A federal judge in Massachusetts has dismissed Francesca Gino’s claims against the trio of scholars who uncovered evidence of fraud in her research, ending a high-profile dispute that had unnerved the scientific community.
But the judge, on Wednesday, also said that Gino can continue litigation against Harvard University, which she alleges breached her employment contract.
The decision is the latest development in a saga that has brought national attention to the subject of scientific misconduct. More than a year ago, reports surfaced that Harvard had investigated Gino — a sought-after expert on decision-making, leadership, and workplace behavior, including dishonesty — over research-misconduct allegations, ultimately putting her on two-year unpaid administrative leave.
In August of last year, Gino filed a $25-million lawsuit in federal court against the university, the dean of Harvard Business School, and Uri Simonsohn, Leif Nelson, and Joseph Simmons — three business-school professors who blog together as Data Colada, and who had initially contacted Harvard over their concerns about four papers she co-authored. All four have been retracted. The findings of Harvard’s investigation were detailed in a 1,300-page report made public in court filings earlier this year.
Gino has strenuously denied that she ever altered or falsified data.
Jeffrey J. Pyle, a lawyer for the Data Colada professors, applauded the dismissal of Gino’s defamation claims, calling it “an important decision that defends the right of academics to check each other’s work.” Outside researchers had worried that the case would silence whistleblowers and suppress scholarly criticism, and a GoFundMe for their legal defense raised more than $378,000.
“My clients and I are very gratified that the court has dismissed the defamation claims against them,” Pyle said in an interview. “It was unfortunate that their scientific conclusions based on disclosed facts was a subject of a libel claim in the first place, and the judge’s decision recognizes that scientific disagreements of this nature do not belong in courtrooms — they belong on the pages of learned journals and within academia.”
Simmons, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote on X: “Those who work to correct the scientific record can sleep better tonight. Those who don’t want it corrected, well, I don’t care how they sleep.”
At the same time, Judge Myong J. Joun granted only a partial victory to Harvard in its motion to dismiss. He did not find plausible Gino’s assertions that the university had defamed her by, for example, noting on her Harvard faculty website that she was on administrative leave or sending requests to journals to issue retractions of her studies. He also declared that Gino had failed to plausibly allege that Harvard had “maliciously interfered” with her relationships with her publisher and other entities.
But the judge did allow Gino’s lawsuit to continue on the grounds that Harvard allegedly breached her employment contract. Gino argued that she was disciplined absent “grave misconduct” and in violation of Harvard’s tenure and discipline policies, which constituted a breach of her contract. Harvard argued in response that Gino’s tenure-appointment letter and Harvard’s various policies did not constitute a contract, and that the policies do not apply because they govern the removal of tenure only, not disciplinary actions that fall short of tenure being revoked.
The judge did not buy that defense, noting that the sanctions Gino has faced may be “tantamount to tenure removal,” since during her two-year leave, she is unpaid and barred from entering campus, researching, teaching, and mentoring and advising. “In substance, she has been stripped of any ability to be a professor for at least those two years, without knowing whether she will be reinstated afterwards,” the judge wrote.
In August 2021, a month after the Data Colada scientists approached Harvard Business School, the school created a new “interim” policy for investigating research-misconduct allegations. This policy — which, unlike the one that preceded it, allows the dean to impose specific disciplinary actions like suspension and unpaid leave after a misconduct finding, among other differences — was crafted over the course of three weeks and was not vetted by faculty, according to court filings.
Gino alleged that she was unfairly judged under this “more onerous” policy. Harvard defended its policy, saying in part that it “did not prejudice Professor Gino as a matter of law, as it mandates a fair process and procedural safeguards in research misconduct investigations.” The judge wrote that he did not find these arguments persuasive.
“Today’s decision clearly demonstrates Harvard treated Professor Gino differently from other misconduct investigations and their own stated policies,” Andrew T. Miltenberg, a lawyer for Gino, said in a statement. “The burden of proof required to decimate a career and revoke tenure must be based on evidence, not theory and this judgment shows that others agree. We are pleased with the court’s decision to allow this litigation to continue and that Harvard will have to answer for how they have destroyed her career and put every member of the Harvard faculty at risk.”
A Harvard spokesperson did not immediately answer a request for comment.