Plaintiff Francesca Gino is a former tenured professor at Harvard Business School ("HBS") and brings this action against Defendants President and Fellows of Harvard College ("Harvard") and Defendant Srikant Datar ("Dean Datar").
asserted
Gino → bring → College
In 2021, allegations were brought against Plaintiff claiming that she committed research misconduct, which triggered an approximately 18-month long inquiry and investigation by HBS administrators and faculty.
asserted
which → bring → administrators
In March 2023, the investigation committee found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Plaintiff committed research misconduct….
asserted
Plaintiff → find → misconduct
In May 2025, Harvard revoked Plaintiff's tenure and terminated her appointment with HBS.
uncertain
Harvard → revoke → HBS
Plaintiff claims that Harvard breached its obligations under various policies and procedures governing the investigation of the research misconduct allegations and the tenure revocation proceedings.
uncertain
Harvard → claim → allegations
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that a jury could find that Harvard deviated from its policies and procedures such that Harvard could be found in breach of those agreements, and that Harvard did not carry its burden of proving research misconduct or grave misconduct.
uncertain
Harvard → argue → misconduct
Plaintiff also alleges that the proceedings and related findings, including the adverse employment actions taken against her, were pretext for gender discrimination….
asserted
proceedings → allege → discrimination
In approximately June of 2021, three professors—Leif Nelson, Joseph Simmons, and Uri Simonsohn, who publish under the name "Data Colada"—presented their allegations against Gino to HBS Professor Max Bazerman during a 90-minute Zoom call….
asserted
who → publish → call
[Eventually, a Harvard] Investigation Committee issued its 41-page Final Report with nearly 1,200 pages of supporting documents, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff committed research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly with regard to all five allegations.
asserted
Plaintiff → issue → allegations
The Investigation Committee's Final Report considered and rejected Plaintiff's contentions that unnamed "bad actors," research assistants, or other co-authors might have instead been responsible for the data anomalies.
uncertain
actors → consider → anomalies
The Investigation Committee concluded that Plaintiff's "repeated and strenuous argument for a scenario of data falsification by bad actors across four different studies," involving "different co-authors, different journals, different lab personnel, and different home institutions" and spanning eight years, was "highly implausible."
asserted
argument → conclude → authors
The Investigation Committee recommended corrections of the scientific record, putting Plaintiff on unpaid leave, and initiation of steps leading to termination of employment….
asserted
Committee → recommend → employment
The court granted summary judgment on all these issues, in Harvard's favor.
asserted
court → grant → favor
Here's an excerpt of the discussion of her breach of contract claims:
Massachusetts courts enforce contractual promises made by private universities, while according appropriate respect to their academic and disciplinary judgments.
uncertain
enforce → enforce → judgments
The Third Statute [a Harvard academic policy] permits removal of an officer holding a teaching appointment "only for grave misconduct or neglect of duty."
asserted
Statute → permit → duty
I hold that this is a substantive, enforceable limitation on removal, not a merely aspirational statement.
asserted
this → hold → removal
The limitation does not, however, confer a right to have a federal jury independently determine scientific authorship, data provenance, or the correct weight of forensic evidence after an academic tribunal has considered those matters.
asserted
tribunal → confer → matters
Judicial review asks whether Harvard reached its determination honestly and reasonably, upon a rational evidentiary foundation, and in compliance with its enforceable contractual procedures.
asserted
Harvard → ask → procedures
This is meaningful review: the University's decision does not prevail merely because a committee announced it.
asserted
committee → prevail → it
This standard respects both the contractual restriction on removal and the institutional responsibility to adjudicate research-integrity matters.
asserted
standard → respect → matters
A court may not uphold a decision procured through dishonesty, resting on no reasonable evidence, or reached through a material violation of promised procedures.
uncertain
court → uphold → procedures
It also may not choose among plausible competing forensic interpretations merely because a reasonable factfinder could have drawn different scientific inferences.
uncertain
factfinder → choose → inferences
Gino bears the burden of proving breach in this action.
asserted
Gino → bear → action
The Third Statute Procedures separately placed on Harvard's complainant a clear-and-convincing burden of establishing grave misconduct or neglect of duty; the record must be examined for whether Harvard applied that burden, not treated as though the civil burden had transferred to Harvard….
Harvard's decision had a substantial contemporaneous evidentiary basis.
asserted
decision → place → basis
The record describes forensic examination of anomalous data in four research papers; analysis of the history and characteristics of relevant datasets; consideration of Gino's explanations; a faculty investigation finding misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence, and; a subsequent hearing committee finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of misconduct grave enough to warrant revocation.
asserted
record → describe → revocation
These are not independent judicial findings that Gino altered any data.
asserted
Gino → alter → data
They establish that Harvard investigated defined allegations and articulated an evidentiary explanation for its decision.
asserted
Harvard → establish → decision
The committees' findings alone would not rescue a decision shown to be knowingly false or irrational; the investigative materials, considered together with the contrary submissions, provide the relevant basis for review.
asserted
materials → rescue → review
Gino denies intentionally falsifying research data, relies on favorable accounts from coauthors and colleagues, and challenges aspects of the forensic inferences and evidence of access or authorship.
asserted
Gino → deny → access
I credit these disputes and draw permissible inferences in her favor.
asserted
I → credit → favor
But the question under the contract is not whether a jury could reject some of Harvard's inferential steps or prefer an alternative forensic account.
uncertain
jury → reject → account
Gino must identify evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Harvard did not honestly believe its determination or lacked a rational basis to make it.
uncertain
Harvard → identify → it
The identified differences over inference, attribution, and scientific weight do not establish that the peer decisionmakers knowingly adopted a false conclusion or acted without a reasonable evidentiary foundation.
asserted
decisionmakers → identify → foundation
Accordingly, no triable breach arises merely from the competing interpretations of the underlying research record….
asserted
breach → arise → record
Plaintiff points to the following pieces of evidence that she argues supports evidence of discriminatory animus: (1) Harvard deviated from and breached its policies and procedures; (2) Harvard and Dean Datar have historically subjected women to less favorable treatment; (3) Harvard has treated allegations of research misconduct against male professors differently than the allegations against Plaintiff, and; (4) certain statements made by Harvard employees were false and otherwise constitute discriminatory remarks….
asserted
statements → point → remarks
Plaintiff relies on similar arguments she raised in support of her breach of contract claims that Harvard deviated from its policies with respect to investigating research misconduct.
uncertain
Harvard → rely → misconduct
"Evidence that the employer deviated from its standard procedure or policies in taking an adverse employment action against a plaintiff may be relevant to the pretext inquiry."
uncertain
employer → deviate → inquiry
As discussed, Plaintiff's evidence does not support a finding that Harvard breached its policies.
asserted
Harvard → discuss → policies
Furthermore, Plaintiff provides no evidence that any purported deviations from Harvard's policies are connected to gender bias….
asserted
deviations → provide → bias
Plaintiff argues that there is evidence that Defendants have historically treated women less favorably than men.
asserted
Defendants → argue → men
…and 38 more, not listed.
The Aporia
