Common use of Scope of Appeal Clause in Contracts

Scope of Appeal. 1. A procedural error impacted the outcome. An appeal on this ground must identify each instance of substantive procedural error. 2. New information, unavailable during the investigation, may affect the outcome. An appeal on this ground must specify the reason this information was not available or not provided to the Investigator during the investigation, and why the information could not have been provided on a timely basis. 3. The investigator had a conflict of interest or exhibited bias that impacted the outcome. An appeal based on this ground must explain the conflict of interest or bias for or against Complainants or Respondents generally, or the individual Complainant or Respondent, that affected the decision. 4. There were relevant, disputed issues or questions concerning interpretation of University policy that impacted the outcome. An appeal on this ground must state, in detail, the issues or questions that support this allegation. 5. Complainant’s allegations were substantiated in whole or in part, but the proposed changes to Complainants working conditions are insufficiently protective of Complainant or unnecessarily disruptive given the findings. An appeal based on this ground must state the reason(s) that the proposed changes are insufficient or disruptive. Complainant may not appeal actions taken or not taken concerning Respondent.

Scope of Appeal. 1. A procedural error impacted the outcome. An appeal on this ground must identify each instance of substantive procedural error. 2. New information, unavailable during the investigation, may affect the outcome. An appeal on this ground must specify the reason this information was not available or not provided to the Investigator investigator during the investigation, and why the information could not have been provided on a timely basis. 3. The investigator had a conflict of interest or exhibited bias that impacted the outcome. An appeal based on this ground must explain the conflict of interest or bias for or against Complainants or Respondents generally, or the individual Complainant or Respondent, that affected the decision. 4. There were relevant, disputed issues or questions concerning interpretation of University policy that impacted the outcome. An appeal on this ground must state, in detail, the issues or questions that support this allegation. 5. Complainant’s allegations were substantiated in whole or in part, but the proposed changes to Complainants working conditions are insufficiently protective of Complainant or unnecessarily disruptive given the findings. An appeal based on this ground must state the reason(s) that the proposed changes are insufficient or disruptive. Complainant may not appeal actions taken or not taken concerning Respondent.

Scope of Appeal. 1. A procedural error impacted the outcome. An appeal on this ground must identify each instance of substantive procedural error. 2. New information, unavailable during the investigation, may affect the outcome. An appeal on this ground must specify the reason this information was not available or not provided to the Investigator investigator during the investigation, and why the information could not have been provided on a timely basis. 3. The investigator had a conflict of interest or exhibited bias that impacted the outcome. An appeal based on this ground must explain the conflict of interest or bias for or against Complainants or Respondents generally, or the individual Complainant or Respondent, that affected the decision. 4. There were relevant, disputed issues or questions concerning interpretation of University policy that impacted the outcome. An appeal on this ground must state, in detail, the issues or questions that support this allegation. 5. Complainant’s allegations were substantiated in whole or in part, but the proposed changes to Complainants working conditions are insufficiently protective of Complainant or unnecessarily disruptive given the findings. An appeal based on this ground must state the reason(s) that the proposed changes are insufficient or disruptive. Complainant may not appeal actions taken or not taken concerning Respondent.