No. 07-00-131/2024-02 date: 19.8. 2024.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the proceedings regarding the complaint filed by attorney …, on behalf and with the consent of A. A., against the Dean of the … faculty of the University of …, B. B., for discrimination based on gender. The complaint stated that the Dean applied different standards in the selection process for the title in the case of the compliant. These standards were not applied in the selection of three men in the same situation. The same happened in the termination process compared to similar situations involving men. The complaint further stated that A. A., in her capacity as an associate professor at the … faculty of the University of …, was in the process for promotion to full professor. It was also stated that on April 12, 2023, after the initiation of the promotion process, the Dean had a conversation with her, during which he challenged her co-authorship of an invited paper (one of the prescribed conditions for the title) because she was not in correspondence with the authority who issued the invitation and did not personally present the paper. The complainant believes that the only reason for such treatment is A. A.’s personal characteristic—gender—since three male professors from the faculty … were promoted to full professor under similar circumstances. The complainant believes that the Dean, using his influence as the “head of the faculty,” obstructed the continuation of A. A.’s promotion process by, contrary to the decisions of her Department and Institute, placing on the agenda of the Faculty Electoral Council the item “initiation of the procedure for election as associate professor”, that is, reappointment. It was also stated that on December 6, 2023, the complainant went to the faculty’s legal department “to inquire about the procedure for mutual termination of employment,” and that the mutual termination agreement was prepared within two hours, and she was invited to sign it the same day. The complaint alleges that this constitutes different treatment based on gender because when a man resigns, the Dean engages in a discussion with him, whereas when a woman resigns, “the termination process is expedited to prevent her from changing her mind”. In his response, Dean B. B. stated that the manner and procedure for acquiring titles and establishing employment for teachers at University…., as well as the minimum conditions for acquiring titles, are regulated by the Rulebook on the Manner and Procedure of Acquiring Titles and Establishing Employment for Teachers at the University of …, the Rulebook on Minimum Conditions for Acquiring Titles for Teachers at the University of …, and additionally by the Rulebook on Regulating Part of the Procedure for Appointment to a Title and Establishing Employment for Teachers and the Manner and Procedure of Appointment to a Title and Establishing Employment for Associates of the … Faculty of the University of …. He further stated that upon receiving a proposal to announce a competition, as Dean, he reviews the proposal before submitting them to the Faculty Electoral Council for decision-making and that in A. A.’s case, he found that proof of meeting part of the mandatory condition was not provided; specifically, the material did not contain an invitation letter addressed to the candidate but to another teacher, the invitation letter did not mention any other names, and that a a check-up confirmed that A. A. did not present the paper, which is why the proposal was returned to the Department for reconsideration. He also stated that, in accordance with the regulations, he does not make decisions about announcing competitions and appointing committees; these are made by the Faculty Electoral Council, and the Dean’s competences in the teacher selection process are procedural. In his response, the Dean further stated that the essential difference between the invitation letter evidence provided by A. A. and the three male teachers is that the invitation letter submitted by A. A. does not mention her name, while the invitation letters of the three male teachers do include their names as co-authors, which is why their evidence was accepted for promotion. The Dean also stated that on December 5, 2023, A. A. submitted a request for mutual termination of employment, which she signed, and that “teachers are adults aware of their actions” and there is no reason for him, as Dean, to dissuade them from written requests they submit, which is why he does not hold discussions with teachers when they resign. Considering the competencies of the Commissioner, as well as the fact that the complaint was filed against the Dean, the Commissioner did not analyze whether the evidence of the invited paper provided by the complainant with the competition documentation was sufficient to meet the general conditions for promotion to full professor but analyzed whether the Dean against whom the complaint was filed committed an act of discrimination based on gender as a personal characteristic. During the proceedings, the Commissioner established that, in accordance with the Rulebook on the Manner and Procedure of Acquiring Titles and Establishing Employment for Teachers at the University of …, the decision to announce the competition and the decision to appoint the committee and its chairperson are made by the Faculty Electoral Council (Article 7). The committee prepares a report on the candidate and submits it to the Electoral Council (Articles 11-16), and the Faculty Electoral Council decides on the proposal for the candidate. Therefore, it is undisputed that the decision to announce the competition and select the candidate is made by the Faculty Electoral Council, not the Dean. It was further established that the agenda of the 8th session of the Electoral Council included the item on announcing the competition for the selection of an associate professor and that the Council members, by majority vote, rejected A. A.’s proposal to amend the agenda to replace the item of announcing the competition for associate professor with the selection of a full professor. It was also established that the Electoral Council members discussed the disputed condition, i.e., proving the fulfillment of the condition, did not adopt a unified stance on what is accepted as proof for meeting the condition of an invited paper, and by majority vote adopted the agenda item to announce the competition for associate professor. An analysis of the Electoral Council session minutes revealed that the practice of recognizing evidence of meeting conditions is not uniform, and a causal link between the candidate’s gender and the faculty’s practice cannot be established. The Commissioner further established that more women than men are employed at the … faculty and that the number of female and male full professors at the faculty is equal. Considering the entire context of the case, the Commissioner also took into account that the … faculty initiated the process to announce the competition for full professor after A. A. provided evidence that she met the condition for promotion, as well as the fact that the Teaching-Scientific Council of the faculty, in March 2024, adopted a decision specifying what is recognized as proof of meeting the condition—an invited lecture. Regarding the complaint’s allegations that A. A. was discriminated against based on gender in the mutual termination of employment process, the Commissioner, upon reviewing the submitted evidence, determined that A. A. was not discriminated against based on gender or any other personal characteristic, considering that she submitted a request for mutual termination and signed both the notice of rights after termination and the mutual termination agreement. The fact that the Dean did not have a conversation with her before signing the mutual termination agreement cannot be causally linked to her gender, as such a conversation is not a legal obligation of the employer, and the Dean disputed claims that he had such conversations in similar situations when requests were submitted by men. Regarding the complaint’s allegation that the Statute of the … faculty defines the Dean as the “first man of the faculty,” suggesting a discriminatory attitude towards women, the Commissioner points out that the same definition is contained in the University’s Statute, with which the Faculty’s Statute must be in accordance. The Commissioner issued the opinion that, in the proceedings based on the complaint filed by attorney …, on behalf and with the consent of A.A., alleging discrimination based on gender, the Dean of the … faculty of the University of … did not violate the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković