Go to the Sources

Go to the Sources

Don’t take our word for it—read the sources yourself!

Has this been done before?

  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

    Sinai Postdoctoral Organizing Committee-UAW at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (Article 24, link)

  • University of California (all campuses)

    Postdocs at the University of California-UAW 4811 at the University of California, all campuses (Article 15, link)

    Academic Research Faculty at the University of California-UAW 4811 at the University of California, all campuses (Article 16, link)

  • University of Connecticut

    Postdocs at the University of Connecticut-UAW 6950 at the University of Connecticut (Article 5, link)

    Graduate Employee Union-UAW at the University of Connecticut (Article 4, link)

  • Temple University

    Temple Association of University Professionals (Article 3, link)

  • New York University

    Adjuncts Come Together-UAW at New York University (Article 16, link)

    Graduate Student Organizing Committee-UAW at New York University (Article 14, link)

  • University of Massachusetts Amherst

    Graduate Employee Organization-UAW at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (Article 18, link; Article 15, link)

  • Worcester Polytechnic Institute

    WPI Graduate Workers Union - UAW at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (Article 6, link)

  • Weill Cornell Medicine

    Weill Cornell Medical Postdocs Union-UAW at Weill Cornell Medicine (link)

Is this illegal? What does the Department of Education say?

“The Department has never impeded a recipient’s ability to provide parties with additional rights as long as the recipient fulfills its obligations under Title IX. The Department has never suggested otherwise, and we believe it is unnecessary to expressly address this concern in the regulatory text. Although recipients may give employees additional or separate rights, recipients must still comply with these final regulations, which implement Title IX.” - Page 30422

“Additionally, the Department notes that nothing in these regulations interferes with a recipient’s ability to negotiate a grievance process within a collective bargaining agreement that is distinct from grievance procedures under Title IX. Nor do these regulations interfere with a recipient employee’s right to pursue remedies under an applicable collective bargaining agreement instead of making a complaint to initiate grievance procedures under Title IX.

However, if an employee chooses to pursue a remedy under a collective bargaining agreement, and that process does not include baseline requirements consistent with § 106.45, and if applicable § 106.46, there can be no finding of responsibility or disciplinary action against an individual respondent for sex discrimination under Title IX. Further, an employee’s decision to pursue a remedy under an applicable collective bargaining agreement rather than under the Title IX grievance procedures would not alleviate the Title IX Coordinator’s obligation to determine whether to initiate a sex discrimination complaint under the recipient’s Title IX grievance procedures by making a fact-specific determination consistent with § 106.44(f)(1)(v) and to comply with § 106.44(f)(1)(vii).” Pages 633-634, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance