Motherhood should not be subject to criticism: Ombudsman finds that Podgorica school principal harassed teacher

The Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms determined that the behavior of a high school principal towards a female teacher constituted harassment as a special form of discrimination, while the Education Inspectorate, after reviewing the documentation in the same case, assessed that there were no grounds for taking further measures within its jurisdiction.

This follows from the opinion of the Protector of Education dated February 5 and the minutes of the inspection of the Education Inspectorate.

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the professor stated that she had been repeatedly subjected to “unacceptable and offensive behavior” by the school principal, or “personal and professional persecution.” She claimed that such treatment constituted humiliating and discriminatory treatment based on her family status, as she is a single mother of four children.

According to the Ombudsman, the case concerns the principal's communication with a female teacher employed at the school her son attends. The Protector stated that such a situation can objectively lead to an overlap of professional and parental roles, especially in matters of grading and justifying absences.

The same document states that employees in such a context are reasonably expected to avoid actual or potential conflicts of interest. The Ombudsman, however, emphasized that any objections to an employee's work engagement must be considered solely within the framework of the employment relationship, "without intruding on the private sphere of the individual and without qualifications that may have the character of a personal assessment."

According to the Ombudsman, the principal sent the teacher an email informing her that he had been repeatedly informed by colleagues that “due to her influence, they cannot independently and impartially assess” her son, nor justify his absences. In the same email, according to the Ombudsman, the principal asked the teacher to perform her parental role more conscientiously and without influencing the rules that apply to everyone.

The Education Inspectorate, however, notes in its minutes that the principal made a written statement regarding a meeting held at the professor's request in his office. The reason for the meeting, the minutes state, was an email the principal had previously sent her, after a number of teachers who teach in the class where her son is also enrolled, had allegedly verbally approached him with allegations that the professor was pressuring them regarding test scoring, grading, teaching, and records.

The inspection minutes state that the professor rejected all allegations as unfounded at the meeting.

In his statement to the Ombudsman, the principal stated that he warned the teacher via email after several verbal complaints from colleagues, “and the inability to have a constructive conversation.” He also claimed that the teacher's son's homeroom teacher pointed out difficulties in working and communicating with her.

The Ombudsman's opinion also states that the director claimed that the teacher admitted during the meeting that she had persuaded a colleague to add points to her son's test "because no one would know", and that the conversation was held in order to "get back on track with what should not have been the subject of discussion among educators".

According to the same document, the director emphasized that the meeting was not organized with the intention of threatening or belittling the professor.

The Protector, on the other hand, stated that the event took place in the work environment of an educational institution, in which the director, as a manager and pedagogical authority, has a special responsibility to ensure professional, dignified and non-violent communication with employees, especially in conflict situations.

The opinion states that, following the principal's email, the teacher requested a meeting, which was attended by the two of them, as well as the assistant principal and the school secretary. The Ombudsman notes that the meeting "was filled with discussion and mutual accusations."

According to the Ombudsman, the director apologized to the professor the next day for the tone of the conversation. The Ombudsman appreciated this when concluding that the director's manner of communication with the professor was contrary to standards of communication in a work environment.

“The formulation that simultaneously problematizes the role of the applicant's mother may lead to an impermissible encroachment on the sphere of personal dignity and raise the issue of a possible violation of the applicant's right to privacy and personal dignity, in connection with her role as a mother,” the opinion states. Sinisa Bjeković.

The Protector also stated that, without questioning the existence of bad intent, "advice suggesting to a teacher that she should perform her parental role more responsibly may have a negative impact on her dignity."

The inspectorate, however, stated in the minutes that the school had a decision appointing two persons to mediate in cases of harassment at work and in connection with work. According to the minutes, the school secretary stated that the teacher had not contacted her to report the situations that were presented as disputable in the initiative to initiate inspection supervision, “and in what way would it be determined whether there are elements of mobbing in specific actions”. The inspectorate stated that it had reviewed the school’s code of ethics, the principal’s written statement, the decision appointing a person to mediate in cases of mobbing, email correspondence between the teacher and the principal, correspondence between the class teacher and the principal, correspondence between the principal and the Ministry of Education’s office, as well as the school’s response to the complaint to the Ombudsman.

"Based on all of the above, it is concluded that there are no grounds for taking further administrative measures and actions within the jurisdiction of this body," the Education Inspectorate's minutes state.

The Ombudsman, on the other hand, concluded that the conduct in question constituted harassment as a specific form of discrimination, and recommended that the director refrain from making comments about the professor's motherhood in any future dealings with her. The Ombudsman also recommended that the director ensure that in future work, communication with employees is "fully based on mutual respect, professionalism and respect for the dignity of the individual", especially in situations of conflict or disagreement.