Cambridge, Massachusetts — Harvard Business School professor Francesca Gino is seeking to expand her ongoing $25 million lawsuit against Harvard University, with new claims centering on Title VII discrimination. This development follows a recent decision in which a U.S. District Court Judge Myong J. Joun dismissed defamation charges but allowed the breach of contract claim, concerning alleged unfair disciplinary actions against her, to proceed.
In July, scrutiny over Gino heightened when Harvard’s top brass initiated a review of her tenure amid accusations of data fraud in her research, charges she vehemently denies. The updated lawsuit now includes allegations of sex-based discrimination in disciplinary actions and termination processes under Title VII, alongside her previous claims under Title IX.
Reacting to the filing, Harvard Business School spokesperson Mark Cautela declined to offer any comments. However, Gino’s legal representative, Andrew T. Miltenberg, stated on Monday that this case highlights apparent systemic bias. He suggests that Professor Gino faced uniquely harsh treatment, crafted under “an unprecedented and retroactive policy” tailored against her as a woman, while her male colleagues enjoyed the protection of well-established protocols.
As part of her sanction, Gino was placed on a two-year unpaid administrative leave based on a newly implemented Interim Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct. According to Gino, this temporary policy unfairly targeted her and limited her capacity to defend herself. An op-ed by seven tenured professors at the Harvard Business School also criticized the new policy, pointing out its secretive implementation and the constraints it imposed.
Gino’s legal challenge further accuses HBS Dean Srikant Datar of discrimination. Her amended complaint suggests Dean Datar not only favored male colleagues — citing no punitive measures imposed on a male junior professor accused of similar misconduct — but also selected members known for blocking women’s advancement for the investigative committee. Another serious allegation includes that Datar attempted to indirectly force her resignation through a process referred to in legal documents as being “counseled out.”
Miltenberg encapsulated these actions as not only an absence of justice but an attempt to stifle a challenging voice without substantive evidence to back the claims. “When those in positions of power lack evidence,” he stated, “they resort to coercion.”
The case, which now integrates both breach of contract and multiple discrimination claims, paints a broader picture of alleged institutional failures and gender biases within one of the world’s most renowned universities.
Disclaimer: This article was generated by Open AI. Facts, individuals, events, and circumstances may be fictional, inaccurate or misrepresented. For concerns, please contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org for corrections, retractions, or removals.