Former UTPD chief sues University, UT System, alleges discriminatory termination, hiring practices – The Daily Texan

Report on Allegations of Discriminatory Practices at the University of Texas System

Introduction and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

A lawsuit filed against the University of Texas and the UT System by former University of Texas Police Department (UTPD) Chief Eve Stephens alleges discriminatory employment practices that contravene several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The allegations of termination based on sex and national origin directly challenge the principles of SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Furthermore, the case raises significant concerns regarding the institution’s commitment to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by questioning its adherence to fair labor practices and institutional accountability.

Case Summary: Eve Stephens vs. The University of Texas System

• Plaintiff: Eve Stephens, former UTPD Chief of Police (July 2023 – September 2024).
• Defendants: The University of Texas and the UT System.
• Core Allegation: Unlawful termination based on sex and national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• SDG Context: As the first Asian-American woman to lead any UT System police department, the circumstances of her removal are particularly relevant to the targets of SDG 5 and SDG 10, which aim to ensure equal opportunities in leadership and eliminate discriminatory practices.

Allegations of Discriminatory Conduct and Institutional Failures

The complaint details a series of events that suggest a systemic failure to uphold principles of equality and fair employment, undermining progress on multiple SDGs.

1. Discriminatory Treatment: A senior official, the Vice President for Legal Affairs, is alleged to have been “openly and outwardly critical” towards female employees, a behavior not observed with male colleagues. This conduct directly opposes the objective of SDG 5 to end all forms of discrimination against women.
2. Termination Without Cause: Chief Stephens was allegedly forced to resign shortly after receiving a positive performance review, with no reason provided. This action challenges the principles of SDG 8 (Decent Work), which promotes secure and fair employment.
3. Pattern of Discrimination: Another high-ranking Asian-American woman was reportedly terminated on the same day under similar circumstances, indicating a potential pattern of discrimination that works against the goals of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
4. Erosion of Merit-Based Standards: The complaint alleges that Stephens’ replacement, a white male, did not meet the required five years of high-ranking experience for the position. This departure from established meritocratic standards is inconsistent with the promotion of productive employment as outlined in SDG 8.
5. Systemic Purge of Female Employees: The lawsuit claims a subsequent “coordinated purge” of at least five other female UTPD employees, including the last two Asian-American women in leadership. This alleged action represents a significant setback for institutional diversity and the achievement of SDG 5 and SDG 10.

Impact on Diversity and Inclusion Goals

The allegations, if substantiated, indicate a regression in the university’s efforts to build an inclusive and equitable institution.

• Setback for Gender Representation (SDG 5): The complaint highlights that Chief Stephens was actively working to increase the hiring and promotion of female officers in a department where they were “grossly underrepresented” (13.6% of sworn personnel in 2021). Her removal and the subsequent termination of other female employees threaten to reverse any progress made toward gender parity.
• Erosion of Institutional Integrity (SDG 16): The claims of unfair termination, circumvention of hiring standards, and a hostile work environment for remaining female officers undermine the trust and accountability required for strong, effective, and just institutions as envisioned by SDG 16.
• Violation of Decent Work Principles (SDG 8): The alleged creation of an intimidating work environment, where other female officers were implicitly threatened with termination, is contrary to the goal of ensuring safe and secure working conditions for all.

Legal Recourse and Desired Outcomes

The lawsuit seeks to leverage legal frameworks to enforce accountability and restore equitable practices within the institution, in line with the justice-oriented targets of SDG 16.

• Legal Framework: The plaintiff is seeking a judgment that the defendants’ practices violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Remedies Sought:
  • Reinstatement to her former position.
  • Backpay and compensatory damages.
  • Supervisory discipline, including potential termination, for any supervisor found to have engaged in discrimination or retaliation, thereby reinforcing the principles of accountability central to SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The article centrally addresses gender equality. The plaintiff, Eve Stephens, alleges she was fired “because of her sex.” The lawsuit also claims a “coordinated purge of female employees” and notes that Stephens worked to increase the hiring of “grossly underrepresented” female officers. This directly relates to achieving gender equality and empowering women in the workplace, particularly in leadership positions.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The issues of wrongful termination, discriminatory employment practices, and the right to fair treatment at work are core to SDG 8. The lawsuit seeks “reinstatement, backpay and supervisory discipline,” which are remedies for violations of labor rights and the principles of decent work. The case invokes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment, aligning with the goal of protecting labor rights for all.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  This goal is relevant as the lawsuit alleges discrimination based on both sex and “national origin,” as Stephens was the “first Asian-American woman to lead any UT System police department.” The complaint also mentions the termination of “another high-ranking Asian-American woman employee.” These allegations point to inequalities of opportunity and outcome based on identity, which SDG 10 aims to eliminate.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article describes a legal challenge aimed at achieving justice and holding a public institution (the University and its police department) accountable. By filing a lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff is seeking “equal access to justice” and promoting the “rule of law.” The case questions the transparency and fairness of the institution’s employment practices, which relates to the development of effective and accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” The lawsuit’s central claim is that Stephens and other female employees faced discrimination, and it seeks to end these practices within the university police department.
   • Target 5.5: “Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership in political, economic and public life.” The case involves the termination of a female Chief of Police, a key leadership position. The article also cites data showing women made up only “20% of leadership personnel” in 2021, highlighting the issue of unequal opportunities for leadership.
2. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.5: “By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men… and equal pay for work of equal value.” The lawsuit fights for the right to employment free from discrimination, a fundamental aspect of “decent work.” The plaintiff’s effort to ensure hiring was “based on merit” also aligns with this target.
   • Target 8.8: “Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers…” The lawsuit is an action to protect labor rights by invoking Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination.
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…” The lawsuit directly challenges alleged discriminatory practices that led to an inequality of outcome (termination) for the plaintiff and other female, Asian-American employees. It seeks to enforce existing legislation to ensure equal opportunity.
4. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” Stephens is using the federal court system to seek a legal remedy for an alleged violation of her civil rights, which is a clear example of seeking equal access to justice.
   • Target 16.B: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The entire lawsuit is an attempt to enforce a key non-discriminatory law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Proportion of women in leadership positions: The article explicitly provides data that can be used as an indicator for Target 5.5. It states, “In 2021, women made up 13.6% of all UTPD sworn personnel and 20% of leadership personnel.” Tracking this percentage over time would measure progress towards equal opportunities in leadership.
• Number of discrimination-based terminations or complaints: The article implies this indicator by stating that “at least five other female UTPD employees were fired or pushed out since Stephens’ firing.” The lawsuit itself represents a formal complaint of discrimination. A reduction in such events would indicate progress towards Target 10.3.
• Adherence to merit-based and non-discriminatory hiring and promotion criteria: An indicator for Target 8.5 is implied when the article notes that Stephens’ replacement was allegedly “unqualified because he did not serve five or more years in a high-ranking position, a requirement for UTPD Chiefs.” Measuring whether appointments meet established, objective criteria can help assess if employment practices are fair and based on merit.
• Number of legal actions filed to enforce non-discriminatory laws: The filing of the lawsuit itself serves as an indicator for Target 16.3 and 16.B. It demonstrates that mechanisms for accessing justice exist and are being used to hold institutions accountable and enforce non-discriminatory laws.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thedailytexan.com