Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse om etnisk oprindelse - hudfarve og race - arbejdsvilkår - chikane - afvisning

Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse om etnisk oprindelse - hudfarve og race - arbejdsvilkår - chikane - afvisning

J.nr. 22-43570

En mand (klager) klagede over sin arbejdsgiver (indklagede).

Manden mente, at han på grund af sin race og etniske oprindelse var blevet udsat for forskelsbehandling og chikane under sin ansættelse og efterfølgende af arbejdsgiveren.

Ligebehandlingsnævnet vurderede, at der ikke i klagen eller sagens dokumenter var oplysninger, der gav anledning til at formode, at arbejdsgiveren havde udsat klager for forskelsbehandling på grund af klagers race og/eller etniske oprindelse.

Nævnet vurderede, at klager ikke havde påvist faktiske omstændigheder, som gav anledning til at formode, at han havde været udsat for forskelsbehandling.

Nævnet afviste derfor at behandle klagen.

Afgørelsen blev truffet af et medlem af nævnets forpersonskab.

Klagen angår påstået forskelsbehandling på grund af race og etnisk oprindelse under klagers ansættelse ved indklagede universitet.

Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse

Ligebehandlingsnævnet afviser at behandle klagen.

Sagens behandling

Afgørelsen er truffet af et medlem af Ligebehandlingsnævnets forpersonskab.

Sagsfremstilling

Den 1. april 2018 blev klager ansat i en tidsbegrænset stilling som post.

doc.

ved indklagede.

Stillingen ophørte ved udgangen af juni 2019.

Den 20. december 2019 meddelte et norsk institut klager, at han var øverst på listen over kandidater til en forskerstilling inden for klagers felt.

Af mailen fremgik bl.a.

”There are a couple of formalities to go through, and we are going to send you an offer in the early beginning of January.

Of course, we hope you accept and will become a new collegue of ours.

”

Den 3. januar 2020 bad det norske universitet klager om at sende kontaktoplysninger på to-tre referencer.

Den 13. januar 2020 fik klager afslag på stillingen.

Af afslaget fremgår følgende

”Dear [klager],

Concerning your application for the position of Research Scientist, [klagers arbejdsområde].

¬I’m sorry to have to inform you that you will not get an offer from [universitetets navn] on this position.

Also, I had a not optimal reference interview that together with the internal staffing situation sealed the decision.

I’m sorry for that, and I would like to thank you for your interest and wish you best of luck for the future.

”

Klager blev ved mail af 20. januar 2020 indkaldt til jobsamtale om en anden post.

doc.

stilling ved et andet universitet i Norge.

Den 27. januar 2020 skrev klager følgende til universitetet

”Dear [anonymiseret]

… Initially I had put [supervisor hos indklagede] as one of

my referees.

I would like to remove [supervisor] from my list of references.

I have been threatened by [supervisor] today.

I do not think that communication with him will give you a true picture of my work and research training.

…”

Universitetet sendte den 28. januar 2020 et svar på klagers mail.

Det fremgik af mailen, at universitetet havde planlagt et opkald med klagers supervisor hos indklagede universitet senere på ugen.

Den 18. februar 2020 modtog klager en mail fra det norske universitet.

Af mailen fremgår følgende

”Dear [klager]

I am sorry to inform you that we have decided not to offer you the position.

We would like to thank you for your interest and for the time and effort you’ve put into your presentation and the interview.

We wish you successful job applications in the future and a fruitful career in [klagers arbejdsområde].

”

Den 18. februar 2020 foreslog supervisor, at klager kunne kontakte næstforpersonen i Praksisudvalget hos indklagede for at få en neutral vurdering af parternes tvist.

Klager indgav den 27. februar 2020 en klage over supervisoren til Praksisudvalget hos indklagede.

I klagen nedlagde klager påstand om, at supervisoren havde tilsidesat god videnskabelig praksis ved at ændre forfatterskabet på en videnskabelig artikel, som klager havde arbejdet på, og ved ikke at undlade at dele forskningsresultater med klager.

Klager kontaktede næstforpersonen i Praksisudvalget den 2. marts 2020 med henblik på at få en vurdering af tvisten om forfatterskabet.

Indklagede har oplyst, at klager ud over klagen til Praksisudvalget havde klaget over supervisoren til institutledelsen på universitetet.

Den 2. juni 2020 traf instituttet afgørelse i klagesagen.

Klager indbragte klagen for indklagede universitets dekan og rektor den 28. juli 2020.

Praksisudvalget afgav den 6. august 2020 en udtalelse i sagen om tvivlsom forskningspraksis.

Af udtalelsen fremgår følgende

” 1.

The complaint

On 27 February 2020, former postdoc at [indklagede universitet], [klager] (the complainant) submitted a complaint regarding [supervisor] (the respondent).

According to the complaint, the respondent has committed questionable research practice by

The respondent has rejected having committed questionable

research practice.

2.

Case presentation and submissions

The respondent is an associate professor at [afdeling ved det indklagede universitet].

From April 2018, the complainant worked as a postdoc with

the respondent being his primary advisor at the university.

In his complaint of 27 February 2020, the complainant has,

inter alia , submitted the following

“I was hired as a postdoc from overseas for this project.

I conceptualised, designed experiments, collected data, analysed and wrote the manuscript draft.

About three months before the project ended, [supervisor] transferred the data to a non-[indklagede universitet] collaborator and did not share any analyses results with me despite asking repeatedly.

After writing and sharing my first full draft of the manuscript, my content was not acknowledged.

[Supervisoren] has subsequently prevented me from writing

the manuscript and failed to provide any justification.

He fails to comply with [indklagede universitets]-Code for Authorship, specifically the section 2.

Sole and joint authorship.

He insists that I have no rights to the data I collected and have only two options -either accept the second (with negotiated co-first) authorship or there will be no publication (see pdfs attached).

I am suspicious of [supervisorens] intention to transfer the analyses to a non-[indklagede universitet] party and not sharing the results.

As I have not seen the results and am not allowed to write the manuscript, I cannot vouch for the integrity of the analysis and results reported.

[Supervisoren] did not address any of the questions when asked by email (see attached pdfs).

Instead, he threatened me with negative referee reports.

….

….

As I was involved in conceptualisation, study design and execution, data collection, analyses, interpretation and manuscript writing, I was the first author.

[Medforfatter] was involved in data analyses and she was the second author.

All other authors are supervisors.

This was agreed upon by all until Dec 2019.

In Dec 2019, I was asked to transfer all data to Niki and I was kept out of communication.

Many of my emails regarding feedback and updates were ignored.

I kept waiting for [supervisoren] to comment on the manuscript.

Instead of commenting on the manuscript, [supervisoren] changed the author sequence and made [medforfatter] the first author at the last minute.

When I asked about this sudden change, [supervisoren] says it was laborious to give me feedback on the manuscript (see pdfs

attached).

….

”

On 23 March 2020, the respondent has, inter alia , submitted the following comments to the complaint

“[Klager] argue that he “conceptualized, designed experiments, collected data, analysed and wrote the manuscript draft”.

Although he in fact participated in all these activities he became neither the main or the sole

responsible in any of them.

He required substantial supervision and at least in the main study he lacked some initiative to conduct research independently.

He also at times had difficulties in following suggestions and

recommendations, which lead to an increased workload for especially the other postdoc involved [medforfatters navn] as well as myself.

….

For all these reasons, we ([navne på andre supervisors])

decided to switch authorship with [medforfatter] as first author and [klager] as second author.

This was done to acknowledge whom had contributed most to the analysis of data, writing up the manuscript and becoming crucial in establishing its high standard.

It is correct that I at this stage did not wish to let [klager] edit the manuscript further as he had already shown that he was not in a position to substantially improve it.

….

”

On 7 May 2020, the complainant has, inter alia, submitted the following comments hereto

“This is contrary to ICMJE and COPE guidelines for authorship.

Authorship decisions are not to be made last minute and this was amply clear even when I sent the first full draft and [supervisor] acknowledging my role as first authorship (see pdf W).

[supervisor] (or [de øvrige supervisorer på projektet] did not communicate, consult or discuss with me on this last-minute change.

….

….

[Supervisor] never established or discussed with me if I was or was not in a position to improve the manuscript, because I never received any comments from him on it.

He kept saying he will send comments (see pdf U).

Suddenly in mid-Jan 2020, he sent a changed authorship draft and asked me to send comments within a day.

This is unprecedented and unfair.

In order to discuss this issue, [supervisoren] and I had a skype call where instead of addressing the issues, he opposed my right to write the manuscript (see video 1, notice his tone).

”

In the submission, the complainant further attached an e-mail of 2 November 2019 (e-mail attachment W), sent from the respondent to the complainant, where the respondent, inter alia , writes the following

“It is fine you are first author.

I would, however prefer [medforfatter] as second author and add a note that the two of you contributed equally to this work.

”

On 2 June 2020, the respondent has, inter alia, submitted the following comments hereto

“One may ask why I did not criticize what I perceived as [klagers] poor performance earlier on.

This was because I preferred to make constructive suggestions instead of direct criticism.

This was partly due to that with the short period of employment, it was difficult to address the issue and still

obtain a scientific contribution to the project.

However, I was informed relatively early on by the other co-authors that there were some problems in collaborating with him and subsequently I became aware of shortcomings in his work as well.

I thought I could still defend [klager] as first-author if he could contribute in a meaningful way to the manuscript.

This turned out, however, not to be the outcome.

Regarding the difficulties on working with [klager] on the manuscript I have in my previous communication with the committee shared a version of the manuscript that show that [klager] did not follow proper conduct in the writing phase by using track changes (appendix 6 in that

communication).

I acknowledge [klager] was given short notice to consider whether he would agree not to be first author.

Subsequent events have convinced me that the timing of authorship discussion probably did not matter as we most likely at all instances would have ended up where we are now.

”

3.

The process before the Practice Committee

According to Act no.

383 of 26 April 2017 on Research Misconduct etc. section 19(1) (hereafter the Act on Research Misconduct etc.), cases about questionable research practices are considered by the research institutions.

According to section 20 of the said Act, each research institution publishes its rules on the handling of cases regarding questionable research practices.

Pursuant to [indklagede universitets] Rules of Procedure for Cases regarding Questionable Research Practices and Research Misconduct, issued by [indklagede universitet] on 6 December 2019, the Practice Committee is responsible for promoting responsible research practices at the university and can e.g.

make decisions on matters concerning research by or at the university.

On 27 February 2020, the Practice Committee received the complaint.

On 16 March 2020, the Secretariat invited the respondent to submit his comments to the complaint.

On 23 March 2020, the respondent submitted his comments to the complaint.

On 3 April 2020, the Secretariat invited the complainant to submit his comments to the case.

Due to technical problems, on 23 April 2020, the invitation to the complainant was sent again.

On 7 May 2020, the complainant submitted his comments to the case.

On 26 May 2020, the Secretariat invited the respondent to submit his comments to the case.

On 2 June 2020, the respondent submitted his comments to the case.

At its meeting on 10 June 2020, the Practice Committee deliberated the case in substance.

On 15 June 2020, the Secretariat informed the complainant and respondent that the Committee had assessed the case in substance.

On 16 June 2020, the complainant submitted further comments to the case.

4.

The assessment by the Practice Committee

The Practice Committee has based the following assessment on the information and documents mentioned in sections 2 and 3 above.

General comments regarding questionable research practices

Questionable research practices are defined in the Act on Research Misconduct etc. section 3(1) number 5: “Questionable research practices shall mean: Violation of generally accepted standards for responsible research practices, including the standards in The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and other applicable institutional, national and international practices and guidelines for research integrity.

”

The evaluation of whether a particular practice is in accordance with the requirements for responsible research practices is based on Act no.

383 of 26 April 2017 on Research Misconduct.

When exercising its discretion, the Practice Committee will be mindful of The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2014, issued by the Ministry of Higher Education and Science.

The Committee may also take into account other broadly accepted institutional, national and international regulations and ethical codes

regarding research integrity are applied, such as the Vancouver Rules (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), the ”European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity” (European Science Foundation) and ”The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity” (World Conferences on Research Integrity).

The Practice Committee finds, that the evaluation of whether a particular practice is in accordance with the requirements for responsible research practices should generally be made in the light of the purpose of the rules, which in this particular context is, inter alia, to make sure that an author is attributed for his or her contributions.

Assessment of whether the respondent has committed questionable research practice

Regarding authorship

Initially, there was no written agreement between the authors regarding the authorship of the manuscript.

It is, however, undisputed that in the respondent’s e-mail of 2 November 2019 to the complainant, the respondent confirmed that the complainant could be the first author.

The co-authors of the manuscript, except from the complainant, later changed this decision.

The complainant was instead listed second as joint first author in the

manuscript.

According to the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, section 4.2 ii.

“Researchers should address issues relating to authorship – especially the roles of all collaborators and contributors – at an early stage while recognising that roles and contributions may change during the time span of the research.

”

Further, it follows from section 4.1 ix.

of the code that “Decisions concerning publication and authorship should be agreed on jointly and should be communicated to all members of the research team.

”

It is clear that the decision concerning change of authorship was not agreed on jointly, since the complainant was not included in making the decision.

However, it is also clear that the co-authors were dissatisfied with the contributions from the complainant.

Under these circumstances, the Practice Committee finds that the said change of authorship is justified by the decision taken by the co-authors in agreement.

The Committee points to the fact that the change is minor and that decisions regarding authorship in some cases will have to be taken as a majority decision, if not all authors agree.

Based on these reasons the Practice Committee must conclude that the respondent has not shown questionable research practice by changing the authorship of the manuscript.

Regarding sharing of data and drafting of manuscript

The parties disagree to what extent the research results were shared with the complainant.

It is, however, clear that the complainant wrote the first draft of a manuscript, which was finalized by a co-author, who had access to the research data, which were collected in collaboration between the complainant and the co-authors.

The Practice Committee notes that there is no written agreement between the authors regulating who should write the manuscript based on the research results.

Based on the submitted information, the Practice Committee finds that it has not been established that the respondent has shown questionable research practice.

Based on said reasons, it is the opinion of the Practice Committee that the respondent has not shown questionable research practice.

Opinion of the Practice Committee

The Practice Committee finds that [supervisor] has not shown questionable research practice.

”

Den 28. december 2020 blev klager orienteret om, at indklagede ikke havde fundet grundlag for at genoptage klagesagen, som instituttet havde truffet afgørelse i den 28. juli 2020.

Klager har vedlagt en videooptagelse af en samtale mellem klager og supervisor forud for, at supervisoren skulle have et møde med det norske universitet.

Af optagelsen høres bl.a.

Supervisor: ”So maybe we conclude on this in a couple of days.

Right?

But remember I have a jobinterview with the Norwegian group on Wednesday.

And I am not cancelling it.

Klager: “Okay.

”

Supervisor: “So if I don’t hear from you before they get my story.

If I hear from you and we conclude I will tell them that I am not … I’m busy and I can not conduct an interview.

”

Klagen blev modtaget i Ligebehandlingsnævnet den 26. september 2022.

Klager har vedlagt skærmprint af korrespondancer fra WhatsApp og de kommentarer, klager indsendte til Praksisudvalget under høringsprocessen i forbindelse med klagers klage over supervisoren.

Klager har ikke fremsat krav om tilkendelse af et bestemt godtgørelsesbeløb.

Parternes bemærkninger

Henset til sagens resultat er parternes bemærkninger alene gengivet delvist.

Klager gør gældende, at han er blevet udsat for forskelsbehandling i form af chikane på grund af race, etnisk oprindelse og hudfarve i forbindelse med ansættelsen i en tidsbegrænset stilling hos indklagede.

Klager blev ansat til at undersøge og publicere slutresultatet af en videnskabelig artikel, og klager har under hele ansættelse opfyldt sine forpligtelser i forbindelse hermed.

Klagers supervisor begyndte tre måneder før den tidsbegrænsede ansættelses ophør at fjerne klager fra forskningsprojekter uden grund, og da klager gjorde ledelsen opmærksom herpå, modtog han nedsættende beskeder, såsom ”brown people don’t belong to the white land of Europe”.

Beskeden modtog klager, fordi supervisoren kontaktede russere, hvilket skabte et miljø med frygt og intimidering.

Klagers supervisor truede klager med at ødelægge klagers karriere, og supervisor har blandt andet sendt negative udtalelser til tre potentielle arbejdsgivere.

Indklagede er skyld i, at klager mistede to jobmuligheder, hvilket medførte, at klager var uden arbejde i to år.

I forbindelse med klagers indgivelse af klagen til universitetet (fakultetet, dekanen, rektoren og Praksisudvalget) blev klager ignoreret, og universitetets medarbejdere valgte deres danske kollegas side.

Et studentermagasin på det indklagede universitet havde tænkt sig at publicere et øjebliksbillede af problemet, men dette blev sidenhen stoppet.

Klager formoder, at supervisoren truede magasinet.

Medlemmerne i Praksisudvalget er venner med klagers supervisor, hvilket udgør en interessekonflikt.

Praksisudvalget ignorerede de trusler, som supervisoren truede klager med.

Praksisudvalget tog desuden ikke stilling til tvisterne om de immaterielle rettigheder over artiklen, medarbejderchikanen og den kriminelle intimidering fra supervisoren.

Forfatterskabskonflikten opstod først efter, at klager forlod Danmark.

Indklagede gør gældende, at klager ikke er blevet udsat for forskelsbehandling.

For så vidt angår fjernelse af klager som førsteforfatter henvises der til Praksisudvalgets vurdering og gennemgang af sagsforløbet.

Praksisforløbet fandt, at der ikke forelå tvivlsom forskningspraksis ved, at den samlede gruppe af bidragsydere til nævnte artikel – bortset fra klager – valgte at tilbyde klager et delt førsteforfatterskab.

Dette var en flertalsbeslutning og udtryk for en samlet vurdering af det bidrag, der var leveret til artiklens indhold og bagvedliggende forskning.

Beslutningen blev således alene truffet på baggrund af en faglig vurdering af klagers bidrag.

Indklagede har en stor mangfoldighed af forskere fra hele verden, og beslutninger om faglige spørgsmål træffes af forskere på baggrund af vurderinger af det faglige indhold uafhængigt af eventuel personlig baggrund.

Det var derfor ikke udtryk for forskelsbehandling, da klager blev fjernet som førsteforfatter.

Indklagede kan ikke genkende beskrivelsen, som klager fremfører om, at indklagede har ignoreret henvendelser og truet klager i forbindelse med behandlingen af klagesagen.

Indklagede afviser, at der i forbindelse med klagesagsbehandlingen og kommunikationen i den forbindelse er sket diskrimination, mobning eller chikane, og at klager skulle være blevet forskelsbehandlet.

Klagers tidsbegrænsede stilling var oprindeligt kun af et års varighed, men blev forlænget tre måneder med henblik på at give klager mulighed for at færdiggøre en artikel hos indklagede.

Klager fik ikke ringere mulighed for at bidrage til artiklen end øvrige bidragsydere.

Klagen til universitetet blev behandlet efter universitetets retningslinjer for klagesagsbehandling.

Supervisoren har været i kontakt med to af klagers tidligere samarbejdspartnere i relation til allerede publicerede artikler, som klager efterfølgende var blevet forfatter på.

Supervisoren har endvidere givet mundtlige referencer til tre arbejdsgivere, hvor klager har søgt om ansættelse.

Supervisoren havde nogle måneder inden, der opstod uenighed om forfatterskabet, herunder klagers bidrag til artiklen, et indtryk af et velfungerende samarbejde med klager, hvilket gav udslag i den reference, han udarbejdede på daværende tidspunkt.

Indholdet af referencerne var afbalanceret og kan ikke tages til indtægt for diskrimination, mobning eller chikane.

Den ændrede reference er ikke udtryk for diskrimination m.v., men udslag af et ændret erfaringsgrundlag på baggrund af samarbejdet med klager.

Klagers supervisor har været i kontakt med den potentielle arbejdsgiver, som klager angiveligt har haft sms-korrespondance med.

Arbejdsgiveren har over for supervisoren oplyst, at man ikke genkender sms-korrespondancen.

Ligebehandlingsnævnets bemærkninger og konklusion

Ligebehandlingsnævnet behandler klager over forskelsbehandling på grund af race og/eller etnisk oprindelse efter lov om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på arbejdsmarkedet mv. (forskelsbehandlingsloven).

Det fremgår af forskelsbehandlingsloven, at en arbejdsgiver ikke må forskelsbehandle lønmodtagere eller ansøgere til ledige stillinger ved ansættelse, afskedigelse, forflyttelse, forfremmelse eller med hensyn til løn- og arbejdsvilkår.

Ved forskelsbehandling forstås enhver direkte eller indirekte forskelsbehandling på grund af race og/eller etnisk oprindelse.

Der foreligger direkte forskelsbehandling, når en person på grund af en bestemt race og/eller etnisk oprindelse behandles ringere end en anden bliver, er blevet eller ville blive behandlet i en tilsvarende situation.

Der foreligger indirekte forskelsbehandling, når en bestemmelse, et kriterium eller en praksis, der tilsyneladende er neutral, vil stille personer af en bestemt race/og eller etnisk oprindelse ringere end andre personer, medmindre den pågældende bestemmelse, betingelse eller praksis er objektivt begrundet i et sagligt formål, og midlerne til at opfylde det er hensigtsmæssige og nødvendige.

Chikane skal betragtes som forskelsbehandling, når en optræden i relation til race eller etnisk oprindelse finder sted med det formål eller den virkning at krænke en persons værdighed og skabe et truende, fjendtligt, nedværdigende, ydmygende eller ubehageligt klima for den pågældende.

Hvis en person, der anser sig for krænket, påviser faktiske omstændigheder, som giver anledning til at formode, at der udøves direkte eller indirekte forskelsbehandling, påhviler det modparten at bevise, at ligebehandlingsprincippet ikke er blevet krænket.

Ligebehandlingsnævnet kan afvise at behandle en klage, hvis det er åbenbart, at der ikke kan gives klageren medhold i klagen.

Klager har gjort gældende, at han på grund af sin race og etniske oprindelse er blevet udsat for chikane og forskelsbehandling under sin ansættelse og efterfølgende af indklagede.

Der er ikke oplysninger i klagen eller i sagens dokumenter, der giver anledning til at formode, at indklagede har udsat klager for forskelsbehandling på grund af klagers race og/eller etniske oprindelse.

Nævnet vurderer, at klager ikke har påvist faktiske omstændigheder, som giver anledning til at formode, at han har været udsat for forskelsbehandling eller chikane på grund af race og/eller etnisk oprindelse.

Efter nævnets faste praksis er det herefter åbenbart at klager ikke kan få medhold i klagen.

Nævnet afviser derfor at behandle klagen.

Retsregler

Afgørelsen er truffet efter følgende bestemmelser

Lov om Ligebehandlingsnævnet

Forskelsbehandlingsloven

-

changing the authorship of the manuscript “[titel]” , making the complainant joined first author listed second, instead of first author,

-

not sharing research results with the complainant which, allegedly, would have allowed him to finish the said manuscript.

•

§ 1, stk. 1, og stk. 3, om nævnets kompetence

•

§ 6, stk. 3, om formandsafgørelser

•

§ 8, stk. 2, nævnets afvisning af klagen

•

§ 9, stk. 1, om klagebehandling

•

§ 12, stk. 1, om klagebehandling

•

§ 1, stk. 1-4, om lovens anvendelsesområde

•

§ 2, stk. 1, om forbud mod forskelsbehandling

•

§ 7 a, om delt bevisbyrde