Investigation failures cost this university dearly – here's what HR teams need to know
A lecturer fired for sexual misconduct was reinstated. The reason: the university's investigation denied him the chance to defend himself.
The decision, handed down on February 24, 2026, by the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals, puts employers on notice that terminating an employee over a workplace misconduct complaint is not enough. How the investigation is conducted matters just as much – and in a union environment, it can be the difference between a termination that sticks and one that does not.
The case involved Erik Tyger, a lecturer at the University of Toledo's School of Communications, who was fired in July 2019 after a Title IX investigation found he had engaged in unwelcome sexual conduct toward a female student in May 2018. The University charged him with two violations of its sexual misconduct policy and one violation of its Standards of Conduct policy, and moved straight to termination.
Tyger, represented by the American Association of University Professors Toledo Chapter, challenged the firing through the grievance process outlined in his collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator reviewed the case and, in November 2023, sided with Tyger – not because he was innocent, but because the University cut too many corners getting to its conclusion.
The arbitrator found that the University never gave Tyger a real opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Witnesses were interviewed, but Tyger had no ability to question them or challenge their accounts. The arbitrator noted that arrangements could have been made – a video conference, for instance – to both protect the complainant and preserve Tyger's right to confront the evidence against him. Without that, the process was not fair.
The arbitrator also raised questions about the scope of the investigation itself, pointing to inconsistencies in the complainant's account that the University never followed up on, and to Tyger's claim that the allegations arose after he refused to adjust a student's grade – a claim the University similarly did not pursue.
In the end, the arbitrator found that Tyger's conduct – which included touching a student's head, resting his head on her shoulder, and asking about her perfume — reflected poor judgment and a violation of the University's Standards of Conduct policy. But it did not, in her view, rise to the level of creating a hostile environment serious enough to justify immediate termination. She replaced the firing with a five-day suspension.
The University took the fight to court and won at the trial level, with the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas vacating the arbitrator's award. The trial court found that the arbitrator had overstepped her authority by scrutinizing the University's Title IX process at all, and that reinstatement violated public policy.
The appeals court disagreed – firmly. On February 24, 2026, it reversed the trial court's decision and reinstated the arbitrator's award in full.
The court made clear that judges reviewing arbitration awards are not there to second-guess the arbitrator's conclusions. Their only job is to determine whether the award has a rational connection to the collective bargaining agreement and whether it is arbitrary or unlawful. It found the award met that standard. The arbitrator used a well-recognized seven-part test to define just cause – the same framework the University itself relied on in its own written arguments – and applied it to the facts before her. The court found she was well within her authority to do so.
On the public policy argument, the court was equally firm. The public policy exception to arbitration finality exists, but it is narrow. It cannot be used as a way for courts to reopen the merits of a case they disagree with.
For HR professionals, the case distills into a straightforward but important lesson. A finding of misconduct does not automatically justify the most severe penalty, particularly when the process used to reach that finding has gaps. In a unionized setting, the steps an employer takes – or skips – during an investigation are not just procedural formalities. They are the foundation on which any disciplinary decision rests, and an arbitrator will examine them closely.
The court also put a finer point on something employers sometimes overlook: when a collective bargaining agreement allows employees to appeal discipline through arbitration, that process carries real authority. Arbitrators can and will look at whether the investigation was conducted fairly, whether the punishment fits the offense relative to how others have been treated, and whether mitigating circumstances were considered. Employers who treat those steps as a formality do so at their own risk.
The University of Toledo was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
