Former Cal State San Bernardino administrator awarded $6 million for gender discrimination – San Bernardino Sun

Report on Gender Discrimination Verdict at California State University, San Bernardino

Introduction: Verdict and Relevance to Sustainable Development Goals

A Los Angeles jury has awarded $6 million to a former administrator of California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB), in a case centered on gender harassment and discrimination. This verdict underscores significant challenges within the California State University (CSU) system in upholding key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Case Analysis: Systemic Failures in Upholding Gender Equality (SDG 5)

Background of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed by Dr. Anissa Rogers, former associate dean at the CSUSB Palm Desert campus. The defendants included CSUSB President Tomas Morales, former campus dean Jake Zhu, and the Board of Trustees of the California State University system. The case, along with a related case by former vice provost Clare Weber, alleged a systemic pattern of discrimination against female employees, directly contravening the principles of SDG 5.

Core Allegations and Violations of SDG Principles

• Gender Harassment: Dr. Rogers alleged she was subjected to “severe or pervasive” gender harassment, a direct violation of targets aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination and violence against women (SDG 5).
• Retaliation: Both Dr. Rogers and Ms. Weber claimed they faced termination or were forced to resign for reporting mistreatment and pay disparities. This retaliatory action undermines the creation of safe and inclusive work environments essential for achieving SDG 8.
• Pay Disparity: Ms. Weber’s allegations of being paid less than male counterparts highlight a failure to adhere to Target 8.5 of the SDGs, which calls for equal pay for work of equal value.

Institutional Accountability and SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

Failure of Institutional Response

Evidence presented during the trial indicated a profound failure of institutional mechanisms to address gender-based complaints, a core component of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions as outlined in SDG 16.

1. Lack of Investigation: Despite multiple complaints from current and former employees regarding Dean Zhu’s treatment of women, neither the university’s human resources department nor its Title IX office initiated a formal investigation.
2. Disregard for Internal Assessments: The university administration, led by President Morales, reportedly ignored a campus climate survey that identified a culture of fear, intimidation, and gender-based mistreatment. Key recommendations from the survey, such as adopting an anti-bullying policy and auditing HR practices, were not implemented.
3. Lack of Leadership Accountability: A 2017 faculty vote of “no-confidence” in President Morales was cited, criticizing his failure to address the severe problems identified in the climate survey. This points to a systemic breakdown in leadership accountability, weakening the institution’s integrity (SDG 16).

Verdict Implications and the Path Toward SDG Alignment

Jury Verdict as a Mandate for Change

The $6 million award to Dr. Rogers serves as a significant legal and financial rebuke of the CSU system’s practices. Attorneys for the plaintiff framed the verdict as a rejection of the university’s denial of systemic gender bias and a validation for women who have faced similar double standards. This outcome reinforces the importance of legal recourse in achieving justice and promoting SDG 16 (equal access to justice for all).

Moving Forward: Aligning with Global Standards

The case highlights an urgent need for the California State University system to align its policies and culture with the Sustainable Development Goals. To achieve this, the institution must:

• Promote Gender Equality (SDG 5): Implement robust, transparent, and non-retaliatory systems for reporting and investigating harassment and discrimination.
• Ensure Decent Work (SDG 8): Conduct comprehensive pay equity audits and establish safe, secure working environments free from intimidation and bullying.
• Build Strong Institutions (SDG 16): Foster accountable leadership and ensure that internal recommendations for improving campus climate and HR practices are implemented and monitored effectively.

The pending case of Clare Weber, expected to proceed to a jury next year, will continue to scrutinize the CSU system’s commitment to these fundamental principles of equality and justice.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The core of the article revolves around allegations of “severe or pervasive” gender harassment, gender discrimination, and mistreatment of female employees within the Cal State system. The lawsuit filed by Anissa Rogers and Clare Weber directly addresses gender-based double standards and a systemic problem of discrimination against women, which is a central theme of SDG 5.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article discusses issues related to the work environment, including pay disparity and the creation of a hostile atmosphere. The lawsuit alleges violations of the state’s Equal Pay Act, with claims that female vice provosts were paid less than male counterparts. It also describes a “culture of fear, intimidation, gender-based mistreatment and bullying,” which directly contradicts the principles of decent work and a safe working environment promoted by SDG 8.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article highlights institutional failures at Cal State San Bernardino. It mentions that the university’s human resources and Title IX offices failed to investigate multiple complaints. Furthermore, the university president allegedly ignored recommendations from a climate survey to adopt an anti-bullying policy and audit HR practices. The lawsuit itself represents a pursuit of justice through the legal system to hold the institution accountable for its failures, which aligns with the goals of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The lawsuit’s allegations of a “pattern and practice of discrimination and sexual harassment against female employees” directly relate to this target.
   • Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership. The case involves female administrators (an associate dean and a vice provost) who were allegedly forced to resign or fired for speaking out, which impeded their participation in leadership roles.
   • Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality. The article explicitly notes that the university failed to implement a recommended anti-bullying policy and audit its HR practices, showing a failure to adopt sound policies to protect female employees.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.5: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men… and equal pay for work of equal value. The lawsuit’s claim of pay disparity for female employees and violation of the Equal Pay Act is a direct connection to this target.
   • Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers. The article describes a work environment characterized by “gender-based mistreatment and bullying” and a “culture of fear,” which is the opposite of a safe and secure working environment.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law… and ensure equal access to justice for all. The legal action taken by the former administrators, resulting in a $6 million jury award, is an example of using the justice system to address grievances and seek legal remedy.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article details the institution’s lack of accountability, citing that “neither the university’s human resources department nor its Title IX offices ever launched an investigation into the allegations” and that the president ignored survey recommendations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 5 (Gender Equality)
   • Prevalence of discrimination and harassment: The article points to “multiple complaints from female employees” and a lawsuit alleging a “pattern and practice of discrimination.” The number of such complaints and legal cases serves as a direct indicator of discrimination.
   • Existence of policies on gender equality: The article explicitly mentions the failure to implement a recommended “anti-bullying policy.” The adoption and enforcement of such policies would be a measurable indicator of progress.
2. Indicators for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)
   • Gender pay gap: The lawsuit alleges that female vice provosts were paid less than their male counterparts. Data on salary differences for employees in similar roles is a key indicator for equal pay.
   • Reports of workplace harassment: The “climate survey suggesting a culture of fear, intimidation, gender-based mistreatment and bullying” is a qualitative indicator. The frequency of reported incidents of harassment is a quantitative indicator of a non-secure work environment.
3. Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)
   • Number of unresolved grievances: The article states that HR and Title IX offices “never launched an investigation into the allegations.” The rate at which official complaints are investigated and resolved is an indicator of institutional accountability.
   • Employee confidence in management: The faculty’s 181-113 “no-confidence” vote in the university president is a clear indicator of a lack of trust and a failure of institutional responsiveness and accountability.
   • Access to legal remedy: The $6 million jury award serves as an indicator that the legal system provided a mechanism for justice when institutional channels failed.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: sbsun.com