Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1976 [PAGE 551]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

540

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[February 18

I n the meantime, in June 1973 the University initiated discharge proceedings against Mr. Bhalla under the University Civil Service System Rules, based on charges of incompetence and refusal to obey departmental orders. The University suspended Mr. Bhalla pending resolution of the discharge proceedings, as permitted by the Civil Service Rules. The discharge proceedings are still pending, and Mr. Bhalla remains on suspension. In October 1974 the H E W Regional Office advised the University that, after investigation, it had concluded there was reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Bhalla had been discriminated against because of his national origin and that he had received differential treatment after he complained to his University superiors of an alleged disparity in his salary, which differential treatment amounted to harassment, all because of his national origin. The University denied any discrimination against Mr. Bhalla because of his national origin. It asserted that the H E W findings were superficial and unsupported by any substantial evidence or facts. In March 1975 the University filed with the Regional Office of H E W additional materials which further contradicted HEW's early findings and which demonstrated support of the University's position that Mr. Bhalla should be discharged from the University for cause (incompetence and insubordination). In April 1975 the Regional Office of H E W notified the University that in its view the additional evidence presented by the University did not warrant a change in its earlier findings of discrimination. In both the October 1974 findings and the April 1975 reaffirmation, H E W indicated that it had obtained a statement from a former co-worker of Mr. Bhalla who was an "East Indian" (HEW subsequently conceded that the individual making the statement was Hungarian) stating that the co-worker had resigned "because of discriminatory treatment on the part of complainant's supervisor." Additionally H E W indicated that three of four coworkers interviewed stated that they noted the complainant "seemed to receive" harassment from his immediate supervisor. The Regional Office of H E W found that Mr. Bhalla was entitled to restoration to his former position as Analyst II at a salary higher than he had been paid and to all intervening fringe benefits of the position, including the salary he had lost due to the alleged discriminatory treatment plus interest at 6 percent. The dollar value of the H E W position was approximately $58,500. The H E W Regional Office stated that failure to take action to comply would result in the Federal government withdrawing all Federal funds and disqualifying the University from future Federal grants or contracts. On May 1, 1975, the University again unsuccessfully sought reconsideration by the Regional Office of H E W of its evaluation of the additional data the University had submitted in connection with Mr. Bhalla's charge. H E W attempted to effect conciliation and compromise, stating that if settlement was not reached the matter would be sent to the H E W Washington Office for disposition. The University agreed to discuss with Mr. Bhalla the possibility of settlement, but reiterated its position that its willingness to enter such discussions was in an effort to achieve cost avoidance rather than what the University would regard as a fair and equitable resolution of the matter. T h e University continued to maintain that the H E W Regional Office actions were based on inadequate investigation, incomplete data, and a refusal to consider persuasive items of evidence relating to Mr. Bhalla's incompetence. Settlement discussions with Mr. Bhalla were not fruitful and, on May 20, 1975, the H E W Regional Office forwarded the file to its headquarter office in Washington, D.C., for final action. A compliance conference was scheduled by HEW's Washington Office. The University was advised that the file contained an affidavit from a University employee in the department stating that Mr. Bhalla's supervisor had twice made statements derogatory to East Indians and to foreigners in general and also contained statements from co-workers that Mr. Bhalla had been harassed by his super-