Bulletin - Title IX - Grievance Process

The formal complaint is a document filed by a Complainant or signed by the Title IX Coordinator alleging sexual harassment against a Respondent and requesting that the University investigate the allegation of sexual harassment. This is the first step in the grievance process.

14.3.1.1 Notice of Allegations

The Title IX Coordinator will provide written notice to the Complainant and Respondent containing the allegations of sexual harassment potentially constituting a violation of this policy, including sufficient details known at the time, and with sufficient time to prepare a response before any initial interview. The notice will also contain information outlining this grievance process and the informal resolution process.

14.3.1.2 Complaint Review

The Title IX Coordinator will make an initial determination whether the allegations in the complaint appropriately fall under the purview of Title IX. Such determination may be revisited throughout the process.

The Title IX Coordinator must dismiss a complaint under this policy if the conduct alleged in the formal complaint (a) would not constitute sexual harassment as defined in this policy even if proved; (b) did not occur in University educational programs or activities; or (c) did not occur against a person in the United States.

The Title IX Coordinator may dismiss a complaint at any time if (a) a Complainant notifies the Title IX Coordinator in writing that the Complainant would like to withdraw the formal complaint or any allegations therein; (b) the Respondent is no longer enrolled or employed by the University; (c) or specific circumstances prevent the University from gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination as to the formal complaint or allegations therein.

Upon a dismissal in accordance with this section, the University will promptly send written notice of the dismissal and reason(s) therefor simultaneously to the Parties. A dismissal is appealable in accordance with Section 14.3.10.

14.3.1.3 Case Consolidation

The University may consolidate formal complaints as to allegations of sexual harassment against more than one Respondent, or by more than one Complainant against one or more Respondents, or by one Party against the other Party, where the allegations of sexual harassment arise out of the same facts or circumstances. Where a grievance process involves more than one Complainant or more than one Respondent, references in this policy to the singular “Party,” “Complainant,” or “Respondent” include the plural, as applicable.

Title IX Coordinator will assign an Investigator to the case and share the Investigator’s name and contact information with the Complainant and the Respondent. The complaint and any other relevant information will be forwarded to the Investigator. The Investigator will promptly begin the investigation after the Parties are noticed. The investigation will be adequate, reliable, impartial, and prompt, and include an equal opportunity for both Parties to present witnesses, including fact and expert witnesses, and other inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.

The investigation may involve conducting interviews with the Complainant, the Respondent, and Witnesses; collecting and preserving relevant evidence (in cases of corresponding criminal complaints, this step may be coordinated with law enforcement agencies); reviewing law enforcement investigation documents; reviewing student and personnel files; or other appropriate steps taken in an investigation. The burden of proof and the burden of gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination regarding responsibility rest on the University. However, the University does not have subpoena power, or the ability to compel most Parties or Witnesses to participate.

The Complainant and the Respondent will receive written notice in advance of any interview and be provided sufficient time to prepare for meaningful participation (and/or to reschedule within one week). All Parties and witnesses are expected to cooperate with the investigation. Failure to attend, failure to reschedule meetings, or undue delay may result in proceeding without participation and waiver of certain rights under Title IX, including the opportunity to present Witnesses and evidence.

Throughout the investigation, the Complainant and Respondent may be provided periodic status updates where appropriate. During the investigation, all Parties will be treated equitably. All investigations will be kept as confidential as possible, and any information gathered during the investigation is disclosed only on a “need to know” basis.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigator will prepare the investigative report. The investigative report will summarize the relevant exculpatory and inculpatory evidence. The report may include, but is not limited to, items such as summaries of all interviews conducted, photographs, descriptions of relevant evidence, summaries of relevant electronic records, and a detailed report of the events in question. All University investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence.

Both Parties are entitled to equal opportunity to inspect and review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the allegations raised in a formal complaint. This also includes any evidence upon which the University does not intend to rely in reaching a determination regarding responsibility. Prior to completion of the investigative report, the Investigator will send to each Party and the Party’s Advisor, if any, the evidence subject to inspection and review in an electronic format or a hard copy, and the Parties will have at least 10 business days to submit a written response, which the Investigator will consider prior to completion of the investigative report.

After reviewing the written responses, if any, the Investigator will then finalize the Investigation Report and, least 10 business days prior to a hearing or other time of determination regarding responsibility, send to each Party and the Party’s advisor, if any, the final investigative report in an electronic format or a hard copy, for their review and written response.

Parties and Advisors will be subject to a non-disclosure agreement not to disclose any evidence subject to inspection and review prior to accessing materials.

The Title IX Coordinator will review the final investigative report under the same guidelines outlined in Section 14.3.1.2 to determine whether the case should proceed to a hearing or be dismissed.

If the Title IX Coordinator determines that case will proceed to a hearing, then the Title IX Coordinator will notify the Hearing Officer, and begin the process of convening a Hearing Panel. The determination to convene a Hearing Panel does not predetermine that the Respondent is or will be found responsible for a policy violation.

The Title IX Coordinator may also suggest an Informal Resolution at this stage.

The Title IX Coordinator and Hearing Officer will convene a Hearing Panel and schedule the hearing at a date and time where all necessary Parties (based on the discretion of the Hearing Officer) are available. Hearings dates are typically scheduled within two weeks of notification to the Hearing Officer. However, a hearing may be scheduled further out if there are conflicts with final exams, scheduled course breaks, or for other documented good reason. The Complainant and Respondent are generally expected to be available outside of academic scheduling. The Title IX Coordinator or Hearing Officer may informally confer with the Parties to determine an available date. Once the official hearing notice is sent to the Complainant and Respondent, the Parties must confirm attendance or provide a written request within 48 hours of receipt if there is valid reason to reschedule. Upon a confirmation of attendance, the Parties will also be required to inform the Title IX Coordinator the name of their Advisor who will also be attending, or if they will elect to have a University Advisor instead. (Parties are limited to having one person join them in the hearing). The Parties will also be required to indicate which Witnesses they intend to call for the hearing at this time.

The Hearing Officer will secure a space that is appropriate, private, and provides sufficient space for the Parties to confer and the witnesses to wait. The Hearing Officer may also determine that a remote hearing through video conference is appropriate.

The Hearing Panel will typically convene prior to the start of the hearing to review the investigative report and prepare questions. All hearings will generally follow the order of business listed below. Variations may occur depending on the circumstances of an individual case.

1. Introduction. The Hearing Officer will make introductions and explain the hearing process.
2. Opening Statements. The Complainant may make the first opening statement. The Respondent may follow with their opening statement.
3. Hearing Panel Questions. The Hearing Panel may ask questions of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Hearing Panel may ask questions of the Respondent.
4. Cross Examination of the Parties. The Hearing Officer will recognize the Complainant’s Advisor to cross examine the Respondent. The Hearing Officer will recognize the Respondent’s Advisor to cross examine the Complainant.
5. Witnesses. The Hearing Officer will determine the order of Witnesses and the order of the questioning of the Witnesses. The Hearing Panel, Complainant Advisor and Respondent’s Advisor will each have the opportunity to separately to ask any relevant question of each Witness.
6. Hearing Panel Follow Up Questions. The Hearing Panel may ask any remaining questions of either Party.
7. Closing Statements. The Complainant may make a closing statement. The Respondent may follow with a closing statement.
8. Dismissal and Deliberation. The Hearing Officer will conclude the hearing and dismiss the Parties. The Hearing Panel will deliberate.

The Hearing Officer is charged with administering the hearing, deliberations, and the appeals process. The Hearing Officer has full discretion in the administration of all aspects outlined in Section 14.3.5 through Section 14.3.11, and wherever it may be necessary, in order to ensure a fair, orderly, and efficient process. The Hearing Officer does not vote or make any determination of responsibility.

Any attendee who wishes to speak during a hearing must first be recognized by the Hearing Officer.  Generally, Advisors are only permitted to speak during cross-examinations. The Complainant and Respondent are permitted to speak during opening and closing statements. No interruptions will be tolerated. The Hearing Officer may remove any individual who is speaking out of turn or becoming disruptive. All attendees are expected to be respectful in their tone and tenor throughout the hearing. The Hearing Officer will not permit raised voices or inappropriate language. Disruptive gestures or audible non-verbal noises are also prohibited when an attendee is not recognized to speak.

Brief breaks may be requested throughout the hearing by the Complaint, Respondent, or the Hearing Panel.

During cross-examination, each Party’s Advisor is able to ask the other Party and any Witnesses all relevant questions and follow-up questions, including those challenging credibility. The cross-examination must be conducted directly, orally, and in real time by the Party’s Advisor and never by a Party personally. If a Party does not have an Advisor present at the live hearing, the University will provide one to conduct cross-examination on behalf of that Party.

The Decision-makers can consider statements made by parties or witnesses that are otherwise permitted under the regulations, even if those parties or witnesses do not participate in cross-examination at the live hearing, in reaching a determination regarding responsibility in a Title IX grievance process.

The Decision-maker can consider statements made by the parties and witnesses during the investigation, emails or text exchanges between the parties leading up to the alleged sexual harassment, and statements about the alleged sexual harassment that satisfy the regulation’s relevance rules, regardless of whether the parties or witnesses submit to cross-examination at the live hearing.  The Decision-maker can also consider police reports, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner documents, medical reports, and other documents even if those documents contain statements of a party or witness who is not cross-examined at the live hearing.

Only relevant questions may be asked of a Party or Witness. The Hearing Officer will be the arbiter of relevance. During the hearing, the Advisor will ask each question aloud, and pause. Prior to the Complainant, Respondent, or Witness answering a question, the Hearing Officer will make an oral determination of relevance as follows:

1. If the question is relevant, the Hearing Officer will state “yes” and the Complainant, Respondent, or Witness should proceed to respond.
2. If the question is not relevant, the Hearing Officer will state “not relevant.” The Hearing Officer will explain to the Advisor the decision to exclude the question. The Complainant, Respondent, or Witness should not respond to the question. The Advisor will then be directed to proceed with the next question.

There are no “objections” to relevance determinations or to any portion of a hearing; Advisors are not permitted to challenge a determination of the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer may initiate engagement with the Advisor asking the question with a request to explain relevance. The Hearing Officer may also pause to confer with counsel or consider relevance as necessary.

14.3.7.1 Categories Not Relevant for Cross-Examination

Rape Shield: Questions and evidence about the Complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior are not relevant, 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.

Privileged Information: Questions seeking information protected by a legally recognized privilege, or a Party’s medical, psychological, and similar records are not relevant, unless the Party has given voluntary, written consent.

All Hearing Panels are made up of three impartial individuals who are trained to adjudicate Title IX complaints. Members of the Faculty Staff Judicial Board will serve as panelist for all cases, except for cases with faculty Respondents. Hearing Panels for faculty Respondents will be made up of elected members of the Faculty Hearing Committee. The Hearing Officer and Title IX Coordinator will ensure proper training of all Hearing Panelists.

At the conclusion of the live hearing, the Hearing Panel will deliberate in private to determine if any violation(s) of policy occurred. If it is not possible for the Panel to make a decision on the same day as the hearing, the Panel will reconvene as soon as possible and meet until a decision is reached. The decision of the Hearing Panel is decided by a majority vote, and responsibility will be determined based on a preponderance of the evidence.

The Hearing Panel will base its decision solely on the participants’ statements, the investigative report, information presented at the hearing, and University policy and procedure. The Panel will make an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence, including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. When there is more than one alleged code violation, the Hearing Panel will evaluate each charge separately. The Hearing Panel will make a finding whether the Respondent is “Responsible” or “Not Responsible.”

After a determination of responsibility, the Hearing Panel will make a determination of appropriate sanctions and/or remedies based on the facts of the case. The Hearing Officer and Title IX Coordinator may also be present at deliberations to consult and ensure sanctions are consistent with relevant policies and historical institutional practices.

Once a decision has be finalized by the Panel, the Parties will be provided with a simultaneous written decision letter detailing the findings, sanctions, and remedies as determined by the Hearing Panel. The letter will include the process and deadline for submitting an appeal by either Party. Copies of the hearing decision may also be sent to the Dean of Students, Director of Campus Safety, and Director of Human Resources (in cases involving employees), and others as needed depending on the nature of any sanctions and/or remedies.

The Hearing Panel may impose sanctions, including, but not limited to those set forth below. Specific requirements of each sanction will be determined by the Hearing Panel to appropriately correspond with each finding. The Hearing Panel may also consider prior conduct, complaints, and disciplinary history when determining severity of sanctions. Multiple sanctions may be imposed depending on the number and severity of responsible findings in each case.

A Student Respondent may be imposed: warnings; social probation, which may include restriction from particular buildings, areas of campus, and/or University; restriction from participation in University athletics; no-contact orders; educational requirements focused on substance use, anger management or other issues; mandatory counseling; written reflections; behavior contracts; residential restriction or expulsion; academic restriction, which may limit registration time or course selection; suspension from the University with possible re-enrollment requirements or restrictions; expulsion. Certain sanctions may also include permanent notations of University transcripts. Faculty and staff Respondents may be assessed: warnings; mandatory trainings or other educational requirements; counseling or therapy; behavior contracts; temporary suspensions; demotions; changes to their job description and/or responsibilities; termination; or any other sanction permissible under the Employee Handbook.

Remedies awarded to the Complainant are designed to restore or preserve equal access to University programs or activities. Theses remedies typically include the same individualized services described as Supportive Measures in this policy; however, remedies may be disciplinary, punitive, and burden the Respondent.

Both the Respondent and Complainant may appeal the Hearing Panel decision or complaint dismissal by the Title IX Coordinator. An appeal must be made in writing within five (5) business days of the decision letter or dismissal notice.

The Complainant or the Respondent will be notified if the other Party submits an appeal and be provided with a copy of the appeal for review. The non-appealing Party will have five (5) business days from review of the appeal to prepare and submit a written response, if they choose to do so.

Upon receipt of an appeal and any response, or upon exhaustion of the deadline for a Party to provide a written response, the Hearing Officer will call together an Appeals Committee to review the appeal and any written response. The three-member committee will consist of three members of the President’s Cabinet. The Hearing Officer may substitute a staff member at the Director level if sufficient Cabinet members are not available or otherwise conflicted. The Appeals Committee for faculty Respondents will consist of the Provost and two members of the Board of Trustees as designated by the Chair of the Board of Trustees. If the Provost is conflicted, the Hearing Officer may substitute the Associate Provost or another Trustee.

The timeframe from the receipt of an initial appeal to a written determination by the Appeals Committee is forty-five (45) calendar days, subject to reasonable delays or extensions for good reason as determined by the Hearing Officer. In such instance of a delay the Parties will be noticed in writing.

An appeal may be made on one or more of the following grounds only: 

• Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter; or
• New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination regarding responsibility or dismissal was made, that could affect the outcome of the matter; or
• The Title IX Coordinator, investigator(s), or decision-maker(s) had a conflict of interest or bias for or against Complainants or Respondents generally or the individual Complainant or Respondent that affected the outcome of the matter; or
• The sanctions or remedies were not appropriate for the specific policy violation for which the Respondent was found responsible, or did not sufficiently restore access to University programs or activities for the Complainant.

An appeal is not a new hearing and the Appeals Committee will meet alone with the support of the Hearing Officer and/or Title IX Coordinator who can provide any requested information. The Appeals Committee will consider the merits of the appeal based only on the written appeal request, the response, the hearing recording, and written records of the case. Based on these materials, the Appeals Committee may:

• Reject the appeal if the Committee finds that the grounds for an appeal are unsubstantiated; or
• Reject the appeal if the Committee finds that any procedural errors were minor in nature and would not have altered the outcome of the hearing or the sanctions imposed; or
• Remand the case to a new Hearing Panel for a new hearing, or back to investigation, when a substantial procedural error is determined to have occurred and has unfairly influenced the original hearing; or
• Remand the case to the Hearing Panel for further deliberation if new evidence, as described above, has arisen. In such cases the original Hearing Panel will be reconvened as soon as possible. If a member of the original panel is no longer available, the Hearing Officer will select a new member from the hearing panel pool; or
• Remand the case to the Investigator, or a new Investigator, then to a Hearing Panel for further deliberation if new evidence, as described above, has arisen; or
• Remand the case for new hearing or investigation if there was a conflict of interest that affected the outcome of the matter; or
• Modify the sanctions or remedies if they are found inappropriate.

Once the Appeals Committee has made its decision, the Hearing Officer will notify the Respondent and the Complainant simultaneously of the result of the appeal and the rationale for the result. The Appeals Committee’s decision is final and there are no further appeals permitted by either Party.

An audio or video recording will be made of the hearing for the use of the Hearing Panel and the Appeals Committee. The University will retain all recordings, and all records relating to investigations, hearings, sanctions, remedies, appeals, informal resolutions, and all training materials for a period of seven years. In cases where the sanction is expulsion or suspension, the hearing decision letter and appeal decision letter, if applicable, will be kept in the Respondent’s permanent file.

Parties are prohibited from making their own copies or recordings of meetings, hearings, or any documents not submitted by themselves. This includes, but is not limited to, audio, video, and photographic means of duplication.