U Pittsburgh Denied Due Process to Professor as to Sexual Harassment Allegations

A federal judge has ruled that the University of Pittsburgh violated due process by failing to provide proper notice and a fair appeals process to a tenured professor accused of sexual harassment. In Bhattacharya v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the Western District of Pennsylvania found that the university’s actions deprived the plaintiff, Chitrabhanu Bhattacharya, of constitutional rights. Bhattacharya, a tenured professor in the School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh, was suspended without pay for a year and removed from the H.J. Zoffer endowed chair following allegations of sexual harassment. The court determined that these actions constituted a deprivation of “property” under the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring due process. However, the university allegedly failed to meet this standard. According to the court’s findings, Bhattacharya received a notice of charges on July 10, 2023, which stated that he had engaged in “unwelcomed verbal advances of a sexual nature” between June 2022 and May 2023. This notice did not include any allegations of unwanted physical contact. During a July 27, 2023, interview with the university’s investigator, Laurel Gift, Bhattacharya was first made aware of specific claims involving both verbal and physical conduct. The investigator’s report outlined 16 behaviors or comments, including nine instances of unwelcome physical contact and 10 or 11 instances of verbal behavior. Bhattacharya claimed he was not informed of these additional allegations before the interview. The court noted that while the university asserted that he was verbally informed of the physical-touching allegations during a June 6, 2023, meeting, the supporting document cited by the university did not mention physical contact. As a result, Bhattacharya was left unaware of the full scope of the accusations until after the interview. The court further ruled that the university’s appeal process was constitutionally inadequate. Bhattacharya was not given access to the investigative report that led to his suspension. His appeal was restricted to three grounds: new information, procedural nonconformity, and severity of sanctions. The appeal was denied by an anonymous board that conducted no hearing or factual inquiry. The provost, who approved the denial, did not review the underlying records. The ruling highlights the lack of transparency and fairness in the university’s handling of the case. The court emphasized that while a full hearing may not have been required, the procedures followed were insufficient to ensure due process. The judgment underscores the importance of providing individuals with adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest allegations before disciplinary action is taken. This case raises broader concerns about how universities handle allegations of sexual misconduct against faculty members. It suggests that even tenured professors may face significant consequences without sufficient procedural safeguards. The outcome could influence future cases and prompt institutions to reassess their policies regarding due process and transparency in disciplinary matters. The university has yet to issue a public statement regarding the court’s decision. However, legal experts suggest that the ruling may lead to increased scrutiny of institutional practices related to academic freedom and employee rights. The case also highlights the ongoing challenges in balancing accountability with the protection of individual rights in higher education settings.