The UT-AAUP has challenged the UT Administration’s Faculty 180 Evaluation process conducted on January 20, 2026. Three class action grievances have been filed for the T/TT, Lecturers, and Law School faculty.
As used herein “UT Administration” is defined as the Provost Office, HR Faculty Labor Relations, and UT Legal Affairs.
The UT-AAUP grievances are for multiple violations of the CBAs including the following:
1. The three UT-AAUP CBAs were entered into before SB-1 was passed by the Ohio legislature. SB-1 provides that it does not apply to a CBA entered into before it was passed. Therefore, the three current UT-AAUP CBAs are exempt from SB-1 policies adopted by the UT Administration including the Faculty 180 Evaluation process.
2. The Faculty 180 Evaluation process does not follow the current CBAs. For example, the Faculty 180 Evaluation eliminates peer review. It also uses subjective criteria instead of the objective criteria in the CBAs. SB-1 also requires objective criteria.
The UT Administration has adopted some SB-1 language. Chairs and Deans have been instructed to evaluate faculty in each of the three areas (service, teaching, professional development) as “exceeds performance expectations”, “meets performance expectations”, or “does not meet performance expectations”. The wording of these three evaluations comes directly from SB-1.
SB-1 further provides that if a faculty receives two “does not meet performance expectations” in two of the past three years, the faculty will be subject to various administrative actions including “censure, remedial training, for-cause termination, or other disciplinary action.” This is not in the CBAs.
For the above reasons, the UT-AAUP will grieve any negative evaluations such as “does not meet performance expectations” because the January 20, 2026 Faculty 180 Evaluation process violates the CBAs. A second Faculty 180 Evaluation is set for September 2026 and is expected to use the same evaluation process as the January 20 evaluation. If so, it will also be grieved with class action grievances.
A second negative evaluation will enable Chairs and Deans to initiate administrative corrective action processes against faculty, as instructed by the UT Administration. This requires two negative evaluations in any one of the three areas (service, teaching, and professional development).
The three UT-AAUP grievances challenge all “does not meet performance expectations” evaluations on the basis that the Faculty 180 Evaluation process did not follow the CBAs. Individual grievances will be filed as needed.
Faculty are advised to notify the UT-AAUP at once if they receive a negative evaluation such as “does not meet performance expectations” with or without comments in any area. Any negative evaluation under the Faculty 180 Evaluation process will be challenged with a grievance. The grievance must be filed within 20 work days of the negative evaluation. Do not sit on a negative evaluation.
The UT Administration (as defined above) is playing hardball. If you do nothing, the Administration is likely to argue that you have waived your rights under the applicable CBA.
The UT-AAUP will continue to oppose any attempt by the UT Administration to impose evaluation processes or other faculty working conditions in violation of the CBAs.
UT-AAUP Executive Board