Next week, an NTNU scholarship holder will appear in court against the university and demand, among other things, compensation for PTSD that he believes he suffered through his work. The state attorney rejects the claims.
From Monday to Wednesday next week, a current research fellow at the Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (IE) will meet his employer, NTNU, in the Oslo District Court.
From the final post to the scholar’s lawyer, it emerges that NTNU is accused of having subjected the scholar to work pressure, abuse of power, harassment and retaliation.
Thinks he got PTSD because of his employer
According to the documents, the university is being sued for being responsible for the scholar’s psychological injuries under the Damages Compensation Act and the Working Environment Act. NTNU is represented by the government’s lawyer, who disputes that NTNU has any responsibility in the case and requests a full acquittal for the university and the state.
Khrono has previously mentioned the matter.
According to the claim from the plaintiff, it is stated that “Medical documentation confirms that (the scholarship recipient) was without mental health problems until 2020, but there has been a significant deterioration in his mental health from 2021 until today, which is clearly due to his employment at NTNU,” writes the plaintiff’s lawyer, Tazmeen Ahmed.
It also states that the fellow has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of his employment relationship with the university.
Claims inadequate handling of notifications
The IE faculty has had a number of warnings about a poor working environment, which have previously been mentioned in the Universitetsavisa. A third of all notifications at NTNU come from students and staff at this faculty.
Every third notice at NTNU applies to the IE faculty
Universitetsavisa has confirmed that the plaintiff in this case is among the notifications that have previously been mentioned.
Reference is also made to the large amount of notifications in the final post:
“This shows a pattern of inadequate handling of whistleblowing and a systematic failure to protect employees, particularly those from minority backgrounds and temporary employees who often face greater resistance and risk of retaliation.”
Specifically, it is claimed that there was insufficient follow-up of notices from the fellow and that it is claimed that he should have received retribution for this.
I think many PhD candidates are left alone
According to the final submission, both supervisor and head of department must have pushed to get the fellow to work beyond the legal limit. Also when the person in question tried to report that he was burnt out.
The fellow’s lawyer also writes critically about NTNU’s general handling of its fellows.
Notifications of sexual and cultural harassment at the IE faculty
“(The fellow) received no concrete training and was on the same level as several other Ph.D. candidates often left alone. (…) (The scholarship holder) received no formal training or information about his rights as an employee.”
The plaintiff is asking for compensation for losses already suffered and future losses, estimated at NOK 140,000 and NOK 145,000 respectively. In addition, the plaintiff requests compensation for future loss of income and restitution set at the court’s discretion.
There is no mention of an amount for these in the plaintiff’s final submission, but according to the government attorney’s submission, earlier in the process surrounding the case, this claim should have been calculated at NOK 1,155,774 and compensation at NOK 200,000.
“NTNU has done what can be expected”
In her closing submission, government attorney Stina Eriksson argues that there is no basis for liability for compensation.
Alerts at NTNU: Student claims to be called “terrorist” by lecturer
“The (scholarship’s) allegations about (the supervisor’s) behavior towards him are contested. The statements lack support in up-to-date documentation and dialogue.”
Furthermore, it is claimed that it has not been documented that the fellow worked beyond his contract.
“Furthermore, it is stated that NTNU has done what can be expected to ensure a proper working environment. When cooperation problems arose between (the scholarship holder) and (the supervisor), NTNU organized so that he could change supervisors at his own request and he was able to cover ten hours with a psychologist.”
It also states that NTNU has given sufficient feedback on the scholar’s notice.
Tags: Claims NTNU responsible psychological injuries fellows
-
