ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR YEARS OF EDITORIAL FREEDOM
Wednesday, January 15, 2025
Ann Arbor, Michigan
michigandaily.com
‘I was miserable’: MDining employees face alleged identity-based harassment, isolation and few solutions MADISON HAMMOND
Focal Point Investigative Reporter
On April 6, 2021, a Michigan Dining retail manager was working at the Blue Market and Café inside of MosherJordan Residence Hall when they allegedly felt an assistant manager reach into their hair — something they saw as a clear example of a racial microaggression. The employee requested anonymity, citing fears of professional retaliation for sharing their story with The Michigan Daily. In this article, they will be referred to as Blake. As a Black, nonbinary employee, Blake told The Daily they felt violated by the interaction. They decided not to file a formal complaint, but expressed disappointment that leadership never reached out to check on them despite allegedly being aware of the situation. Later, their white supervisor responded to a routine work email from Blake, questioning why they had added a TEDx video titled “No. You Cannot Touch My Hair!” to their email signature. In response, Blake explained the alleged incident and its racial undertones. “I’m sure by now you’ve heard about (the assistant manager) touching my hair last Tuesday, but I also had to explain to another manager recently WHY Black people get upset when someone reaches out to touch our hair like we’re exotic animals to be petted without consent,” Blake’s reply read. “It SHOCKED me that I even had to have that conversation, as I thought it was common knowledge.” That was the end of any correspondence about the incident. Blake said that because no one from leadership reached out to them following the incident, they felt their concerns about a workplace culture that facilitates racial microaggressions would continue to be ignored. Without the support of their management team, Blake was left to process the alleged incident alone. “When that type of rhetoric was supported by leadership, and nothing was done, it became really, really uncomfortable,” Blake said. Blake’s experience is not isolated. They allege that it reflects broader systemic failures within
MDining, where grievances from employees often go unresolved. A Daily investigation consisting of interviews with three former MDining employees revealed a workplace culture that they allege perpetuates harassment, discrimination and burnout, leaving employees feeling unsupported and forcing them to leave the department. Even though all three of these employees initiated a complaint process to address the alleged misconduct they faced, they told The Daily they felt the resolutions offered by the University of Michigan’s Human Resources department were inadequate in addressing their concerns. “As part of a group of people who are being harmed, I shouldn’t have to be the one to try to stop the harm from happening,” Blake said. “I definitely used to cry in my car before going into work because I was like, ‘I do not want to be here’.” In an email to The Daily, University spokesperson Kay Jarvis said the University strives to uphold workplace standards that protect employees from the type of discriminatory behavior allegedly faced by employees such as Blake. “The University of Michigan is committed to ensuring a safe, inclusive workplace where every individual can express themself free from discrimination and harassment,” Jarvis said. “Discriminatory behaviors that erode an individual’s sense of safety and well-being have no place on our campus and are in direct opposition to our core values.” “It’s not just one person. It’s kind of a system that perpetuates acceptance of bad behavior.” Blake began working for MDining in 2014 as an undergraduate student. They worked in various departments and locations before settling into their role as a retail store manager in 2021. In 2024, 10 years after they started working for MDining, Blake quit. “I think about the joy I got, from being around the students to having a sense of community with the managers when I see them during meetings,” Blake said. “But internally, all of the pieces together, working in MDining, I was miserable … being shifted around, feeling not listened to, getting coached for things that your supervisors are doing: they broke me down.” Non-union employees must submit their grievances to the University’s HR department when seeking resolution for workplace incidents. As a first step of the grievance process, employees are to work with a supervisor and HR to resolve the issue verbally and informally before it escalates to submitting an official grievance. The University’s Standard Practice Guide states that employees facing
identity-based discrimination can report grievances through various other channels, including the Equality, Civil Rights, and Title IX Office; the Title IX Coordinator; mandated reporters or online — anonymously or otherwise. But Blake says that the avenues for reporting misconduct in the workplace are insufficient. Employees often have to advocate for themselves to supervisors who are those perpetuating the alleged mistreatment. Blake decided not to file an official grievance because they felt it would ultimately be a waste of time, opting instead to talk to supervisors directly. Although Blake did not request any formal action, they voiced their concerns directly to management. Leadership allegedly acknowledged these concerns but took no steps to improve or address the workplace culture. “When instances of marginalization bias, unfair treatment, when these things happen, it just kind of gets swept under the rug,” Blake said. “It’s not just one person. It’s kind of a system that perpetuates acceptance of bad behavior.” “I didn’t really have anywhere to go” Another former MDining employee alleges similar experiences of a hostile environment within the workplace. They requested anonymity, citing fears of professional retaliation. In this article, they will be referred to as Avery. In June 2022, Avery joined the MDining systems support team, a small group that manages the software. As a nonbinary person, Avery alleges they were continuously misgendered by their supervisor while working in their position. “My direct supervisor probably correctly gendered me, or used my pronouns correctly, 10% of the time in the year and a half that I was there,” Avery said. “I didn’t really have anywhere to go, because my supervisor’s supervisor is the director of all MDining. I never got face time with them.” Unlike American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, who are represented by union stewards throughout their grievance process, Avery had no such support. Within MDining, certain positions such as a food service worker and kitchen cleaner fall under this union, while other roles such as Avery’s position in Dining Services Administration do not. As a result, Avery had no choice but to file a complaint through the Equity,
Civil Rights and Title IX Office — the University’s office for handling gender and sex-based discrimination and harassment complaints — and allegedly faced additional barriers while dealing with their complaint. ECRT is an administrative office, not an internal judicial or legal body. It is tasked with providing resources and ensuring that University policies regarding discrimination and harassment are followed, however the office’s investigation process often takes time and lacks the direct advocacy of the union grievance process. According to Sociology lecturer Ian Robinson, employees represented by a union also have the option to pursue grievances that violate the union contract, like discrimination, outside of ECRT through the union grievance process. “For union members, you would probably use the grievance process rather than that University process that’s there as a kind of fallback for people who don’t have a union,” Robinson said in an interview with The Daily. “Every union member, if they’re being brought before HR on some disciplinary matter, has a right to be accompanied by a representative of the Union.” On July 23, 2023, Avery reached out to ECRT, hoping there would be accountability for their manager’s alleged misgendering. Following Avery’s initial meeting with ECRT on Aug. 23, email correspondence obtained by The Daily shows that ECRT discussed Avery’s options for next steps, which included an “educational conversation” between ECRT and Avery’s supervisor. But the slow and bureaucratic process of making an official complaint left them in limbo for two months, even after discussing the complaint with ECRT. Avery was informed Sept. 7
that ECRT had decided to move forward with the educational conversation, which occurred Oct. 25. During this waiting period, Avery says the alleged misgendering continued, despite adhering to University procedures by filing a complaint. They told The Daily they left the department in November because another opportunity presented itself. “It really contributed to having a depressive flare up,” Avery said. “It created a lot of anxiety, and it was a really difficult time overall.” In an email to The Daily, Jarvis said the University both encourages employee reporting and supplies training programs for employees to create a safe work environment. “We encourage any employee who believes they have experienced or witnessed harassment or discrimination based on their status in a protected class (examples include but are not limited to race, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation) to file a report with the Equity, Civil Rights & Title IX (ECRT) Office,” Jarvis said. “The university continuously evaluates its required and recommended training programs that educate employees on their rights and responsibilities in maintaining a respectful, collegial workplace.” Additional anxieties regarding the grievance process plagued the months that Avery waited for a resolution from ECRT. Despite requesting anonymity, ECRT informed Avery this might not be possible; due to the small size of their team, Avery was the only gender-nonconforming employee. “It should be noted that we are not able to keep you anonymous in this conversation, as the concerns are quite specific, but it will be noted that this is being initiated by ECRT, and was not requested by you,” the email reads, sent on Sept. 7. in person with their supervisor, Avery was hesitant and ultimately decided against this
because of concerns that the supervisor would retaliate. ECRT proceeded with the conversation with the supervisor, without Avery present. “I had seen the way that the retaliation works, and I did not trust that supervisor to have my best interest at heart,” Avery said. “It definitely had an impact on our working relationship. It was a lot less friendly.” The educational conversation was the only resolution option offered to Avery, and it took three months to occur. “It was really demoralizing,” Avery said. “I felt like I went to the one place that I knew I could go to, and while I understood they weren’t dragging their feet, it didn’t feel any better. The result was relatively the same (as doing nothing), and it was very anticlimactic.” Unlike non-union employees like Avery who are left to navigate a cumbersome and ineffective grievance process alone, unionized employees have the support of union stewards throughout their complaint procedures, ensuring that their grievances are taken seriously and escalated appropriately. In an interview with The Daily, Robinson said the union grievance process includes several stages of escalation, starting with informal meetings with supervisors and ending with binding arbitration — an option that ensures both sides are incentivized to compromise. This stands in contrast to the University’s HR process for non-union workers, where the administration has the final say without the same external checks and balances. “(The University is) incentivized to compromise in a way that they wouldn’t be if there wasn’t this binding arbitration stage at the end that’s out of their control,” Robinson said. “If it’s not a union grievance process, in the end, HR and University administration always has the final word. They have a lot less incentive to compromise or take the challenge seriously.” The University declined to comment on allegations that non-union employees face additional barriers compared to unionized employees in reporting grievances. “I was the whistleblower that nobody really wanted to have around” A third former employee filed a grievance with the University alleging wrongful termination and racial discrimination, but received little resolution. She requested anonymity, citing fears of professional retaliation. In this article, she will be referred to as Mia. Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Evelyn Mousigan/DAILY
GOT A NEWS TIP? E-mail news@michigandaily.com and let us know.
Follow The Daily on Instagram, @michigandaily
For more stories and coverage, visit
michigandaily.com
INDEX
Vol. CXXXVI No. 1 ©2025 The Michigan Daily
F O C A L P O I N T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 NEWS...........................2 OPINION...................5
P H OTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ARTS........................8 S P O R T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1