ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University is committed to providing a community free of sex-based harassment, discrimination, including sexual misconduct. This Sex-Based Harassment, Discrimination & Retaliation Policy (the “Policy”) sets forth the University’s policies and procedures that address and prevent discrimination and misconduct on the basis of sex or gender, including sexual misconduct.
The core purpose of this policy is the prohibition of sex-based discrimination and retaliation. Sometimes, discrimination involves exclusion from or different treatment in activities, such as admission, athletics, or employment. At other times, discrimination takes the form of sexual harassment and misconduct, which can encompass sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking, sexual exploitation, dating violence and/or domestic violence. When an alleged violation of this policy is reported, the allegations are subject to resolution using University’s “Process A” or “Process B,” as determined by the Title IX Coordinator, and as detailed below.
When the Respondent is a member of the University community, a formal complaint may be filed and a grievance process may be available depending on the status of the Complainant. This community includes, but is not limited to, students, student organizations, faculty, administrators, staff, and third parties such as guests, visitors, volunteers, invitees, and campers. The procedures below may be applied to incidents, to patterns, and/or to the campus climate, all of which may be addressed and investigated in accordance with this policy.
The Sr. Director, Equity, Dylan Gordon (dgordon@fairfield.edu, extension 4357), serves as the Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX Coordinator has the primary responsibility for coordinating ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ’s efforts related to the intake, investigation, resolution, and implementation of supportive measures to stop, remedy, and prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation prohibited under this policy.
The Title IX Coordinator acts with independence and authority free from bias and conflicts of interest. The Title IX Coordinator oversees all resolutions under this policy and these procedures. The members of the Title IX Team are vetted and trained to ensure they are not biased for or against any party in a specific case, or for or against Complainants and/or Respondents, generally.
To raise any concern involving bias or conflict of interest by the Title IX Coordinator, contact the Vice President for Human Resources at hr@fairfield.edu, (203) 254-4080 or internal extension #2277. Concerns of bias or a potential conflict of interest by any other Title IX Team member should be raised with the Title IX Coordinator.
Reports of misconduct or discrimination committed by the Title IX Coordinator should be reported to the Vice President for Human Resources at hr@fairfield.edu, (203) 254-4080 or internal extension #2277. Reports of misconduct or discrimination committed by any other Title IX Team member should be reported to the Title IX Coordinator.
Complaints or notice of alleged policy violations, or inquiries about or concerns regarding this policy and procedures, may be made internally to:
Dylan Gordon (dgordon@fairfield.edu, extension 4357) Sr. Director, Equity
1073 North Benson Road
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ, CT 06824-5195
203-254-4357
equity@fairfield.edu
Inquiries may be made externally to:
Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
U.S. Department of Education
Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-1100
Customer Service Hotline #: (800) 421-3481
Facsimile: (202) 245-8392
TDD#: (877) 521-2172
Email: OCR@ed.gov
Web: http://www.ed.gov/ocr
For complaints involving employees inquiries may also be made externally to:
Boston Area Office
JFK Federal Building
15 New Sudbury Street, Room 475
Boston, MA 02203-0506
Phone: 1-800-669-4000
Fax: 617-565-3196
TTY: 1-800-669-6820
ASL Video Phone: 844-234-5122
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University has classified most employees as Employees with a Responsibility to Report any knowledge they have that a member of the community is experiencing sex-based harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation. The section below includes information on reporting details, which employees have this responsibility, and their duties, accordingly.
Notice or complaints of sex-based discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation may be made using any of the following options:
A Formal Complaint means a document submitted or signed by the Complainant or signed by the Title IX Coordinator alleging a policy violation by a Respondent and requesting that the University investigate the allegation(s). A complaint may be filed with the Title IX Coordinator in person, by mail, or by electronic mail, by using the contact information in the section immediately above, or as described in this section. As used in this paragraph, the phrase “document filed by a Complainant” means a document or electronic submission (such as by electronic mail or through an online portal provided for this purpose by the University) that contains the Complainant’s physical or digital signature, or otherwise indicates that the Complainant is the person filing the complaint, and requesting that the University investigate the allegations.
If notice is submitted in a form that does not meet this standard, the Title IX Coordinator will contact the Complainant to ensure that a complaint is filed correctly.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University will offer and implement appropriate and reasonable supportive measures to the parties upon notice of alleged harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation.
Supportive measures are non-disciplinary, non-punitive individualized services offered as appropriate and as reasonably available. They are offered without fee or charge to the parties to restore or preserve access to the University’s education program or activity, including measures designed to protect the safety of all parties and/or the University’s educational environment, and/or to deter harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation.
The Title IX Coordinator promptly makes supportive measures available to the parties upon receiving notice or a complaint. At the time that supportive measures are offered, the Title IX Coordinator will inform the Complainant, in writing, that they may file a formal complaint with the University either at that time or in the future, if they have not done so already. The Title IX Coordinator works with the Complainant to ensure that their wishes are taken into account with respect to the supportive measures that are planned and implemented. Supportive measures will be provided if they are requested available, and determined to be reasonable. Supportive measures can be requested by contacting the Title IX Coordinator.
The University will maintain the confidentiality of the supportive measures, provided that confidentiality does not impair the University’s ability to provide those supportive measures. The University will attempt to implement measures in a way that does not unreasonably burden any party.
Supportive measures may include, but are not limited to:
Violations of no contact orders or other restrictions will be referred to appropriate student or employee conduct processes for enforcement.
In addition to the above-listed supportive measures, the Title IX Coordinator will inform the Complainant of their right to report or decline to report to local law enforcement, as well as the University’s ability to assist in notifying local law enforcement.
The University can act to remove a student Respondent entirely or partially from its education program or activities on an emergency basis when an individualized safety and risk analysis has determined that an immediate threat to the physical health or safety of any student or other individual justifies removal. This risk analysis is performed by the University’s Threat Assessment Team using its standard objective violence risk assessment procedures. The Threat Assessment Team will share its determination with the Title IX Coordinator.
In all cases in which an emergency removal is imposed, the Title IX Coordinator will give the student notice of the action and the option to request to meet with the Vice President, Student Life prior to such action/removal being imposed, or within two (2) business days, to show cause why the action/removal should not be implemented or should be modified.
This meeting is not a hearing on the merits of the allegation(s), but rather is an administrative process intended to determine solely whether the emergency removal is appropriate. When this meeting is not requested in a timely manner (within two (2) business days), objections to the emergency removal will be deemed waived. This section also applies to any restrictions that a coach or athletic administrator may place on a student-athlete arising from allegations related to Title IX. There is no appeal process for emergency removal decisions.
A Respondent may be accompanied by an Advisor of their choice when meeting with the Vice President, Student Life for the show cause meeting. In advance of the meeting, the Title IX Coordinator will give the Respondent access to a written summary of the basis for the emergency removal prior to the meeting to allow for adequate preparation.
The Vice President, Student Life has sole discretion under this policy to implement or stay an emergency removal and to determine the conditions and duration. The Vice President, Student Life will notify the Title IX Coordinator and the Respondent of their decision in writing. Violation of an emergency removal under this policy will be grounds for discipline within the student or employee conduct processes, which may include expulsion or termination.
The University will implement the least restrictive emergency actions possible in light of the circumstances and safety concerns. These actions could include, but are not limited to: removing a student from a residence hall, temporarily re-assigning work if the student is an employee, restricting a student’s access to or use of facilities or equipment, allowing a student to withdraw or take grades of incomplete without financial penalty, authorizing an administrative leave, and suspending a student’s participation in extracurricular activities, student employment, student organizational leadership, or intercollegiate/intramural athletics.
At the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator, alternative coursework options may be pursued to ensure as minimal an academic impact as possible on the parties.
When the Respondent is an employee, existing provisions for interim action are applicable instead of the emergency removal process.
All allegations are acted upon promptly by the University once it has received notice or a formal complaint. Complaints typically take 60-90 business days to resolve. However, there may be exceptions or extenuating circumstances that cause a resolution to take longer.
If the general timeframes for resolution outlined in the University procedures will be delayed, the Title IX Coordinator will provide written notice of the delay.
The University attempts to preserve the confidentiality of reports.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ will not share the identity of any individual who has made a report or complaint of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; any Complainant, any individual who has been reported to be the perpetrator of sex discrimination, any Respondent, or any witness, except as permitted by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g; FERPA regulations, 34 CFR part 99; or as required by law; or to carry out the purposes of 34 CFR Part 106, including the conducting of any investigation, hearing, or grievance proceeding arising under these policies and procedures.
The University reserves the right to determine which University officials have a legitimate educational interest in being informed about incidents that fall within this policy, pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Only a small group of University officials who need to know will typically be told about the complaint. Information will be shared as necessary with Investigators, Decision-makers, witnesses, and the parties.
The University may contact parents/guardians of students to inform them of situations in which there is a significant and articulable health and/or safety risk, but will usually consult with the student first before doing so.
Confidentiality and reporting responsibilities are addressed more specifically below.
This Policy applies to the education program and activities of ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University, to conduct that takes place on the campus or on property owned or controlled by the University, at University-sponsored events, and in buildings owned or controlled by University recognized student organizations. The Respondent must be a member of University’s community in order for this Policy to apply.
This Policy can also be applicable to the effects of off-campus misconduct that effectively deprive a person of access to ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ’s educational program. The University may also extend jurisdiction to off-campus and/or to online conduct when the Title IX Coordinator determines that the conduct affects a substantial University interest.
Regardless of where the conduct occurred, the University will address notice/complaints to determine whether the conduct occurred in the context of its employment or educational program or activity and/or has continuing effects on campus or in an off-campus sponsored program or activity. A substantial University interest includes:
If the Respondent is unknown or is not a member of the University community, the Title IX Coordinator will assist the Complainant in identifying appropriate campus and local resources and support options. If criminal conduct is alleged, the University can assist in contacting local or campus law enforcement if the individual would like to file a police report.
Further, even when the Respondent is not a member of the University’s community, supportive measures, remedies, and resources may be provided to the Complainant by contacting the Title IX Coordinator.
In addition, the University may take other actions as appropriate to protect the Complainant against third parties, such as barring individuals from University property and/or events.
All vendors serving the University through third-party contracts are subject to the policies and procedures of their employers, but may also be subject to this Policy.
When the Respondent is enrolled in or employed by another institution, the Title IX Coordinator can assist the Complainant in liaising with the appropriate individual at that institution, as it may be possible to allege violations through that institution’s policies.
Similarly, the Title IX Coordinator may be able to assist and support a student or employee Complainant who experiences discrimination in an externship, study abroad program, or other environment external to the University where sexual harassment or nondiscrimination policies and procedures of the facilitating or host organization may give recourse to the Complainant.
There is no time limitation on providing notice/complaints to the Title IX Coordinator. However, if the Respondent is no longer subject to the University’s jurisdiction and/or significant time has passed, the ability to investigate, respond, and/or provide remedies may be more limited or impossible.
Acting on notice/complaints significantly impacted by the passage of time (including, but not limited to, the rescission or revision of policy) is at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator, who may document allegations for future reference, offer supportive measures and/or remedies, and/or engage in informal or formal action, as appropriate.
When notice/complaint is affected by a time delay, the University will apply the policy in place at the time of the alleged misconduct. Typically, this Policy is only applied to incidents that occurred after August 14, 2020. For incidents that occurred prior to August 14, 2020, previous versions of this Policy will apply. Those versions are available from the Title IX Coordinator.
The policies of ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ are written and interpreted broadly to include online and cyber manifestations of any of the behaviors prohibited below, when those behaviors occur in or have an effect on the University’s education program and activities or when they involve the use of University networks, technology, or equipment.
Although ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ may not control websites, social media, and other venues through which harassing communications are made, when such communications are reported to the University, it will engage in a variety of means to address and mitigate the effects.
Members of the community are encouraged to be good digital citizens and to refrain from online misconduct, such as feeding anonymous gossip sites, sharing inappropriate content via social media, unwelcome sexual or sex-based messaging, distributing or threatening to distribute revenge pornography, breaches of privacy, or otherwise using the ease of transmission and/or anonymity of the Internet or other technology to harm another member of the University community.
Otherwise, such communications are considered speech protected by the freedom of expression. Supportive measures for Complainants will be provided, but protected expression cannot be subjected to discipline.
Off-campus harassing speech by employees, whether online or in person, may be regulated by the University only when such speech is made in an employee’s official or work-related capacity.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University adheres to all federal, state, and local civil rights laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination in private institutions of higher education.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment and does not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, student, or applicant for admission on the basis of: race, religion, hearing status, color, sex, pregnancy, political affiliation, source of income, place of business, residence, religion, creed, ethnicity, national origin (including ancestry), citizenship status, physical or mental disability (including perceived disability), age, marital status, family responsibilities, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, veteran or military status (including disabled veteran, recently separated veteran, active duty wartime or campaign badge veteran, and Armed Forces Service Medal veteran), predisposing genetic characteristics, domestic violence victim status or any other protected category under applicable local, state, or federal law, including protections for those opposing discrimination or participating in any resolution process on campus, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, or other human rights agencies. University policy is committed to affirmative action under law in employment of women, minority group members, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans.
Students, staff, administrators, and faculty are entitled to an employment and educational environment that is free of sexual harassment.
All offense definitions encompass actual and/or attempted offenses.
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the State of Connecticut regard sexual harassment, a specific form of discriminatory harassment, as an unlawful discriminatory practice. ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University prohibits sexual harassment.
Acts of sexual harassment may be committed by any person upon any other person, regardless of the sex, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity of those involved.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ has adopted the following definition of sexual harassment in order to address the unique environment of an academic community, which consists not only of employer and employees, but of students as well.
Sexual harassment, as an umbrella category, includes the offenses of quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, and is defined as:
Conduct on the basis of sex or that is sexual in nature that satisfies one or more of the following:
A “sexual act” is specifically defined by federal regulations to include one or more of the following:
*To qualify as an incident of Domestic Violence, the relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant must be more than just two people living together as roommates. The people cohabitating must be current or former spouses or have an intimate relationship.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ reserves the right to impose any level of sanction, ranging from a reprimand up to and including suspension or expulsion/termination, for any offense under this policy. The more serious offenses are likely to result in suspension/expulsion/termination, where warranted.
Consent
As used in the offenses above, the following definitions and understandings apply to the University’s policy on consent to engage in sexual activity:
Force: Force is the use of physical violence and/or physical imposition to gain sexual access. Force also includes threats, intimidation (implied threats), and coercion that is intended to overcome resistance or produce consent (e.g., “Have sex with me or I’ll hit you,” which elicits the response, “Okay, don’t hit me, I’ll do what you want.”).
Sexual activity that is forced is, by definition, non-consensual, but non-consensual sexual activity is not necessarily forced. Silence or the absence of resistance alone is not consent. Consent is not demonstrated by the absence of resistance. While resistance is not required or necessary, it is a clear demonstration of non-consent.
Coercion: Coercion is unreasonable pressure for sexual activity. Coercive conduct differs from seductive conduct based on factors such as the type and/or extent of the pressure used to obtain consent. When someone makes clear that they do not want to engage in certain sexual activity, that they want to stop, or that they do not want to go past a certain point of sexual interaction, continued pressure beyond that point can be coercive.
Affirmative Consent is:
At institutions of higher education in the state of Connecticut, affirmative consent is the standard used in determining whether consent to engage in sexual activity was given by all persons who engaged in the sexual activity. Affirmative consent may be revoked at any time during the sexual activity by any person engaged in the sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person to ensure that they have the affirmative consent of all persons engaged in the sexual activity to engage in the sexual activity and that the affirmative consent is sustained throughout the sexual activity. It shall not be a valid excuse to an alleged lack of affirmative consent that the student or employee responding to the alleged violation believed that the student or employee reporting or disclosing the alleged violation consented to the sexual activity (i) because the responding student or employee was intoxicated or reckless or failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the student or employee reporting or disclosing the alleged violation affirmatively consented, or (ii) if the responding student or employee knew or should have known that the student or employee reporting or disclosing the alleged violation was unable to consent because such student or employee was unconscious, asleep, unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition, or incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol or medication. The existence of a past or current dating or sexual relationship between the student or employee reporting or disclosing the alleged violation and the responding student or employee, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of a finding of affirmative consent.
Individuals may perceive and experience the same interaction in different ways. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each party to determine that the other has consented before engaging in the activity. Consent can be given by a person’s word or actions
If consent is not clearly provided prior to engaging in the activity, consent may be ratified by word or action at some point during the interaction or thereafter, but clear communication from the outset is strongly encouraged.
For consent to be valid, there must be a clear expression in words or actions that the other individual consented to that specific sexual conduct. Reasonable reciprocation can be implied. For example, if someone kisses you, you can kiss them back (if you want to) without the need to explicitly obtain their consent to being kissed back.
Consent can also be withdrawn once given, as long as the withdrawal is reasonably and clearly communicated. If consent is withdrawn, that sexual activity mustcease within a reasonable time.
Consent to some sexual contact (such as kissing or fondling) cannot be presumed to be consent for other sexual activity (such as intercourse). A current or previous intimate relationship is not sufficient to constitute consent.
Proof of consent or non-consent is not a burden placed on either party involved in an incident. Instead, the burden remains on the University to determine whether its policy has been violated. The existence of consent is based on the totality of the circumstances evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances, including the context in which the alleged incident occurred and any similar and previous patterns that may be evidenced.
Consent in relationships must also be considered in context. When parties consent to BDSM or other forms of kink, non-consent may be shown by the use of a safe word. Resistance, force, violence, or even saying “no” may be part of the kink and thus consensual, so the University’s evaluation of communication in kink situations should be guided by reasonableness, rather than strict adherence to policy that assumes non-kink relationships as a default.
Note: The definition of consent in the state of Connecticut for criminal prosecution of sex offenses differs from the definition used on campus to address policy violations. For purposes of criminal prosecution of sex offenses in the state of Connecticut, consent is not present when a person compels another person to submit to sexual contact by the use of force against such other person or a third person, or by the threat of use of force against such other person or against a third person, which reasonably causes such other person to fear physical injury to himself or herself or a third person.
Incapacitation: A person cannot consent if they are unable to understand what is happening or is disoriented, helpless, asleep, or unconscious, for any reason, including by alcohol or other drugs. As stated above, a Respondent violates this policy if they engage in sexual activity with someone who is incapable of giving consent
It is a defense to a sexual assault policy violation that the Respondent neither knew nor should have known the Complainant to be physically or mentally incapacitated. “Should have known” is an objective, reasonable person standard that assumes that a reasonable person is both sober and exercising sound judgment.
Incapacitation occurs when someone cannot make rational, reasonable decisions because they lack the capacity to give knowing/informed consent (e.g., to understand the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” of their sexual interaction).
Incapacitation is determined through consideration of all relevant indicators of an individual’s state and is not synonymous with intoxication, impairment, blackout, and/or being drunk.
This policy also covers a person whose incapacity results from a temporary or permanent physical or mental health condition, involuntary physical restraint, and/or the consumption of incapacitating drugs.
In addition to the forms of Sexual Harassment described in Section 16. Policy on Sexual Harassment, which will be investigated and resolved using Process A, ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University also prohibits the following offenses as forms of discrimination when the act is based upon the Complainant’s actual or perceived sex. These will be investigated and resolved using Process B.
Violation of any other University policies may constitute a Civil Rights Offense/Discrimination when a violation is motivated by actual or perceived sex and the result is a discriminatory limitation or denial of employment or educational access, benefits, or opportunities.
Violations of Section 17 Policy on Other Sex-based Civil Rights Offenses/Discrimination may result in sanctions up to and including expulsion/termination.
Protected activity under this Policy includes reporting an incident that may implicate this policy, participating in the grievance process, supporting a Complainant or Respondent, assisting in providing information relevant to an investigation, and/or acting in good faith to oppose conduct that constitutes a violation of this Policy.
Acts of alleged retaliation should be reported immediately to the Title IX Coordinator and will be promptly investigated. ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ will take all appropriate and available steps to protect individuals who fear that they may be subjected to retaliation.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University and any member of the University’s community are prohibited from taking or attempting to take materially adverse action by intimidating, threatening, coercing, harassing, or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by law or policy, or because the individual has made a report or complaint, testified, assisted, or participated or refused to participate in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this policy and procedure.
Filing a complaint within Process B could be considered retaliatory if those charges could be applicable under Process A, when the Process B charges are made for the purpose of interfering with or circumventing any right or privilege provided afforded within Process A that is not provided by Process B. Therefore, the University vets all complaints carefully to ensure this does not happen, and to assure that complaints are routed to the appropriate process.
The exercise of rights protected by academic freedom and/or freedom of expression does not constitute retaliation.
Charging an individual with a Student Conduct Code violation, or other University policy violation, for making a materially false statement in bad faith in the course of a grievance proceeding under this policy and procedure does not constitute retaliation, provided that the determination of responsibility, by itself, is not sufficient to conclude that any party has made a materially false statement in bad faith.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University is committed to protecting the academic freedom of its faculty and the freedom of expression of all members of the University community. That commitment is reflected in the University's policies on academic freedom and freedom of expression. Academic freedom and freedom of expression include the expression of ideas, controversial and otherwise, both within and outside the classroom and in keeping with different responsibilities within the workplace on campus. The policies on discrimination and harassment are to be applied in a manner that is balanced against, consistent with, and protective of, the rights of academic freedom and freedom of expression of all parties, and especially regarding this policy, when faculty and students are teaching and learning about sex/sexuality. However, said policies will defer to the requirements of the law under Title IX.
All University employees are expected to report actual or suspected discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation based on sex to the Title IX Coordinator immediately, although there are some limited exceptions.
In order to make informed choices, it is important to be aware of confidentiality and reporting responsibilities when consulting campus resources. On campus, some resources may maintain confidentiality and are not required to report actual or suspected discrimination or harassment in a way that identifies the parties. They may offer options and resources without any obligation to inform the Title IX Coordinator unless a Complainant has requested the information be shared.
If a Complainant expects formal action in response to their allegations, reporting to any Employee with a Responsibility to Report can connect them with resources to report crimes and/or policy violations, and these employees will immediately pass reports to the Title IX Coordinator (and/or police, if desired by the Complainant), who will take action when an incident is reported to them.
The following sections describe the reporting options at ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ for a Complainant or third-party (including parents/guardians when appropriate):
If a Complainant would like the details of an incident to be kept confidential, the Complainant mayspeak with:
All of the above-listed individuals will maintain confidentiality when acting under the scope of their licensure, professional ethics, professional credentials, or official designation, except in extreme cases of immediacy of threat or danger or abuse of a minor/elder/individual with a disability, or when required to disclose by law or court order.
University employees who have confidential privilege as described above, and who receive reports within the scope of their confidential roles submit anonymous statistical information for Clery Act purposes unless they believe it would be harmful to their client, patient, or parishioner.
All employees of the University (including student employees), with the exception of those who are designated as Confidential Resources, are Employees with a Responsibility to Report and must promptly share with the Title IX Coordinator all known details of a report made to them in the course of their employment.
Employees must also promptly share all details of behaviors under this Policy that they observe or have knowledge of, even if not reported to them by a Complainant or third-party.
Complainants may want to carefully consider whether they share personally identifiable details with non-confidential Employees with a Responsibility to Report, as those details must be shared with the Title IX Coordinator.
Generally, disclosures in climate surveys, classroom writing assignments or discussions, human subjects research, or at events such as “Take Back the Night” marches or speak-outs do not provide notice that must be reported to the Coordinator by employees, unless the Complainant clearly indicates that they desire a report to be made or a seek a specific response from the University
Supportive measures may be offered as the result of such disclosures without formal University action.
Failure of an Employee with a Responsibility to Report, as described above in this section, to report an incident of harassment or discrimination of which they become aware is a violation of University policy and can be subject to disciplinary action for failure to comply.
Though this may seem obvious, when an Employee with a Responsibility to Report is engaged in harassment or other violations of this policy, they still have a duty to report their own misconduct, though the University is technically not on notice simply because a harasser is also an Employee with a Responsibility to Report unless the harasser does in fact report themselves.
Finally, it is important to clarify that an Employee with a Responsibility to Report who is themselves a target of harassment or other misconduct under this Policy is not required to report their own experience, though they are, of course, encouraged to do so.
If a Complainant does not wish for their name to be shared, does not wish for an investigation to take place, and/or does not want a formal complaint to be pursued, they may make such a request to the Title IX Coordinator, who will evaluate that request in light of the duty to ensure the safety of the campus and to comply with state or federal law.
The Title IX Coordinator has ultimate discretion over whether the University proceeds when the Complainant does not wish to do so, and the Title IX Coordinator may sign a formal complaint to initiate a grievance process, usually upon completion of an appropriate violence risk assessment (See Process A, Section 3.a.).
The Title IX Coordinator’s decision should be based on results of the violence risk assessment that show a compelling risk to health and/or safety that requires the University to pursue formal action to protect the community.
A compelling risk to health and/or safety may result from evidence of patterns of misconduct, predatory conduct, threats, abuse of minors, use of weapons, and/or violence. The University may be compelled to act on alleged employee misconduct irrespective of a Complainant’s wishes.
The Title IX Coordinator must also consider the effect that non-participation by the Complainant may have on the availability of evidence and the University’s ability to pursue a Formal Grievance Process fairly and effectively.
When the Title IX Coordinator executes the written complaint, they do not become the Complainant. The Complainant is the individual who is alleged to be the victim of conduct that could constitute a violation of this Policy.
When the University proceeds with the Title IX Coordinator signing the formal complaint, the Complainant (and/or their Advisor) may have as much or as little involvement in the process as they wish. The Complainant retains all rights of a Complainant under this Policy irrespective of their level of participation. Typically, when the Complainant chooses not to participate, the Advisor may be appointed as proxy for the Complainant throughout the process, acting to ensure and protect the rights of the Complainant, though this does not extend to the provision of evidence or testimony.
Note that the University’s ability to remedy and respond to notice may be limited if the Complainant does not want the University to proceed with an investigation and/or grievance process and/or the Complainant does not wish to participate in the process. The goal is to provide the Complainant with as much control over the process as possible, while balancing the University’s obligation to protect its community.
In cases in which the Complainant requests confidentiality/no formal action and the circumstances allow the University to honor that request, the University may offer informal resolution options (see below), supportive measures, and remedies to the Complainant and the community, but will not otherwise pursue formal action.
If the Complainant elects to take no action, they can change that decision if they decide to pursue a formal complaint at a later date. Upon making a formal complaint, a Complainant has the right, and can expect, to have allegations taken seriously by the University, and to have the incidents investigated and properly resolved through these procedures. Please consider that delays may cause limitations on access to evidence, or present an issue with respect to the status of the parties.
Parties reporting sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and/or stalking should be aware that under the Clery Act, the University must issue timely warnings for reported incidents that pose a serious or continuing threat of bodily harm or danger to members of the campus community.
The University will ensure that a Complainant’s name and other identifying information is not disclosed, while still providing enough information for community members to make safety decisions in light of the potential danger.
Deliberately false and/or malicious accusations under this Policy are a serious offense and will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. This does not include allegations that are made in good faith but do not result in a policy violation determination.
Additionally, witnesses and parties knowingly providing false evidence, tampering with or destroying evidence, or deliberately misleading an official conducting an investigation can be subject to discipline under appropriate University policies.
The ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University community encourages the reporting of misconduct and crimes by Complainants and witnesses. Sometimes, Complainants or witnesses are hesitant to report to University officials or participate in grievance processes because they fear that they themselves may be in violation of certain policies, such as underage drinking or use of illicit drugs at the time of the incident.
It is in the best interests of the University community that Complainants choose to report misconduct to University officials, that witnesses come forward to share what they know, and that all parties be forthcoming during the process.
To encourage reporting and participation in the process, ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ maintains a policy of offering parties and witnesses amnesty from minor policy violations – such as underage consumption of alcohol or the use of illicit drugs – related to the incident.
Amnesty does not apply to more serious allegations such as physical abuse of another or illicit drug distribution. A decision not to offer amnesty to a Respondent is based on neither sex nor gender, but on the fact that collateral misconduct is typically addressed for all students within a progressive discipline system, and the rationale for amnesty – the incentive to report serious misconduct – is rarely applicable to Respondent with respect to a Complainant.
Students: Sometimes, students are hesitant to assist others for fear that they may get in trouble themselves (for example, an underage student who has been drinking or using marijuana might hesitate to help take an individual who has experienced sexual assault to the Department of Public Safety).
The University maintains a policy of amnesty for students who offer help to others in need.
Employees: Sometimes, employees are hesitant to report harassment or discrimination they have experienced for fear that they may get in trouble themselves. For example, an employee who has violated the policy prohibiting maintaining relationships that pose a direct conflict of interest and is then assaulted in the course of that relationship might hesitate to report the incident to University officials. The University may, at its discretion, offer employee Complainants amnesty from such policy violations (typically more minor policy violations) related to the incident. Amnesty may also be granted to others on a case-by-case basis.
Certain campus officials – those deemed Campus Security Authorities (CSAs)– have a duty to report the following for federal statistical reporting purposes (Clery Act):
All personally identifiable information is kept private, but statistical information must be shared with the Department of Public Safety regarding the type of incident and its general location (on or off-campus or in the surrounding area, but no addresses are given) for publication in the Annual Security Report and daily campus crime log.
Campus Security Authorities include: student affairs/student conduct staff, public safety, local police, coaches, athletic directors, residence life staff, student activities staff, human resources staff, advisors to student organizations, and any other official with significant responsibility for student and campus activities.
The preservation of evidence in incidents of sexual assault is critical to potential criminal prosecution and to obtaining restraining orders, and is particularly time-sensitive. The University will inform the Complainant of the importance of preserving evidence by taking the following actions:
It is also important to preserve other evidence, such as text messages, voice messages, emails, letters, notes, photographs, videos, audio recordings, and social media messages.
During the initial meeting between the Complainant and the Title IX Coordinator, the importance of taking these actions will be reiterated, if timely.
On-Campus
Counseling and Psychological Services (203) 254-4000, ext. 2146 (students only, confidential)
Student Health Center (203) 254-4000, ext. 2241 (students only, confidential)
24/7 Confidential Care Line (203) 256-7272 (SARA) (students only, confidential)
Office of Financial Aid (203) 254-4125 (students only)
Employee Assistance Program 1-800-252-4555 (employees only, confidential)
Campus Ministry (203) 254-4000, ext. 3405 (students only)
Clergy (203) 254-4000, ext. 2664 (confidential)
Murphy Center for Ignatian Spirituality (203) 254-4000 ext. 2373 (confidential)
Office of the Dean of Students (203) 254-4211 (students only)
Office of Human Resources (203) 254-4000, ext. 2277 (employees only)
Office of Residence Life (203) 254-4215
Public Safety (203) 254-4090
Sr. Director of Equity, (203) 254-4357
Off-Campus
Bridgeport Hospital (203) 384-3000 (main)
St. Vincent’s Hospital (203) 576-6000 (main) or (203) 576-5877
The Center for Family Justice, Campus Advocates (confidential) (203) 334-6154
(203) 333-2233 (sexual assault hotline)
(203) 384-9559 (domestic violence hotline)
Triangle Community Center (203) 853-0600
Connecticut Office of the Victim Advocate (860) 550-6632 (confidential)
Connecticut Legal Services (860) 344-0447 (confidential)
Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants (203) 336-0141
Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services (IRIS) (203)-562-2095
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ Police Department (203) 254-254-4800 or 911
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University will act on any formal notice/complaint of violation of the Sex-Based Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation Policy (“the Policy”) that is received by the Title IX Coordinator. The proceedings will include a prompt, fair, and impartial process from the initial assessment to the final result.
The procedures below, known as Process A, apply only to qualifying allegations of Sexual Harassment involving students, staff, administrators, or faculty members. Alleged conduct that does not meet the definition of Sexual Harassment in this policy must be “dismissed” under Process A (more on dismissals below), but may be reinstated under Process B.
Process B is the procedure applicable to the resolution of other allegations, including Sex-Based Civil Rights Offenses/Discrimination described in this policy. Process B can also apply to conduct that meets the definition of Sexual Harassment (including quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking, as defined above), but does not also satisfy the jurisdictional requirements under Process A, as determined by the Title IX Coordinator.
Unionized/other categorized employees are subject to the terms of their agreements/employees’ rights to the extent those agreements do not conflict with federal or state compliance obligations.
The procedures below may be used to address collateral misconduct arising from the investigation of or occurring in conjunction with reported misconduct (e.g., vandalism, physical abuse of another), when alleged violation of the Policy are being addressed at the same time. All other allegations of misconduct unrelated to incidents covered by the Policy will be addressed through procedures described in the student, faculty, and staff handbooks.
All references to the Title IX Coordinator also includes their designee (if applicable).
Upon receipt of a complaint or notice to the Title IX Coordinator of an alleged violation of the Policy, the Title IX Coordinator initiates a prompt initial assessment to determine the next steps the University needs to take.
The Title IX Coordinator will initiate at least one of three responses:
The University uses the Formal Grievance Process to determine whether or not the Policy has been violated. If so, the University will promptly implement effective remedies designed to ensure that it is not deliberately indifferent to harassment or discrimination, their potential recurrence, and/or their effects.
Following receipt of notice or a complaint of an alleged violation of this Policy, the Title IX Coordinator engages in an initial assessment, typically within five (5) business days. The steps in an initial assessment can include:
In some cases, the Title IX Coordinator may determine that a Violence Risk Assessment (VRA) should be conducted by the Threat Assessment Team as part of the initial assessment. A VRA can aid in ten critical and/or required determinations, including:
Threat assessment is the process of evaluating the actionability of violence by an individual against another person or group following the issuance of a direct or conditional threat. A VRA is a broader term used to assess any potential violence or danger, regardless of the presence of a vague, conditional, or direct threat.
VRAs require specific training and are typically conducted by psychologists, clinical counselors, social workers, case managers, law enforcement officers, student conduct officers, or other Case Management Committee or Threat Assessment Team members. A VRA should occur in collaboration with the Threat Assessment Team. Where a VRA is requested by the Title IX Coordinator, a Respondent refusing to cooperate may result in a charge of failure to comply within the appropriate student or employee conduct process.
A VRA is not an evaluation for an involuntary behavioral health hospitalization, nor is it a psychological or mental health assessment. A VRA assesses the risk of actionable violence, often with a focus on targeted/predatory escalations, and is supported by research from the fields of law enforcement, criminology, human resources, and psychology.
The University must dismiss a formal complaint under Process A, or any allegations therein if, at any time during the investigation or hearing, it is determined that:
The University may dismiss a formal complaint or any allegations therein if, at any time during the investigation or hearing:
Upon any dismissal, the University will promptly send written notice of the dismissal and the rationale for doing so simultaneously to the parties.
This dismissal decision is appealable by any party under the procedures for appeal below. A Complainant who decides to withdraw a complaint may later request to reinstate it or refile it.
The University is obligated to ensure that the grievance process is not abused for retaliatory purposes. The University permits the filing of counterclaims but uses an initial assessment, described above, to assess whether the allegations in the counterclaim are made in good faith. Counterclaims by a Respondent may be made in good faith, but are, on occasion, made for purposes of retaliation instead. Counterclaims made with retaliatory intent will not be permitted.
Counterclaims determined to have been reported in good faith will be processed using the grievance procedures below. Investigation of such claims may take place after resolution of the underlying initial allegation, in which case a delay may occur.
Counterclaims may also be resolved through the same investigation as the underlying allegation, at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator. When counterclaims are not made in good faith, they will be considered retaliatory and may constitute a violation of this policy or the Student Conduct Code.
The parties may each have an Advisor of their choice present with them for all meetings, interviews, and hearings within the resolution process, if they so choose. The parties may select whoever they wish to serve as their Advisor as long as the Advisor is eligible and available.
“Available” means the party cannot insist on an Advisor who simply doesn’t have inclination, time, or availability. Also, the Advisor cannot have institutionally conflicting roles, such as being a Title IX administrator who has an active role in the matter, or a supervisor who must monitor and implement sanctions.
Choosing an Advisor who is also a witness in the process creates potential for bias and conflict-ofinterest. A party who chooses an Advisor who is also a witness can anticipate that issues of potential bias will be explored by the hearing Chair.
The University may permit parties to have more than one Advisor upon special request to the Title IX Coordinator. The decision to grant this request is at the sole discretion of the Title IX Coordinator and will be granted equitably to all parties.
The Advisor may be a friend, mentor, family member, attorney, or any other individual a party chooses to advise, support, and/or consult with them throughout the resolution process. The parties may choose Advisors from inside or outside of the University community.
The Title IX Coordinator will also offer to assign a trained Advisor to any party if the party so chooses. If the parties choose an Advisor from the pool available from the University, the Advisor will be trained by the University and be familiar with the University’s resolution process.
If the parties choose an Advisor from outside the pool of those identified by the University, the Advisor may not have been trained by the University and may not be familiar with University policies and procedures.
Parties also have the right to choose not to have an Advisor in the initial stages of the resolution process, prior to a hearing.
The parties may be accompanied by their Advisor in all meetings and interviews at which the party is entitled to be present, including intake and interviews. Advisors should help the parties prepare for each meeting and are expected to advise ethically, with integrity, and in good faith.
The University cannot guarantee equal Advisory rights, meaning that if one party selects an Advisor who is an attorney, but the other party does not or cannot afford an attorney, the University is not obligated to provide an attorney.
Under U.S. Department of Education regulations for Title IX, a form of indirect questioning (cross-examination) is required during the hearing, but must be conducted by the parties’ Advisors. The parties are not permitted to directly question each other or any witnesses. If a party does not have an Advisor for a hearing, the University will appoint a trained Advisor for the limited purpose of conducting any questioning of the other part(ies) and witnesses.
Advisors and their advisees may request to meet with investigators conducting interviews/meetings in advance of these interviews or meetings. This pre-meeting allows Advisors to clarify and understand their role and the University’s policies and procedures. This pre-meeting may also include the Title IX Coordinator.
All Advisors are subject to the same University policies and procedures, whether they are attorneys or not, and whether they are selected by a party or assigned by the University. Advisors are expected to advise their advisees without disrupting proceedings. Advisors should not address University officials or investigators in a meeting or interview unless invited to do so (e.g., asking procedural questions). The Advisor may not make a presentation or represent their advisee during any meeting or proceeding and may not speak on behalf of the advisee to the Investigator(s) or other Chair except during a hearing proceeding, during cross-examination.
The parties are expected to ask and respond to questions on their own behalf throughout the investigation phase of the resolution process. Although the Advisor generally may not speak on behalf of their advisee, the Advisor may consult with their advisee, either privately as needed, or by conferring or passing notes during any resolution process meeting or interview. For longer or more involved discussions, the parties and their Advisors should ask for breaks to allow for private consultation.
Any Advisor who oversteps their role as defined by this policy will be warned only once. If the Advisor continues to disrupt or otherwise fails to respect the limits of the Advisor role, the meeting/interview/hearing will be ended, or other appropriate measures implemented. Subsequently, the Title IX Coordinator will determine how to address the Advisor’s non-compliance and future role.
The University expects that the parties may wish to have the University share documentation and evidence related to the allegations with their Advisors.
The University provides a consent form that authorizes the University to share such information directly with a party’s Advisor. The parties must either complete and submit this form to the Title IX Coordinator or provide similar documentation demonstrating consent to a release of information to the Advisor before the University is able to share records with an Advisor.
If a party requests that all communication only be made through their Advisor, the University will not comply with that request.
Advisors appointed by the institution will not be asked to disclose details of their interactions with their advisees to institutional officials or the Chair
Advisors are expected to maintain the privacy of the records shared with them. These records may not be shared with third parties, disclosed publically, or used for purposes not explicitly authorized by the University. The University may restrict the role of any Advisor who does not respect the sensitive nature of the process or who fails to abide by the University’s privacy expectations.
The University generally expects an Advisor to adjust their schedule to allow them to attend University meetings when planned, but the University may change scheduled meetings to accommodate an Advisor’s inability to attend, if doing so does not cause an unreasonable delay.
The University may also make reasonable provisions to allow an Advisor who cannot be present in person to attend a meeting by telephone, video conferencing, or other similar technologies as may be convenient and available.
A party may elect to change Advisors during the process and is not obligated to use the same Advisor throughout. The parties are expected to inform the Investigator(s) of the identity of their Advisor at least two (2) business days before the date of their first meeting with Investigators (or as soon as possible if a more expeditious meeting is necessary or desired).
The parties are expected to provide timely notice to the Title IX Coordinator if they change Advisors at any time. It is assumed that if a party changes Advisors, consent to share information with the previous Advisor is terminated, and a release for the new Advisor should be secured. Parties are expected to inform the Title IX Coordinator of the identity of their hearing Advisor at least two (2) business days before the hearing.
For parties who are entitled to union representation, the University will allow the unionized employee to have their union representative (if requested by the party) as well as an Advisor of their choice present for all resolution-related meetings and interviews. To uphold the principles of equity, the other party (regardless of union membership) will also be permitted to have two Advisors. Witnesses are not permitted to have union representation or Advisors in grievance process interviews or meetings.
Resolution proceedings are private. All persons present at any time during the resolution process are expected to maintain the privacy of the proceedings in accordance with University Policy. Although there is an expectation of privacy around what the Investigator(s) shares with parties during interviews, the parties have discretion to share their own knowledge and evidence with others if they so choose, with the exception of information the parties agree not to disclose as part of an Informal Resolution, discussed below. The University encourages parties to discuss with their Advisors any sharing of information before doing so.
Informal Resolution can include three different approaches:
To initiate Informal Resolution, a Complainant must submit a formal complaint, as defined above. A Respondent who wishes to initiate Informal Resolution should contact the Title IX Coordinator to so indicate.
The parties may agree as a condition of engaging in Informal Resolution that statements made or evidence shared during the Informal Resolution process will not be considered in the Formal Grievance Process unless all parties consent.
It is not necessary to pursue Informal Resolution first in order to pursue a Formal Grievance Process, and any party participating in Informal Resolution can stop the process at any time and begin or resume the Formal Grievance Process.
Prior to implementing Informal Resolution, the University will provide the parties with written notice of the reported misconduct and any sanctions or measures that may result from participating in such a process, including information regarding any records that will be maintained or shared by the University.
The University will obtain voluntary, written confirmation that all parties wish to resolve the matter through Informal Resolution before proceeding and will not pressure the parties to participate in Informal Resolution.
Alternate Resolution is an informal mechanism by which the parties reach a mutually agreed upon resolution of an allegation. All parties must consent to the use of an Alternate Resolution mechanism.
The Title IX Coordinator may look to the following factors to assess whether Alternate Resolution is appropriate, or which form of Alternate Resolution may be most successful for the parties:
The ultimate determination of whether an Alternate Resolution is available or could be successful is to be made by the Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX Coordinator is authorized to negotiate a resolution that is acceptable to all parties, and/or to accept a resolution that is proposed by the parties, usually through their Advisors.
The Title IX Coordinator maintains records of any resolution that is reached, and failure to abide by the resolution agreement may result in appropriate responsive/disciplinary actions. Results of complaints resolved by Informal Resolution or an Alternate Resolution are not appealable.
The Respondent may accept responsibility for all or part of the alleged policy violations at any point during the resolution process. If the Respondent indicates an intent to accept responsibility for all of the alleged misconduct, the formal process will be paused, and the Title IX Coordinator will determine whether Informal Resolution can be used according to the criteria above.
If Informal Resolution is applicable, the Title IX Coordinator will determine whether all parties and the University are able to agree on responsibility, sanctions, and/or remedies. If so, the Title IX Coordinator implements the accepted finding that the Respondent is in violation of University policy and implements agreed-upon sanctions and/or remedies, in coordination with other appropriate administrator(s), as necessary.
This result is not subject to appeal once all parties indicate their written assent to all agreed upon terms of resolution. When the parties cannot agree on all terms of resolution, the Formal Grievance Process will resume at the same point where it was paused.
When a resolution is accomplished, the appropriate sanction or responsive actions are promptly implemented in order to effectively stop the harassment or discrimination, prevent its recurrence, and remedy the effects of the discriminatory conduct, both on the Complainant and the community.
The Formal Grievance Process relies on a team of administrators to carry out the process.
Investigators
The Title IX Coordinator will appoint a previously designated and trained investigator to complete an investigation. All investigators – internal or external – will be selected from a group of qualified and trained individuals employed by the University or engaged by the University for the purpose of conducting investigations under the Policy.
Advisors
As described in the previous section on Advisors, the University maintains a pool of trained Advisors. Parties are entitled to an advisor of their choice, but the Title IX Coordinator will also offer to assign a trained Advisor for any party if the party so chooses. If the parties choose an Advisor from the pool available from the University, the Advisor will be trained by the University and be familiar with the University’s resolution process.
Decision-Maker
As described more fully below, the Decision-Maker (or the “Chair”) is responsible for convening and conducting the live hearing. Following the live hearing, the Chair will deliberate in order to determine whether the Respondent is responsible or not responsible for the policy violation(s) in question. If the Respondent is determined to be responsible, then the Chair will determine the appropriate sanction(s).
Appeal Decision-maker
-The Appeal Decision-maker for student Respondents and student groups, organizations, and teams shall be the Vice President for Student Life, or their designee.
-The Appeal Decision-maker for faculty Respondents shall be the Provost, or their designee.
-The Appeal Decision-maker for staff Respondents shall be the Associate Vice President, Human Resources, or their designee
Team Member Training
The team members receive training based on their respective roles. This training includes, but is notlimited to:
The materials used to train all members of the team are publicly posted on the University website.
The Title IX Coordinator will typically take the following steps:
The Title IX Coordinator will provide written notice of the investigation and allegations (the “NOIA”) to the Respondent upon commencement of the Formal Grievance Process. This facilitates the Respondent’s ability to prepare for the interview and to identify and choose an Advisor to accompany them. The NOIA is also copied to the Complainant, who is to be given advance notice of when the NOIA will be delivered to the Respondent.
The NOIA will include:
Amendments and updates to the NOIA may be made as the investigation progresses and more information becomes available regarding the addition or dismissal of various allegations.
Notice will be made in writing and will be delivered by the following method: emailed to the parties’ University-issued email or designated accounts. Once, emailed, notice will be presumptively delivered.
The University will make a good faith effort to complete the resolution process within a sixty-to-ninety (60-90) business day time period, including appeal if any, which can be extended as necessary for good cause by the Title IX Coordinator, who will provide notice and rationale for any extensions or delays to the parties as appropriate, as well as an estimate of how much additional time will be needed to complete the process.
Once the decision to commence a Formal Grievance Process is made, the Title IX Coordinator appoints one or more trained Investigator(s) to conduct the investigation, usually within five (5) business days of determining that an investigation should proceed.
Any individual materially involved in the administration of the resolution process including the Title IX Coordinator, Investigator(s), and Decision-maker(s) may neither have nor demonstrate a conflict of interest or bias for a party generally, or for a specific Complainant or Respondent.
The Title IX Coordinator will vet the assigned Investigator(s) to ensure impartiality by ensuring there are no actual or apparent conflicts of interest or disqualifying biases. At any time during the resolution process, the parties may raise a concern regarding bias or conflict of interest of any individual involved in the administration of the resolution process, and the Title IX Coordinator will determine whether the concern is reasonable and supportable. If so, another trained individual will be assigned and the impact of the bias or conflict, if any, will be remedied. If the source of the conflict of interest or bias is the Title IX Coordinator, concerns should be raised with the Vice President for Human Resources.
The Formal Grievance Process involves an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence obtained, including evidence that supports that the Respondent engaged in a policy violation and evidence that supports that the Respondent did not engage in a policy violation. Credibility determinations may not be based solely on an individual’s status or participation as a Complainant, Respondent, or witness.
The University operates with the presumption that the Respondent is not responsible for the reported misconduct unless and until the Respondent is determined to be responsible for a policy violation by the applicable standard of proof.
Investigations are normally within thirty (30) business days, though some investigations may take substantially longer depending on the nature, extent, and complexity of the allegations, availability of witnesses, police involvement, etc.
The University may undertake a short delay in its investigation (several days to a few weeks) if circumstances require. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to: a request from law enforcement to temporarily delay the investigation, the need for language assistance, the absence of parties and/or witnesses, and/or accommodations for disabilities or health conditions.
The University will communicate in writing the anticipated duration of the delay and reason to the parties, and provide the parties with status updates if necessary. The University will promptly resume its investigation and resolution process as soon as feasible. During such a delay, the University will implement supportive measures as deemed appropriate.
University action(s) or processes are not typically altered or precluded on the grounds that civil or criminal charges involving the underlying incident(s) have been filed or that criminal charges have been dismissed or reduced.
All investigations are thorough, reliable, impartial, prompt, and fair. Investigations involve interviews with all relevant parties and witnesses; obtaining available, relevant evidence; and identifying sources of expert information, as necessary.
All parties have a full and fair opportunity, through the investigation process, to suggest witnesses and questions, to provide evidence and expert witnesses, and to fully review and respond to all evidence on the record. Recordings of interviews are not provided to the parties, but the parties will have the ability to review the summary of the interview once the investigation report is compiled.
The Investigator(s) typically take(s) the following steps, if not already completed (not necessarily in this order):
Witnesses (as distinguished from the parties) who are employees of the University are strongly encouraged to cooperate with and participate in the University’s investigation and resolution process. Student witnesses and witnesses from outside the University community are encouraged to cooperate with University investigations and to share what they know about a complaint.
Although in-person interviews for parties and all potential witnesses are ideal, circumstances (e.g., study abroad, summer break) may require individuals to be interviewed remotely. Skype, Zoom, FaceTime, WebEx, or similar technologies may be used for interviews if the Investigator(s) determine that timeliness, efficiency, or other reasons dictate a need for remote interviewing. The University will take appropriate steps to reasonably ensure the security/privacy of remote interviews.
Witnesses may also provide written statements in lieu of interviews or choose to respond to written questions, if deemed appropriate by the Investigator(s), though not preferred.
No unauthorized audio or video recording of any kind is permitted during investigation meetings. If Investigator(s) elect to audio and/or video record interviews, all involved parties should be made aware of audio and/or video recording.
The investigation does not consider: 1) incidents not directly related to the possible violation, unless they evidence a pattern; or 2) questions and evidence about the Complainant’s sexual predisposition; or 3) questions and evidence about the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior, unless such questions and evidence about the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior are offered to prove that someone other than the Respondent committed the conduct alleged by the Complainant, or if the questions and evidence concern specific incidents of the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior with respect to the Respondent and are offered to prove consent.
Within the boundaries stated above, the investigation can consider character evidence generally, if offered, but that evidence is unlikely to be relevant unless it is fact evidence or relates to a pattern of conduct.
Provided that the complaint is not resolved through Informal Resolution, once the final investigation report is shared with the parties, the Title IX Coordinator will refer the matter for a hearing.
The hearing cannot be held less than ten (10) business days from the conclusion of the investigation — when the final investigation report is transmitted to the parties and the Decision-maker(s) — unless all parties and the Decision-maker(s) agree to an expedited timeline.
The Title IX Coordinator will select an appropriate Decision-maker depending on whether the Respondent is an employee or a student. Allegations involving student-employees in the context of their employment will be directed to the appropriate Decision-maker depending on the context and nature of the alleged misconduct.
The University will designate a single Decision-maker, who will Chair the hearing.
The Decision-maker will not have had any previous involvement with the investigation. The Title IX Coordinator may elect to have an alternate Decision-maker sit in throughout the hearing process in the event that a substitute is needed for any reason.
The Title IX Coordinator may not serve as a Decision-maker or Chair in the matter but may serve as an administrative facilitator of the hearing if their previous role(s) in the matter do not create a conflict of interest. Otherwise, a designee may fulfill this facilitator role. The hearing will convene at a time and venue determined by the Chair or designee.
Any evidence that the Chair determines is relevant may be considered. The hearing does not consider: 1) incidents not directly related to the possible violation, unless they evidence a pattern; 2) questions of evidence about the Complainant’s sexual predisposition; or 3) questions or evidence about the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior, unless such questions and evidence about the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior are offered to prove that someone other than the Respondent committed the conduct alleged by the Complainant, or if the questions and evidence concern specific incidents of the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior with respect to the Respondent and are offered to prove consent.
Within the boundaries stated above, the hearing can consider character evidence generally, if offered, but that evidence is unlikely to be relevant unless it is fact evidence or relates to a pattern of conduct.
Previous disciplinary action of any kind involving the Respondent may be considered in determining an appropriate sanction upon a determination of responsibility. This information is only considered at the sanction stage of the process, and is not shared until then.
The parties may each submit a written impact statement prior to the hearing for the consideration of the Chair at the sanction stage of the process when a determination of responsibility is reached. Decision-makers are strictly forbidden from reading these written impact statements prior to a finding on responsibility.
Applicable Standard of Evidence
After post-hearing deliberation, the Decision-maker(s) renders a determination based on the preponderance of the evidence; whether it is more likely than not that the Respondent violated the Policy as alleged.
No less than ten (10) business days prior to the hearing, the Title IX Coordinator will send a Notice of Hearing to the parties. Once emailed, notice will be presumptively delivered.
The Notice of Hearing will contain:
Hearings for possible violations that occur near or after the end of an academic term (assuming the Respondent is still subject to this Policy) and are unable to be resolved prior to the end of term will typically be held immediately after the end of the term or during the summer.
If a party or parties prefer not to attend or cannot attend the hearing in person, the party should request alternative arrangements from the Title IX Coordinator at least five (5) business days prior to the hearing.
The Title IX Coordinator can arrange to use technology to allow remote testimony without compromising the fairness of the hearing. Remote options may also be needed for witnesses who cannot appear in person. Any witness who cannot attend in person should let the Title IX Coordinator know at least five (5) business days prior to the hearing so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
After any necessary consultation with the parties, the Chair will provide the names of persons who will be participating in the hearing and all pertinent documentary evidence, to the parties at least ten (10) business days prior to the hearing.
Any witness scheduled to participate in the hearing must have been first interviewed by the Investigator(s) or have proffered a written statement or answered written questions, unless all parties and the Chair assent to the witness’s participation in the hearing.
The parties will be given the name of the Decision-maker at least seven (7)business days in advance of the hearing. All objections to any Decision-maker must be raised in writing, detailing the rationale for the objection, and must be submitted to the Title IX Coordinator as soon as possible and no later than five (5) days prior to the hearing. Decision-makers will only be removed if the Title IX Coordinator concludes that their bias or conflict of interest precludes an impartial hearing of the allegation(s).
The Title IX Coordinator will give the Decision-maker(s) a list of the names of all parties, witnesses, and Advisors at least seven (7) business days in advance of the hearing. Any Decision-maker who cannot make an objective determination must recuse themselves from the proceedings when notified of the identity of the parties, witnesses, and Advisors in advance of the hearing. If a Decision-maker is unsure of whether a bias or conflict of interest exists, they must raise the concern to the Title IX Coordinator as soon as possible so a new Decision-Maker can be timely appointed.
During the ten (10) business day period prior to the hearing, the parties have the opportunity for continued review and comment on the final investigation report and available evidence. That review and comment can be shared with the Chair at the pre-hearing meeting or at a hearing and will be exchanged between each party by the Chair.
The Chair will convene a pre-hearing meeting(s) with the parties and their Advisors. In advance of this meeting, Parties are required to submit the questions or topics they (the parties and their Advisors) intend to ask or probe at the hearing so that the Chair can rule on their relevance ahead of time to avoid any improper evidentiary introduction in the hearing or to provide recommendations for more appropriate phrasing.
However, Advisors are not precluded from asking questions that have not been previously reviewed by the Chair at the hearing. Advisors may also request reconsideration on a pre-hearing ruling by the Chair based on any new information or testimony offered at the hearing. The Chair must document and share with each party their rationale for any exclusion or inclusion at a pre-hearing meeting.
With full agreement of the parties, the Chair may decide in advance of the hearing that certain witnesses do not need to be present if their testimony can be adequately summarized by the Investigator(s) in the investigation report or during the hearing.
At each pre-hearing meeting with a party and their Advisor, the Chair will consider arguments that evidence identified in the final investigation report as relevant is, in fact, not relevant. Similarly, evidence identified as directly related but not relevant by the Investigator(s) may be argued to be relevant. The Chair may rule on these arguments pre-hearing and will exchange those rulings between the parties prior to the hearing to assist in preparation for the hearing. The Chair may consult with legal counsel and/or the Title IX Coordinator, or ask either or both to attend pre-hearing meetings.
The pre-hearing meeting(s) will not be recorded. The pre-hearing meetings may be conducted as separate meetings with each party/advisors, with all parties/advisors present at the same time, remotely, or as a paper-only exchange. The Chair will work with the parties to establish the format.
At the hearing, the Chair has the authority to hear and make determinations on all allegations of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation and may also hear and make determinations on any additional alleged policy violations that occurred in concert with the discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, even though those collateral allegations may not specifically fall within the Policy. The Chair will answer all questions of procedure.
The Chair will allow witnesses who have relevant information to appear at a portion of the hearing in order to respond to specific questions from the Chair and the parties and the witnesses will then be excused. All witnesses must speak on their own behalf.
In hearings involving more than one Respondent or in which two (2) or more Complainants have accused the same individual of substantially similar conduct, the default procedure will be to hear the allegations jointly.
However, the Title IX Coordinator may permit the investigation and/or hearings pertinent to each Respondent to be conducted separately if there is a compelling reason to do so. In joint hearings, separate determinations of responsibility will be made for each Respondent with respect to each alleged policy violation.
The Chair explains the procedures and introduces the participants.
The Chair then conducts the hearing according to the hearing script. At the hearing, recording, witness logistics, party logistics, curation of documents, separation of the parties, and other administrative elements of the hearing process are managed by a non-voting hearing facilitator who may be the Title IX Coordinator (so long as the Title IX Coordinator is not the Investigator) or is appointed by the Title IX Coordinator. The hearing facilitator may attend to: logistics of rooms for various parties/witnesses as they wait; flow of parties/witnesses in and out of the hearing space; ensuring recording and/or virtual conferencing technology is working as intended; copying and distributing materials to participants, as appropriate, etc.
The Investigator(s) will then present a summary of the final investigation report, including items that are disputed facts and those that are not, and will be subject to questioning by the Chair and the parties (through their Advisors).
Neither the parties nor the Chair should ask the Investigator(s) their opinions on credibility, recommended findings, or determinations, and Advisors and parties will refrain from discussion of or questions for Investigators about these assessments. If such information is introduced, the Chair will direct that it be disregarded.
Once the Investigator(s) present(s) the report and are questioned, the parties and witnesses may provide relevant information in turn, beginning with the Complainant, and then in the order determined by the Chair. The Chair will facilitate questioning of the parties and witnesses by the Decision-maker(s) and then by the parties through their Advisors (“cross-examination”).
All questions are subject to a relevance determination by the Chair. The Advisor, who will remain seated during questioning, will pose the proposed question orally, electronically, or in writing (orally is the default, but other means of submission may be permitted by the Chair upon request if agreed to by all the parties and the Chair), the proceeding will pause to allow the Chair to consider the question (and state it if it has not already been stated aloud), and the Chair will determine whether the question will be permitted, disallowed, or rephrased.
The Chair may invite explanations or persuasive statements regarding relevance with the Advisors, if the Chair so chooses. The Chair will then state their decision on the question for the record and advise the party/witness to whom the question was directed, accordingly. The Chair will explain any decision to exclude a question as not relevant, or to reframe it for relevance.
The Chair will limit or disallow questions on the basis that they are irrelevant, unduly repetitious (and thus irrelevant), or abusive. The Chair has final say on all questions and determinations of relevance. The Chair may consult with legal counsel on any questions of admissibility. The Chair may ask Advisors to frame why a question is or is not relevant from their perspective but will not entertain argument from the Advisors on relevance once the Chair has ruled on a question.
If the parties raise an issue of bias or conflict of interest of an Investigator or the Chair at the hearing, the Chair may elect to address those issues, consult with legal counsel, and/or refer them to the Title IX Coordinator, and/or preserve them for appeal. If bias is not in issue at the hearing, the Chair should not permit irrelevant questions that probe for bias.
Neither parties or witnesses are required to participate in the resolution process outlined in these procedures. The school will not draw any adverse inferences from a complainant’s, respondent’s or witness’s decision not to participate or to remain silent during the process. An investigator or decision-maker, in the investigation or the hearing respectively, will reach findings and conclusions based on the information available.
If collateral charges of policy violations other than sexual harassment are considered at the same hearing, the Decision-maker(s) may consider all evidence it deems relevant, may rely on any relevant statement as long as the opportunity for cross-examination is afforded to all parties through their Advisors, and may draw reasonable inferences from any decision by any party or witness not to participate or respond to questions.
If a party’s Advisor of choice refuses to comply with the University’s established rules of decorum for the hearing, the University may require the party to use a different Advisor. If a University-provided Advisor refuses to comply with the rules of decorum, the University may provide that party with a different Advisor to conduct cross-examination on behalf of that party.
An Advisor may not be called as a witness at a hearing to testify to what their advisee has told them during their role as an Advisor unless the party being advised consents to that information being shared. It is otherwise considered off-limits, and an Advisor who is an institutional employee is temporarily alleviated from mandated reporter responsibilities related to their interaction with their advisee during the resolution process.
Hearings (but not deliberations) are audio-recorded by the University for purposes of review in the event of an appeal. The parties may not record the proceedings and no other unauthorized recordings are permitted.
The Decision-maker(s), the parties, their Advisors, and appropriate administrators of the University will be permitted to listen to the recording or review a transcript of the recording in a controlled environment determined by the Title IX Coordinator, upon request. No person will be given or be allowed to make a copy of the recording without permission of the Title IX Coordinator.
The Chair will deliberate in closed session to determine whether the Respondent is responsible or not responsible for the policy violation(s) in question. The preponderance of the evidence standard of proof is used.
When there is a finding of responsibility on one or more of the allegations, the Decision-maker(s) may then consider the previously submitted party impact statements in determining appropriate sanction(s).
The Chair will ensure that each of the parties has an opportunity to review any impact statement submitted by the other party(ies). The Chair may — at their discretion — consider the statements, but they are not binding.
The Chair will review the statements and any pertinent conduct history provided by Title IX Coordinator and will determine the appropriate sanction(s), in consultation with other University administrators or the body of faculty members, as the Chair deems appropriate.
The Chair will then prepare a written deliberation statement and deliver it to the Title IX Coordinator, within five (5) business days detailing the determination, rationale, the evidence used in support of its determination, the evidence not relied upon in its determination, credibility assessments, and any sanctions. The timeframe for submitting this statement may be extended for good cause.
Using the deliberation statement, the Title IX Coordinator will work with the Chair to prepare a Notice of Outcome letter. The Title IX Coordinator will then share the letter, including the final determination, rationale, and any applicable sanction(s) with the parties and their Advisors within 5 business days of receiving the Decision-maker(s)’ deliberation statement. The timeframe for sharing the Notice of Outcome may be extended for good cause.
The Notice of Outcome will be shared with the parties simultaneously. Notification will be made in writing and will be delivered by email to the parties’ University-issued email or otherwise approved account. Once emailed, notice will be presumptively delivered.
The Notice of Outcome will articulate the specific policy(ies) reported to have been violated, including the relevant policy section, and will contain a description of the procedural steps taken by the University from the receipt of the misconduct report to the determination, including any and all notifications to the parties, interviews with parties and witnesses, site visits, methods used to obtain evidence, and hearings held.
The Notice of Outcome will specify the finding on each alleged policy violation; the findings of fact that support the determination; conclusions regarding the application of the relevant policy to the facts at issue; a statement of, and rationale for, the result of each allegation to the extent the University is permitted to share such information under state or federal law; any sanctions issued which the University is permitted to share according to state or federal law; and whether remedies will be provided to the Complainant to ensure access to the University’s educational or employment program or activity.
The Notice of Outcome will also include information on when the results are considered by the University to be final, any changes that occur prior to finalization, and the relevant procedures and bases for any available appeal options.
Factors considered when determining a sanction/responsive action may include, but are not limited to:
The sanctions will be implemented as soon as is feasible, either upon the outcome of any appeal or the expiration of the window to appeal without an appeal being requested.
The sanctions described in this policy are not exclusive of, and may be in addition to, other actions taken or sanctions imposed by external authorities.
The following are the usual sanctions that may be imposed upon students or organizations singly or in combination:
Responsive actions for an employee who has engaged in harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation include:
When a tenured or tenure-track faculty member has been found responsible for a policy violation that could result in a severe sanction or removal, a body of faculty members shall determine sanctions from a list provided by the Decision-maker. The Decision-maker shall provide their finding and rationale in writing to the body of faculty members along with 3 options for sanctioning. The body of faculty members shall choose from the 3 options and provide the Decision-maker in writing with their sanction and rationale one day after receiving the finding, rationale, and sanction options list from the Decision-maker.
Should a student decide to not participate in the resolution process, the process proceeds absent their participation to a reasonable resolution. Should a student Respondent permanently withdraw from the University, the resolution process ends with a dismissal, as the University no longer has disciplinary jurisdiction over the withdrawn student.
However, the University may continue to address and remedy any systemic issues or concerns that may have contributed to the alleged violation(s), and any ongoing effects of the alleged harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation. The student who withdraws or leaves while the process is pending may not return to the University in any capacity. Admissions and Human Resources will be notified accordingly. Such exclusion applies to all campuses of the University.
If the student Respondent only withdraws or takes a leave for a specified period of time (e.g., one semester or term), the resolution process may continue remotely and that student is not permitted to return to University unless and until all sanctions, if any, have been satisfied.
Employees: Should an employee Respondent resign with unresolved allegations pending, the resolution process ends with dismissal, as the University no longer has disciplinary jurisdiction over the resigned employee.
However, the University will continue to address and remedy any systemic issues or concerns that contributed to the alleged violation(s), and any ongoing effects of the alleged harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation.
The employee who resigns with unresolved allegations pending is not eligible for admission or rehire with the University or any campus of the University, and the records retained by the Title IX Coordinator and Human Resources will reflect that status.
Any party may file a request for appeal (“Request for Appeal”), but it must be submitted in writing to the Title IX Coordinator within 5 business days of the delivery of the Notice of Outcome.
A single Appeal Decision-maker will Chair the appeal. No Appeal Decision-maker will have been involved in the process previously, including in any dismissal appeal that may have been heard earlier in the process.
The Request for Appeal will be forwarded to the Appeal Chair or designee for consideration to determine if the request meets the grounds for appeal (a Review for Standing).
This review is not a review of the merits of the appeal, but solely a determination as to whether the request meets the grounds and is timely filed.
Appeals are limited to the following grounds:
If any of the grounds in the Request for Appeal do not meet the grounds in this Policy, that request will be denied by the Appeal Chair and the parties and their Advisors will be notified in writing of the denial and the rationale.
If any of the grounds in the Request for Appeal meet the grounds in this Policy, then the Appeal Chair will notify the other party(ies) and their Advisors, the Title IX Coordinator, and, when appropriate, the Investigators and/or the original Chair.
The other party(ies) and their Advisors, the Title IX Coordinator, and, when appropriate, the Investigators and/or the original Chair will be emailed a copy of the request with the approved grounds and then be given 5 business days to submit a response to the portion of the appeal that was approved and involves them. All responses will be forwarded by the Appeal Chair to all parties for review and comment.
The non-appealing party (if any) may also choose to raise a new ground for appeal at this time. If so, that will be reviewed to determine if it meets the grounds in the Policy by the Appeal Chair and either denied or approved. If approved, it will be forwarded to the party who initially requested an appeal, the Investigator(s) and/or original Chair as necessary, who will submit their responses in 5 business days, which will be circulated for review and comment by all parties. If not approved, the parties will be notified accordingly, in writing.
Neither party may submit any new requests for appeal after this time period. The Appeal Chair will collect any additional information needed and all documentation regarding the approved grounds and the subsequent responses, and the Appeal Chair will render a decision in no more than 5 business days, barring exigent circumstances. All decisions apply the preponderance of the evidence standard.
A Notice of Appeal Outcome will be sent to all parties simultaneously including the decision on each approved ground and rationale for each decision. The Notice of Appeal Outcome will specify the finding on each ground for appeal, any specific instructions for remand or reconsideration, any sanctions that may result which the University is permitted to share according to state or federal law, and the rationale supporting the essential findings to the extent the University is permitted to share under state or federal law.
Notification will be made in writing and may be delivered by the following method: emailed to the parties’ University-issued email or otherwise approved account. Once emailed, notice will be presumptively delivered.
Any sanctions imposed as a result of the hearing are stayed during the appeal process. Supportive measures may be reinstated, subject to the same supportive measure procedures above.
If any of the sanctions are to be implemented immediately post-hearing, but pre-appeal, then emergency removal procedures (detailed above) for a show cause meeting on the justification for doing so must be permitted within 48 hours of implementation.
If the original sanctions include separation in any form, the University may place a hold on official transcripts, diplomas, graduations, and course registration pending the outcome of an appeal. The Respondent may request a stay of these holds from the Title IX Coordinator within two (2) business days of the notice of the sanctions. The request will be evaluated by the Title IX Coordinator or designee, whose determination is final.
Following the conclusion of the resolution process, and in addition to any sanctions implemented, the Title IX Coordinator may implement additional long-term remedies or actions with respect to the parties and/or the campus community that are intended to stop the harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation, remedy the effects, and prevent reoccurrence.
These remedies/actions may include, but are not limited to:
At the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator, certain long-term support or measures may also be provided to the parties even if no policy violation is found.
When no policy violation is found, the Title IX Coordinator will address any remedies owed by the University to the Respondent to ensure no effective denial of educational access.
The University will maintain the confidentiality of any long-term remedies/actions/measures, provided confidentiality does not impair the University’s ability to provide these services.
All Respondents are expected to comply with the assigned sanctions, responsive actions, and/or corrective actions within the timeframe specified by the Chair (including the Appeal Chair).
Failure to abide by the sanction(s)/action(s) imposed by the date specified, whether by refusal, neglect, or any other reason, may result in additional sanction(s)/action(s), including suspension, expulsion, and/or termination from the University. A suspension will only be lifted when compliance is achieved to the satisfaction of the Title IX Coordinator.
The University will maintain for a period of seven years records of:
The University will also maintain any and all records in accordance with state and federal laws.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University is committed to providing reasonable accommodations and support to qualified students, employees, or others with disabilities to ensure equal access to the University’s resolution process.
Any student needing such accommodations or support should contact the Director of Accessibility and any employee needing such accommodations or support should contact the Office of Human Resources, who will review the request and, in consultation with the person requesting the accommodation and the Title IX Coordinator, determine which accommodations are appropriate and necessary for full participation in the process.
This Policy and procedures apply to conduct that occurs on or after August 14, 2020. The policy and procedures in place at the time the conduct occurred shall apply to conduct that occurred prior to August 14, 2020.
This Policy and procedures supersede any previous policy(ies) addressing harassment, sexual misconduct, discrimination, and/or retaliation for incidents occurring on or after August 14,2020, under Title IX and will be reviewed and updated annually by the Title IX Coordinator. The University reserves the right to make changes to this document as necessary, and once those changes are posted online, they are in effect.
During the resolution process, the Title IX Coordinator may make minor modifications to procedures that do not materially jeopardize the fairness owed to any party, such as to accommodate summer schedules. The Title IX Coordinator may also vary procedures materially with notice (on the institutional website, with the appropriate effective date identified) upon determining that changes to law or regulation require policy or procedural alterations not reflected in this Policy and procedures.
If government laws or regulations change — or court decisions alter — the requirements in a way that impacts this document, this document will be construed to comply with the most recent government laws or regulations or court holdings.
This document does not create legally enforceable protections beyond the protections of the background state and federal laws which frame such policies and codes, generally.
This Policy and procedures are effective August 14, 2020.
PROCESS B
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University will act on any formal or informal allegation or notice of violation of the Policy that is received by the Title IX Coordinator or a member of the administration, faculty, or other employee, with the exception of confidential resources, as articulated in the Policy above. All references herein to a Title IX Coordinator also include a designee of the Title IX Coordinator.
The procedures described below apply to allegations of Other Sex-Based Civil Rights Offenses/Discrimination as described in this policy including to alleged conduct to which Process A does not apply.
Unionized or other categorized employees will be subject to the terms of their respective collective bargaining agreements/employees’ rights to the extent those agreements do not conflict with federal or state compliance obligations.
These procedures may also be used to address collateral misconduct arising from the investigation of or occurring in conjunction with harassing or discriminatory conduct (e.g., vandalism, physical abuse of another). All other allegations of misconduct unrelated to incidents covered by this policy will be addressed through the procedures elaborated in the respective student, faculty, and staff handbooks.
Following intake, receipt of notice, or a complaint of an alleged violation of the University’s Policy, the Title IX Coordinator engages in an initial assessment, which is typically one to five (5) business days in duration. If circumstances require, the Vice President for Human Resources will designate another person to oversee the process below should an allegation be made about the Coordinator or the Coordinator is otherwise unavailable or unable to fulfill their duties.
The steps in an initial assessment can include:
Based on the initial assessment, the University will initiate one of these responses through the Title IX Coordinator:
The investigation and the subsequent Administrative Resolution determine whether the Policy has been violated. If so, the University will promptly implement effective remedies designed to end the discrimination, prevent recurrence, and address the effects.
The process followed considers the preference of the parties but is ultimately determined at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator. At any point during the initial assessment or formal investigation, if the Title IX Coordinator determines that the available information cannot support the conclusion that policy has been violated, the process will end, and the parties will be notified.
The Complainant may request that the Title IX Coordinator review the determination and/or re-open the investigation. This decision lies in the sole discretion of the Title IX Coordinator, but the request is usually only granted in extraordinary circumstances.
The resolution process relies on a team of officials for implementation.
Investigators
The Title IX Coordinator will appoint a previously designated and trained investigator to complete an investigation. All investigators — internal or external — will be selected from a group of qualified and trained individuals employed by the University or engaged by the University for the purpose of conducting investigations under the Policy.
The Title IX Coordinator will provide the Parties with the name(s) of the person(s) assigned to investigate the reported conduct (the “Investigator(s)”) in the Notice of Investigation and Allegations. As soon as possible, but no later than three 3 business days after delivery of the identity of the Investigator(s), the Parties should inform the Title IX Coordinator (in writing) of any conflicts of interest with regard to the selected Investigator(s). The Title IX Coordinator will consider the nature of the conflict and determine if different individuals should be assigned as Investigator(s). The Title IX Coordinator’s decision regarding any conflicts is final.
Advisors
As described in the previous section on Advisors, the University maintains a pool of trained Advisors. Parties are entitled to an advisor of their choice, but if the parties choose an Advisor from the pool available from the University, the Advisor will be trained by the University and be familiar with the University’s resolution process.
Decision-makers – Findings and Sanctions
The Decision-Maker for determination of responsibility for Process B complaints is the Investigator. Where the Respondent is found responsible, the Decision-Maker for the purposes of sanctions is the following:
-The Sanctioning Decision-maker for student Respondents and student groups, organizations, and teams shall be the Dean of Students, or their designee, or an external decision-maker who has been engaged by the University for the purpose of making a decision.
Additionally, a body of faculty members shall determine sanctions for tenured and tenure-track faculty members when the finding of the Decision-maker could result in a severe sanction or removal.
-The Sanctioning Decision-maker for staff Respondents shall be the Vice President for Human Resources, or their designee, or an external decision-maker who has been engaged by the University for the purpose of making a decision.
Appeal Decision-maker
The Appeal Decision-maker for student Respondents and student group, organizations and teams shall be the Vice President for Student Life, or their designee. The Appeal Decision-maker for faculty Respondents shall be the Provost, or their designee. The Appeal Decision-maker for staff Respondents shall be the Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration, or their designee.
Upon notification of the Appeal Decision-maker’s identity the parties must notify the Title IX Coordinator in writing within three (3) days of any conflict of interest with regard to the Decision-maker. The Title IX Coordinator will consider the nature of the conflict and determine if a different individual should be assigned as the Appeal Decision-maker. The Title IX Coordinator’s decision regarding any conflicts is final.
Counterclaims by the Respondent may be made in good faith or may instead be motivated by a retaliatory intent. The University is obligated to ensure that any process is not abused for retaliatory purposes.
The University permits the filing of counterclaims, but uses the initial assessment, described above in the Policy section, to assess whether the allegations are made in good faith. If they are, the allegations will be processed using the resolution procedures below, typically after resolution of the underlying allegation. Counterclaims made with retaliatory intent will not be permitted.
A delay in the processing of counterclaims is permitted, accordingly. Occasionally, allegations and counterclaims can be resolved through the same investigation, at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator. When counterclaims are not made in good faith, they will be considered retaliatory, and may constitute a violation of this Policy.
Both parties are entitled to have an Advisor accompany them through the Process.
The University generally expects an Advisor to adjust their schedule to allow them to attend University meetings when planned, but the University may change scheduled meetings to accommodate an Advisor’s inability to attend, if doing so does not cause an unreasonable delay.
The University may also make reasonable provisions to allow an Advisor who cannot attend in person to attend a meeting by telephone, video conferencing, or other similar technologies as may be convenient and available.
Parties whose Advisors are disruptive or who do not abide by University policies and procedures may face the loss of that Advisor and/or possible Policy violations.
Advisors are expected to consult with their advisees without disrupting University meetings or interviews. Advisors do not represent parties in the process; their role is only to advise.
Each party may choose an Advisor who is available to accompany them throughout the process. The Advisor can be anyone, including an attorney, advocate or support person but should not be someone who is also a witness in the process. “Available” means the party cannot insist on an Advisor who simply doesn’t have inclination, time, or availability. Also, the Advisor cannot have institutionally conflicting roles, such as being a Title IX administrator who has an active role in the matter, or a supervisor who must monitor and implement sanctions.
Witnesses are not entitled to be accompanied by Advisors throughout the process, though they can be advised externally.
The parties are expected to inform the Investigators of the identity of their Advisor at least two (2) business days before the date of their first meeting with the Investigator(s) (or as soon as possible if a more expeditious meeting is necessary or desired).
The University also provides a consent form that authorizes the University to share such information directly with their Advisor. The parties must either complete and submit this form to the Title IX Coordinator or provide similar documentation demonstrating consent to a release of information to the Advisor before the University is able to share records with an Advisor.
If a party requests that all communication only be made through their Advisor, the University will not comply with that request. Upon written request of a party, the University will copy the Advisor on all communications between the University and the party.
The parties are expected to provide timely notice to the Title IX Coordinator if they change Advisors at any time. It is assumed that if a party changes Advisors, consent to share information with the previous Advisor is terminated, and a release for the new Advisor must be secured. Parties are expected to inform the Title IX Coordinator of the identity of their hearing Advisor at least two (2) business days before the hearing.
For parties who are entitled to union representation, the University will allow the unionized employee to have their union representative (if requested by the party) as well as an Advisor of their choice present for all resolution-related meetings and interviews. To uphold the principles of equity, the other party (regardless of union membership) will also be permitted to have two Advisors. Witnesses are not permitted to have union representation or Advisors in grievance process interviews or meetings.
Proceedings are private. All persons present at any time during the resolution process are expected to maintain the privacy of the proceedings in accord with University Policy.
While there is an expectation of privacy around what is discussed during interviews, the parties have discretion to share their own experiences with others if they so choose, but are encouraged to discuss with their Advisors first before doing so.
Informal Resolution is applicable when the parties voluntarily agree to resolve the matter through Alternate Resolution when the Respondent accepts responsibility for violating Policy.
It is not necessary to pursue Informal Resolution first in order to pursue Administrative Resolution, and any party participating in Informal Resolution can stop the process at any time and request the Administrative Resolution process. Further, if an Informal Resolution fails after the resolution is finalized, Administrative Resolution may be pursued.
Alternate Resolution is an informal process, by which the parties mutually agree to resolve an allegation. The parties and the University must consent to the use of Alternate Resolution.
The Title IX Coordinator determines if Alternate Resolution is appropriate, based on the willingness of the parties, the nature of the conduct at issue, and the susceptibility of the conduct to Alternate Resolution.
In an Alternate Resolution, a trained administrator may facilitate a dialogue with the parties to an effective resolution, if possible. Or, the Title IX Coordinator, with the consent of the parties, may negotiate and implement any agreement to resolve the allegations that satisfies all parties and the University.
Institutionally-imposed sanctions are not possible as the result of an Alternate Resolution process, though the parties may agree to accept sanctions and/or appropriate remedies.
The Title IX Coordinator maintains records of any resolution that is reached, and failure to abide by the resolution can result in appropriate enforcement actions.
The results of Alternate Resolution are not appealable.
The Respondent may accept responsibility for all or part of the alleged policy violations at any point during the resolution process. If the Respondent accepts responsibility, the Title IX Coordinator makes a determination that the individual is in violation of University Policy.
The Title IX Coordinator then determines appropriate sanction(s) or responsive actions, which are promptly implemented in order to effectively stop the harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation; prevent its recurrence; and remedy the effects of the conduct, both on the Complainant and the community.
If the Respondent accepts responsibility for all of the alleged policy violations and the Title IX Coordinator or designee has determined appropriate sanction(s) or responsive actions, which are promptly implemented, the process is over. The Complainant will be informed of this outcome.
If the Respondent accepts responsibility for some of the alleged policy violations and the Title IX Coordinator has determined appropriate sanction(s) or responsive actions, which are promptly implemented, for those violations, then the remaining allegations will continue to be investigated and resolved. The parties will be informed of this outcome. The parties are still able to seek Alternate Resolution on the remaining allegations, subject to the stipulations above.
Administrative Resolution can be pursued for any complaint for which the Respondent has not accepted responsibility that constitutes conduct covered by the Policy, that does not fall under Process A, at any time during the process. Administrative Resolution starts with an investigation.
If Administrative Resolution is initiated, the Title IX Coordinator will provide written notification of the investigation to the parties at an appropriate time during the investigation. Typically, notice is given at least 48 hours in advance of an interview. Advanced notice facilitates the parties’ ability to identify and choose an Advisor, if any, to accompany them to the interview.
Notification will include a meaningful summary of the allegations, will be made in writing, and may be delivered by the following method: emailed to the parties’ University-issued or designated email account.
Once emailed, notice will be presumptively delivered. The notification should include the policies allegedly violated, if known at the time. Alternatively, the policies allegedly violated can be provided at a later date, in writing, as the investigation progresses, and details become clearer.
The University aims to complete all investigations within sixty (60) business days, which can be extended as necessary for good cause by the Title IX Coordinator. Once the decision is made to commence an investigation, the Title IX Coordinator appoints an Investigator or Investigator(s) to conduct the investigation.
The Title IX Coordinator will vet the assigned Investigator(s) to ensure impartiality by ensuring there are no conflicts of interest or disqualifying bias.
The Title IX Coordinator will do the following when a report or complaint is received:
The parties may, at any time during the resolution process, raise a concern regarding bias or conflict of interest, and the Title IX Coordinator will determine whether the concern is reasonable and supportable. If so, another individual will be assigned and the impact of the bias or conflict, if any, will be remedied. If the bias or conflict relates to the Title IX Coordinator, concerns should be raised with the Vice President for Human Resources.
The University will make a good faith effort to complete the investigation as promptly as circumstances permit and will communicate regularly with the parties to update them on the progress and timing of the investigation.
The University may undertake a short delay in its investigation (several days to weeks, to allow evidence collection) when criminal charges based on the same behaviors that invoke the University’s resolution process are being investigated by law enforcement. The University will promptly resume its investigation and resolution process once notified by law enforcement that the initial evidence collection process is complete.
University action(s) are not typically altered or precluded on the grounds that civil or criminal charges involving the underlying incident(s) have been filed or that criminal charges have been dismissed or reduced.
Investigations involve interviews with all relevant parties and witnesses, obtaining available, relevant evidence, and identifying sources of expert information, as necessary.
All parties have a full and fair opportunity, through the investigation process, to suggest witnesses and questions, to provide evidence, and to fully review and respond to all evidence, on the record.
The Investigator(s) typically take the following steps, if not already completed (not necessarily in this order):
The Investigator shall also make factual findings based on a preponderance of the evidence and, based on those findings, come to a conclusion as to whether the Policy was violated.
Witnesses (as distinguished from the parties) who are faculty or staff of the University are expected to cooperate with and participate in the University’s investigation and resolution process. Failure of a witness to cooperate with and/or participate in the investigation or resolution process constitutes a violation of Policy and may be subject to discipline.
Parties and witnesses may be interviewed remotely by phone, video conferencing, or similar technologies if the Investigator(s) determine that timeliness, efficiency, or other causes dictate a need for remote interviewing. Witnesses may also provide written statements in lieu of interviews, or respond to questions in writing, if deemed appropriate by the Investigator(s), though this approach is not ideal. When remote technologies are used, the University makes reasonable efforts to ensure privacy, and ensures that any technology does not work to the detriment of any party or subject them to unfairness.
No unauthorized audio or video recording of any kind is permitted during the resolution process including investigative interviews. If Investigator(s) elect to audio and/or video record interviews, all involved parties must be made aware of the audio and/or video recording.
Any evidence that is relevant and credible may be considered, including an individual’s prior misconduct history as well as evidence indicating a pattern of misconduct, subject to the limitation in (e) below. The process should exclude irrelevant or immaterial evidence and may disregard evidence lacking in credibility or that is improperly prejudicial.
Unless the Title IX Coordinator/Investigator determines it is appropriate, the investigation and the finding do not consider: (1) incidents not directly related to the possible violation, unless they evidence a pattern; (2) the irrelevant sexual history of the parties (though there may be a limited exception made with regard to the sexual history between the parties); or (3) irrelevant character evidence.
While previous conduct violations by the Respondent are not generally admissible as information supporting the current allegation, the Investigator(s) may supply the Decision-maker for Sanctions with information about previous good faith allegations and/or findings, when that information suggests potential pattern and/or predatory conduct.
Previous disciplinary action of any kind involving the Respondent may be considered in determining the appropriate sanction(s).
Character witnesses or evidence may be offered. The investigator will determine if the character evidence is relevant. If so, it may be considered. If not, it will be excluded.
If the Respondent admits to the violation(s), or is found in violation by the Investigator, the Sanctioning Decision-Maker, in consultation with the Title IX Coordinator or any other University administrator as the Sanctioning Decision-Maker deems appropriate, determines sanction(s) and/or responsive actions, which are promptly implemented in order to effectively to stop the harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation; prevent its recurrence; and remedy the effects of the discriminatory conduct, both on the Complainant and the community.
The Title IX Coordinator informs the parties of the Notice of Outcome within three (3) business days of the resolution, ideally simultaneously, but without significant time delay between notifications. Notifications are made in writing and must be delivered by the following method: emailed to the parties’ University-issued or designated email account. Once emailed, notice is presumptively delivered.
The Notice of Outcome specifies the finding for each alleged policy violation, any sanction(s) that may result which the University is permitted to share pursuant to state or federal law, and the rationale supporting the findings to the extent the University is permitted to share under state or federal law.
The Notice will detail when the determination is considered final (See Section 11. Appeals below) and will detail any changes that are made prior to finalization.
Unless based on an acceptance of violation by the Respondent, the Notice of Outcome may be appealed by either party. The Notification of Outcome also includes the grounds on which the parties may appeal and the steps the parties may take to request an appeal of the findings. More information about the appeal procedures can be found below.
Factors considered when determining any sanction(s)/responsive action(s) may include, but are not limited to:
The sanction(s) will be implemented as soon as is feasible. The sanctions described in this policy are not exclusive of, and may be in addition to, other actions taken, or sanctions imposed by outside authorities.
The following are the usual sanctions that may be imposed upon students or organizations singly or in combination:
Responsive actions for an employee who has engaged in harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation include:
When a tenured or tenure-track faculty member has been found responsible for a policy violation that could result in a severe sanction or removal, a body of faculty members shall determine sanctions from a list provided by the Decision-maker. The Decision-maker shall provide their finding and rationale in writing to the body of faculty members along with 3 options for sanctioning. The body of faculty members shall choose from the 3 options and provide the Decision-maker in writing with their sanction and rationale one day after receiving the finding, rationale, and sanction options list from the Decision-maker.
Should a student decide to not participate in the resolution process, the process proceeds absent their participation to a reasonable resolution. Should a student Respondent permanently withdraw from the University, the resolution process ends, as the University no longer has disciplinary jurisdiction over the withdrawn student. However, a student who withdraws or leaves while the process is pending may not return to the University. Such exclusion applies to all campuses of the University. Admissions will be notified that they cannot be readmitted. They may also be barred from University property and/or events. If the student Respondent takes a leave of absence for a specified period of time (e.g., one semester or term), the resolution process may continue remotely. If a student is sanctioned while they are on leave, that student is not permitted to return to University unless and until all sanctions have been satisfied.
Further, the University may continue to address and remedy any systemic issues or concerns that may have contributed to the alleged violation(s), and any ongoing effects of the alleged harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation.
Employees: Should an employee Respondent resign with unresolved allegations pending, the resolution process ends, as the University no longer has disciplinary jurisdiction over the resigned employee.
However, the University will continue to address and remedy any systemic issues or concerns that contributed to the alleged violation(s), and any ongoing effects of the alleged harassment or discrimination.
The employee who resigns with unresolved allegations pending is not eligible for rehire with the University or any campus of the University, and the records retained by the Title IX Coordinator and Human Resources will reflect that status.
Appeal Decision-maker:
Upon notification of the Appeal Decision-maker’s identity the parties must notify the Title IX Coordinator in writing within three (3) days of any conflict of interest with regard to the Decision-maker. The Title IX Coordinator will consider the nature of the conflict and determine if a different individual should be assigned as the Appeal Decision-Maker. The Title IX Coordinator’s decision regarding any conflicts is final.
All requests for appeal consideration must be submitted in writing to the Title IX Coordinator within five (5) business days of the delivery of the written finding of the Investigator and Decision-Maker for Sanctions. Any party may appeal the findings only under the grounds described below.
A single Appeal Decision-maker will Chair the appeal. Any party may appeal, but appeals are limited to the following grounds:
When any party requests an appeal, the Title IX Coordinator will share the appeal request with the other party(ies) or other appropriate persons such as the Investigator(s), who may file a response within five (5) business days. The other party may also bring their own appeal on separate grounds.
If new grounds are raised, the original appealing party will be permitted to submit a written response to these new grounds within five (5) business days. These responses or appeal requests will be shared with each party. The Appeal Chair will review the appeal request(s) within five (5) business days of completing the pre-appeal exchange of materials. If grounds are not sufficient for an appeal, or the appeal is not timely, the Appeal Chair dismisses the appeal.
When the Appeal Chair finds that at least one of the grounds is met by at least one party, additional principles governing the review of appeals include the following:
Following the conclusion of the resolution process, and in addition to any sanctions implemented, the Title IX Coordinator may implement long-term remedies or actions with respect to the parties and/or the campus community to stop the harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation; remedy its effects; and prevent its reoccurrence.
These remedies/actions may include, but are not limited to:
At the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator, long-term remedies may also be provided to the Complainant even if no policy violation is found.
When no policy violation is found, the Title IX Coordinator will address any remedial requirements owed by the University to the Respondent.
All Respondents are expected to comply with conduct sanctions, responsive actions, and corrective actions within the timeframe specified by the Title IX Coordinator.
Failure to abide by the sanction(s)/action(s) imposed by the date specified, whether by refusal, neglect, or any other reason, may result in additional sanction(s)/responsive/corrective action(s), including suspension, expulsion, and/or termination from the University.
In implementing this policy, records of all allegations, investigations, resolutions, and hearings will be kept indefinitely, or as required by state or federal law or institutional policy, by the Title IX Coordinator in the Title IX case database.
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University is committed to providing reasonable accommodations and support to qualified students, employees, or others with disabilities to ensure equal access to the resolution process at the University. Any student needing such accommodations or support should contact the Office of Accessibility, and any employee needing such accommodations or support should contact the Office of Human Resources, who will review the request and, in consultation with the person requesting the accommodation, and the Title IX Coordinator, determine which accommodations are appropriate and necessary for full participation in the process.
This Policy and procedures apply to conduct that occurs on or after August 14, 2020. The policy and procedures in place at the time the conduct occurred shall apply to conduct that occurred prior to August 14, 2020.
This Policy and procedures supersede any previous policy(ies) addressing harassment, sexual misconduct, discrimination, and/or retaliation under Title IX and will be reviewed and updated annually by the Title IX Coordinator. The University reserves the right to make changes to this document as necessary, and once those changes are posted online, they are in effect.
During the resolution process, the Title IX Coordinator may make minor modifications to procedures that do not materially jeopardize the fairness owed to any party, such as to accommodate summer schedules. The Title IX Coordinator may also vary procedures materially with notice (on the institutional website, with the appropriate effective date identified) upon determining that changes to law or regulation require policy or procedural alterations not reflected in this Policy and procedures.
If government laws or regulations change — or court decisions alter — the requirements in a way that impacts this document, this document will be construed to comply with the most recent government regulations or holdings.
This document does not create legally enforceable protections beyond the protection of the background state and federal laws which frame such policies and codes, generally.
This Policy and procedures are effective August 14, 2020.
Modified from: ATIXA 2020 One Policy, Two Procedures Model.
Use and adaptation of this model with citation to ATIXA is permitted through a limited license to
ÐÓ°ÉÔ°æ University. All other rights reserved. ©2020. ATIXA
