I'm a bit puzzled by the statement that he is asking "campus authorities" to "overrule" his firing. Why would he want to continue working there, or, how could he expect to be able to work in a department after indicting it in this fashion? With this document hasn't he pretty thoroughly burned his bridges?
> I'm a bit puzzled by the statement that he is asking "campus authorities" to "overrule" his firing. Why would he want to continue working there, or, how could he expect to be able to work in a department after indicting it in this fashion? With this document hasn't he pretty thoroughly burned his bridges?
He probably doesn't expect to keep working there. However, the department can't quietly give him bad references to torpedo his attempts to get a job elsewhere.
His capability is now acknowledged and in the public record such that they can't deny it.
So, he now doesn't have to explain the lack of a reference when he applies for a new job. Fairly smart maneuver actually.
Because the student body, even those who haven't had him as a lecturer, adore him. He may be burning bridges with others in the department, but he has an incredibly strong bridge with the rest of campus.
for most employment stuff you go through the company's internal grievance procedures first (and if those procedures are inadequate it helps you) before going to courts.
although if he was going to take this to court I'm surprised he created the webpage.
