The Federal Administrative Court largely agrees with the ETH in the Carollo case, but also criticizes it.
ETH Zurich, here a picture from 2018, fired a professor for the first time three years ago.
Those were dark times for ETH Zurich. When Joël Mesot appeared in front of the media at his first public appearance as ETH President in March 2019, he said: “It’s a sad day for ETH.” The reason for the sadness was the first dismissal of a professor in the history of the university.
Several doctoral students had accused the astronomy professor concerned, Marcella Carollo, of abuse of power and bullying. After years of nothing happening, ETH suddenly announced a termination. However, the university did not fare well in the processing of the case. The professor finally filed a complaint against the dismissal.
The Federal Administrative Court (BVG) has now passed a verdict. It largely agrees with the ETH, but also criticizes the university.
Not a victim of a “vengeful doctoral student”
In its judgment, the BVG comes to the conclusion that the dismissal “cannot be qualified as abusive or gender-discriminatory”. Carollo’s lawyer had previously described his client as a “victim of a vengeful graduate student” – a statement that the court now contradicts.
Because contrary to this claim, the termination was not based on a “singular interpersonal conflict” with a doctoral student. Rather, the ETH Board pronounced the termination because the professor had “repeatedly violated important legal and contractual obligations and behaved unacceptably” through her leadership style and her dealings with employees.
The court also rejected the accusation of gender discrimination. After a thorough examination, it is of the opinion that the allegation is unjustified, according to the statement. There is therefore no entitlement to continued employment, as Carollo’s lawyer had hoped for in the best case.
“Years of inactivity”
The court also criticizes the ETH. The “years of inactivity on the part of the university” made a significant contribution to the situation that finally occurred, it is said. In fact, long before the escalation, several people had complained to the ombudsman about the professor’s management behavior. This happened for the first time in 2005, then in 2009, 2013 and 2016. However, nothing happened.
The BVG writes: “The entries were neither examined nor was the person concerned informed of the complaints. Only the complaint from 2017 led to further clarifications and finally to the present termination procedure. »
From the court’s point of view, an earlier reaction might have defused the situation. A reminder, possibly combined with coaching, would have been suitable to bring about an improvement, it is said.
The BVG therefore comes to the conclusion that the immediate dismissal is “disproportionate” and “unjustified” – this is because the ETH did not issue a warning before the dismissal and the professor was therefore unable to adjust her behavior.
This does not change anything: the professor does not get her job back. However, the court awarded her compensation totaling eight months’ wages. The judgment can be appealed to the federal court.
Judgment A-4744/2019 of April 6, 2022, not yet final.