the result of the investigation (including discipline), procedures for appeal (if applicable), any change to the result, and when the results become final.

Decisions on discipline are final and cannot be appealed.

9.8.5.4 Findings and Discipline - Staff Members and Postdoctoral Scholars

If the Respondent is a staff member or postdoctoral scholar, the investigator investigates and prepares a report with findings of fact and a determination as to whether a Conduct Policy was violated. The report is confidentially shared with the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Respondent’s supervisor and/or higher level manager. If the investigator determines that the Respondent violated a Conduct Policy, the report is also sent to the Respondent’s department/unit head and to the appropriate Dean or other Academic Council member of the unit in which the Respondent works.

The Dean or other Academic Council member will determine the appropriate action to take against the Respondent. This may include, but is not limited to, a reprimand (oral or written), suspension, a salary reduction, a demotion, a removal of privileges, or termination of employment or appointment.

The Respondent, IDHR, and Human Resources are provided written notice of any discipline. The Complainant is not generally provided with information about any discipline issued unless the discipline directly affects the Complainant, such as a “no contact” order. However, in cases alleging a violation of Section 9.4.1 Sexual Harassment, Section 9.5.1.2 Sexual Misconduct, Section 9.5.1.3 Gender-Based Harassment, Section 9.5.1.4 Title IX Sexual Harassment, or Section 9.5.2 Stalking, the Complainant and Respondent both receive written notice of the result of the investigation (including the discipline), procedures for appeal (if applicable), any change to the result, and when the results become final.

Decisions on discipline are final and cannot be appealed.

9.8.5.5 Appeals in Cases Involving Faculty, Staff, and Postdoctoral Scholar Respondents

Either the Complainant or the Respondent may appeal a finding as to whether a policy violation occurred. Neither party may appeal a decision on discipline or other action taken. An appeal must be filed in writing with IDHR within 21 calendar days of the date of the written notice of the decision as to whether a policy violation occurred.  An appeal is limited to one or more of the following grounds:  

• New significant information: There exists significant, substantive, and relevant information that was not available at the time of the decision.
• Material procedural issue: There was a substantial departure from the procedures in Section 9.8 that significantly affected the outcome.
• Material finding against the weight of evidence: A material finding that formed a basis for the decision by the investigator or Faculty Panel was substantially against the weight of the evidence.

Appeals are decided as follows:

• The Provost decides appeals on cases in which the Respondent is a faculty member, senior research scientist/engineer/associate, principal research scientist/engineer/associate, research scientist/engineer/associate, or Academic Instructional staff. However, if the Provost made the decision on discipline due to disagreement between the Faculty Panel and the Dean, the President will decide the appeal.
• The Vice President for Research or the Provost decides appeals on cases in which the Respondent is a postdoctoral scholar.
• The Executive Vice President and Treasurer decides appeals on cases in which the Respondent is another category of employee.

Both the Complainant and the Respondent will be informed in writing of the decision on the appeal. The decision on an appeal is final. Generally, the decision on an appeal is made within 30 calendar days from the date the appeal was submitted.

9.8.6 Provisions Common to Section 9.8

The following provisions apply to all complaints or concerns raised under Section 9.8, whether using an informal or formal resolution option.

9.8.6.1 Immediate Action and Supportive Measures

The Institute reserves the right to take any immediate interim or permanent action or offer supportive measures that it deems necessary and appropriate under the particular circumstances. For example, the Institute may take immediate action in order to protect the health, safety, wellbeing, or educational or working experience of students, faculty, staff, scholars, or the broader MIT community; to maintain academic integrity; to uphold Institute values; to end ongoing or prevent further misconduct; to separate individuals involved in a case; or for other similar reasons. These actions and measures may include a no-contact order, change in work or class schedules or locations, removal from Institute housing, or placement of the Respondent on administrative leave (if a faculty member, staff member, or postdoctoral scholar) or temporary suspension or restriction from campus (if a student) during the complaint resolution process. Additional information about these actions and measures in Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment matters can be found on the IDHR website. Additional information about these actions and measures in cases involving students, which can be imposed through the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellors, the Dean for Student Life, the Chair of the COD, IDHR, or OSCCS, or any of their designees, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, can be found in the COD Rules.

9.8.6.2 False Accusations or Testimony

A false Complaint determined by the Institute to have been made in bad faith and any dishonesty in the context of the complaint resolution process or other review are serious offenses. Such offenses may be investigated and may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment or other affiliation with MIT, suspension, or expulsion. False accusations, false testimony, or dishonesty by a student in the course of the complaint resolution process will be referred to the OSCCS/COD.  

9.8.6.3 Confidentiality and Privacy

MIT recognizes that many participants in the Section 9.8 Complaint Resolution process may wish that these matters remain confidential and want the Institute to protect the privacy of all involved, to the extent possible. MIT also recognizes that participants may need or wish to disclose information related to matters resolved under Section 9.8.3 Informal Options for Resolving Complaints, or Section 9.8.4 Formal Resolution of Complaints Against Student Respondents, or Section 9.8.5 Formal Resolution of Complaints Against Faculty, Staff, and Postdoctoral Scholar Respondents. MIT seeks to balance these competing interests to encourage parties and witnesses to participate in the process to ensure its integrity and to resolve the issues without undue disruption. To meet these competing interests:

1. MIT expects the parties to maintain the confidentiality of an ongoing Section 9.8 Complaint Resolution process, except as necessary to gather and present relevant evidence.
2. MIT prohibits the parties from distributing, in any form or by any medium, documents (which include emails) or other information or evidence obtained in the course of their participation in a Section 9.8 Complaint Resolution process—including but not limited to, the complaint, interview transcripts and summaries, and the investigative record and report—other than for the purpose of consulting with their advisor, or as part of a civil, criminal, or administrative legal proceeding.
3. In certain circumstances, disclosing information about a Section 9.8 Complaint Resolution process may be construed as retaliation or harassment in violation of MIT policy. Participants should keep in mind that any action that would discourage a reasonable person from participating in an informal or formal complaint resolution process may be construed as retaliation.
4. Participants should also keep in mind that during the resolution of a Section 9.8 Complaint, disclosure of information about the matter by the parties or any witnesses has the potential to compromise the integrity of the process.
5. Once a Section 9.8 Complaint Resolution process is complete, the parties are not prohibited from sharing the determination as to whether a Conduct Policy was violated; however, MIT nonetheless strongly encourages all parties to be thoughtful about whether they share information and to be mindful of the prohibitions against retaliation and harassment as noted above.
6. The Institute will take reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of proceedings under Section 9.8 and records created or collected during any Section 9.8 Complaint Resolution process. MIT will communicate information regarding a Section 9.8 Complaint Resolution process—including: immediate or supportive measures under Section 9.8.6.1; an informal resolution under Section 9.8.3; or the findings of fact, determination as to whether a Conduct Policy was violated, and discipline under Section 9.8.4 or Section 9.8.5—to individuals at MIT only on a legitimate need-to-know basis, as required by law, or in appropriate circumstances as determined by senior administrators.  The confidentiality of the resolution process as it relates to matters involving students is also subject to Section 11.3 Privacy of Student Records and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"). More information about privacy and confidentiality in student matters can be found in the COD Rules.  In addition, in some matters, MIT may be obligated to notify agencies or research sponsors about certain violations of MIT’s policies on harassment or discrimination.

9.8.6.4 Assistance During the Complaint Resolution Process

All parties involved in a dispute are encouraged to seek assistance from resources at the Institute such as their departmental human resources professional, their human resources officer, OSCCS, other offices within the Division of Student Life, Ombudspersons, or other departmental managers.

During an informal or formal resolution process involving Complaints against faculty, staff, and postdoctoral scholar Respondents, both the Complainant and the Respondent may be accompanied by a member of the MIT community to any meeting about the Complaint. These individuals may not be family members, subordinates, or attorneys (except as noted below), although parties may, of course, consult with an attorney or other advisor on their own before or after any meeting at MIT.  

Information about advisors in cases involving student Respondents can be found in the COD Rules.

In cases alleging a violation of Section 9.5.1 Sexual Harassment, Section 9.5.2.1 Sexual Misconduct, Section 9.5.1.3 Gender-Based Harassment, Section 9.5.1.4 Title IX Sexual Harassment, or Section 9.5.2 Stalking, or the corresponding policies in the Mind and Hand Book, the parties may have an advisor who is an attorney or person outside the MIT community, as long as that person is not a witness or party to the Complaint.

Similarly, in cases of sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence or stalking, the parties may also have an advisor who is an attorney or person outside the MIT community, as long as that person is not a witness or a party to the Complaint.

9.8.6.5 Pay Status for Time Spent in Complaint Resolution Process

Where complaint resolution occurs during an employee’s normal working hours, a reasonable amount of paid release time may be granted.

9.8.6.6 Departure of Complainant or Respondent from MIT

If either the Complainant or the Respondent leaves MIT after a Complaint is filed, MIT generally continues the complaint resolution process to the extent possible. If an individual sues or files a complaint with an external agency before MIT’s complaint resolution process is completed, MIT also generally continues an ongoing complaint resolution process. However, the provisions of this Section 9.8 may be modified by MIT to reflect the fact that one or more parties is no longer at the Institute.  

Notwithstanding the above, MIT may decide to terminate a complaint resolution process if one or both of the parties have left MIT, or if a lawsuit or agency complaint has been filed.

9.8.6.7 Legal Information

These procedures serve as the complaint and grievance procedure for employees (including student employees) as required by all relevant state and federal laws, specifically including concerns about race, sex, gender, disability, color, nationality, age, genetic information, sexual orientation, and veteran's status (including Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX of the Federal Education Amendments of 1972, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and all other forms of proscribed discrimination. Questions on this subject may be addressed to the Ombuds Office, the Vice President for Human Resources as the Institute’s Equal Opportunity Officer, or the Director of IDHR/Title IX and Title VI Coordinator.

Individuals may also file complaints of violations of law with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Room 475, Boston, MA 02203-0506, (800) 669-4000; and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD"), One Ashburton Place, Rm. 601, Boston, MA 02108, (617) 994-6000.  For both the EEOC and the MCAD, the time period for filing a complaint is 300 days from the date of the last alleged discriminatory event. Individuals may also file complaints with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202-1100.