COMPLIANCE CHATTER

Fall Series

UConn Encourages Good-Faith Reporting

The University of Connecticut, including UConn and UConn Health, encourages individuals to report information about potential violations of state or federal law, university policy, rules, and/or regulations to the Office of University Compliance. The University strictly prohibits retaliation against any individuals or groups who have, in good faith, reported such concerns. 

Retaliation occurs when an individual threatens or engages in any adverse action against an individual/group who has reported an allegation of a potential violation in good faith, or because they have participated in a compliance investigation.

A good faith report refers to a report made with a reasonable belief that an actual policy violation may have occurred. Raising concerns or reporting a potential policy violation is often referred to as a “protected activity.”

An adverse action is any unfavorable or possibly harmful action that prevents an individual or group from being successful or in an attempt to dissuade an individual from reporting concerns.

Some examples of retaliation may include but are not limited to:

• Professional or social isolation
• Unsubstantiated adverse performance evaluations or disciplinary action
• Reduction of a student’s grade
• Physical threats and/or destruction of personal or state property

Any action taken or threatened that would dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in activities protected by this policy may also be considered retaliatory.

Please refer to the policy for additional examples.

An important element of retaliation is that the adverse action was taken because of the reported concern (protected activity). This is referred to as the “causal connection.”

Jen works in an office where she reports to Mike. Jen occasionally uses a state vehicle to complete work tasks. Jen recently reported concerns to Mike that her colleagues were not following a University policy. Mike told Jen that she had nothing to worry about and to continue doing her job. Shortly thereafter, whenever Jen requested to use the state vehicle, Mike would deny the request with no explanation, which impacted Jen’s ability to complete her assigned work tasks. Other office employees continued requesting and receiving approval to use the vehicle on a regular basis.

Jen believes this could be retaliation for having reported her concerns to Mike. Could this be potential retaliation?

Ask yourself these questions:

• Did Jen engage in a protected activity?
• If so, what was the protected activity?
• What would be considered the adverse action?

Jen did engage in a protected activity when she reported her concerns to Mike regarding potential policy violations. Additionally, Mike’s denial of the use of the state vehicle without any explanation, while subsequently allowing other employees to use the vehicle, has the potential to be retaliatory.

Please keep in mind that these situations are not clear cut and require a thorough review and investigation. Visit this webpage for more information about reporting concern to the Office of University Compliance.

There are multiple resources at the University for community members to discuss their concerns and ask questions as well as seek additional support. 

If you have questions or concerns regarding this policy or if an individual or a group believes that they have been retaliated against, you are encouraged to contact The Office of University Compliance.

Test what you learned this week.

Review additional Compliance Clips and Chatters.

Additional artwork provided by flaticon.com