Student publications argue that the untimely termination of Amy Bailey during the winter break constituted an act of retaliation by the university.
By Adrien Alston
Editorial Editor
Editorial
Over the winter break, Winthrop University terminated longtime employee Amy Bailey months after she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint alleging discrimination and misconduct by colleagues employed by the university. The termination followed an October 2025 report depicting Bailey’s allegations alongside related legal claims involving the former general counsel Todd Hagins, all of which the university would later deny.
Following the termination of Bailey, student publications became intrigued with the timing of her firing, which occurred during the university’s winter break. Many student journalists have begun to characterize the decision as a retaliation based tactic, highlighting the probability of the dismissal being connected to Bailey’s prior complaints and participation in a series of supposedly “protected activities.”
Bailey filed her EEOC complaint in November of 2025. In the filing, she alleges that Tammie Phillips, Executive Director for the Office of the President, used a racial slur on two occasions and engaged in behavior that was conducive in creating a hostile work environment. Bailey would go on to report the alleged incidents to the Human Resources department at the University.
Winthrop has continously denied the allegations. In a written response to Bailey’s EEOC complaint, the university stated that thorough investigation has been conducted and remedial action was taken. The university has maintained that Bailey’s termination was unrelated to her EEOC filing and based solely on her conduct in the workplace. Yet for us student journalists, the official stance taken by the university does not fully address the questions raised regarding the plethora of patterns in disciplinary actions by the University taken against former employees like Bailey who spoke out about workplace injustices.
Bailey’s case is also closely tied to legal disputes involving Hagins. In May of 2025, Hagins filed an EEOC complaint alleging that Winthrop terminated him out of retailation for refusing to take action against Bailey after she raised concerns about discrimination and misconduct conducted by her colleagues in the workplace. Hagins has also filed a Tort Claim Notice seeking damages for lost salary and benefits exceeding $300,000. Winthrop would go on to deny Hagins’ claims. As student publications, we would like to emphasize the overlapping complaints that highlight a broader theme of patterns of resistance within the institution towards employees like Bailey and Hagins who raised concerns about isolation after utilizing workplace based privileges and policies that were aimed to protect their rights to free speech.
Documents obtained by The Johnsonian detail a multitude of disciplinary actions taken against Bailey in months prior to her termination. On Nov. 10, 2025, Beverly Gilliam, Interim Vice President of Human Resources, issued a written warning following a conversation between Bailey and her former colleague Nicole Chisari, during which Bailey addressed rumors of an alleged affair between herself and Hagins. Chisari reported the interaction to Winthrop University’s Department of Human Resources.
In the warning, Gilliam stated that Bailey had “implicitly threatened Ms. Chisari with defamation” and depicted the interaction as “unwanted and threatening.” Bailey was also instructed not to discuss her legal claims or EEOC complaint with other university employees prior to her termination from the university. To student publications, this restriction presented a troubling issue, the possible violation of federal anti-retaliation based practices and protocols which give employees the opportunities to speak up in the face of injustice.
Bailey argued that the restriction violated her federal rights under EEOC anti-retaliation protection laws, which allow employees to engage in protected opposition when pursuing discrimination-based claims. Arguing that whether the restriction was unlawful would need to be determined in a court. At the time of publication, Bailey has not filed suit against the university.
Bailey also received a second misconduct-based charge following a conversation with former colleague Kevin Sheppard. Bailey alleges that she commented on what she viewed as inconsistent disciplinary standards, dismantling and comparing Sheppard’s suspension for online comments to Phillips’ promotion despite allegations raised in EEOC filings filed by Bailey. According to Bailey, this situation constituted the final instance of misconduct cited under the university’s progressive discipline policy.
Winthrop has stated that Bailey’s termination was consistent with the University’s policy. In a statement provided to the CharlotteObserver, the university said Bailey was dismissed for documented reasons unrelated to her recent EEOC activities and claims. While that may have been true, for student journalists it brings the question of the measures that are put in place to protect employees when reporting discriminatory practices in the workplace. What happens when those in power take a more laid back approach to addressing instances of discrimination in contrast to opening an in-depth investigative process or remediation plan that reinforces the commitment to the ideology of acceptance that Winthrop strives so hard to push?
Despite the university’s consistent denials, student publications perceive Bailey’s termination to be a part of a broader pattern of retaliation displayed by the University, showcasing how its timing connects to ongoing legal disputes involving multiple former employees of the University when they speak out about injustices faced in the workplace.
These internal disputes have also resulted in significant legal costs for the university. Previously reported invoices show that Winthrop paid approximately $139,853 to outside counsel between January of 2024 and August of 2025. Additional claims could further impact university finances. Aside from the financial implications, what implications does this have on a student’s ability to trust and feel accepted by the individuals who oversee the campus that we know and love so much? Does this make students from a plethora of differing backgrounds and lifestyles feel more connected to senior leadership or disconnected due to the implications it has on the ideologies that members within the leadership may hold about people who look like them?
At the time of publication, Bailey’s EEOC complaint remains under investigation. Bailey has stated that she cannot pursue legal action until the EEOC process concludes but has not ruled out future litigation based on the consensus determined at the end of these processes.
As the investigation continues, student media coverage has kept Bailey’s case in focus, raising questions about retaliation, transparency, and accountability displayed within Winthrop Leadership’s and the broader issues of the university as a whole that have been brought to the forefront through situations such as these. By continuing to bring Bailey’s story to the forefront, student journalists emphasize the importance of institutional oversight, highlighting the broader need for safeguards that protect employees who speak out against misconduct, even if it’s against colleagues. In our coverage, we position Bailey’s case not only as an individual grievance but as a reflection of systemic issues facing the university; as a cautionary tale of the risks involved in challenging power structures and advocating for workplace equity in Winthrop’s community and far beyond it.
