June 28, 2022

Volume XII, Number 179

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Title IX’s Anniversary Gift – Proposed Changes

On Title IX’s 50th Anniversary, the Department of Education announced its proposed changes to Title IX’s implementing regulations concerning sexual misconduct to better align them to Title IX’s nondiscrimination mandate. The proposal keeps some of the Trump administration changes while eliminating others. The proposal would amend the regulatory requirements on how schools must respond to sex discrimination complaints and creates a new term “sex-based harassment.” The new term will clarify that Title IX covers sexual harassment, harassment based on stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity. 

The proposed new term “sex-based harassment”  returns the scope of Title IX to a broader definition of harassment by returning the or: “unwelcome sex-based conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive, that, based on the totality of the circumstances and evaluated subjectively and objectively, denies or limits a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient’s education program or activity (i.e., creates a hostile environment).”

The proposed rules keep the requirement of an accused’s presumption of innocence and will still allow schools to use either a preponderance of the evidence or a clear and convincing standard. However, the clear and convincing standard will only be permitted if the same standard is used by the school in other discrimination matters such as accusations of racial discrimination. 

The proposal will allow the investigator to also be the decision-maker. The requirement that the Title IX coordinator, investigator, and decision-maker be free of conflicts of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents will remain.  

For higher education institutions, the proposed rules will no longer require live hearings, and cross-examination by the parties will no longer be required. However, a post-secondary school must have a process that allows the decision-maker to assess the credibility of parties and witnesses through live questioning by the decision-maker. However, these changes may not affect Ohio because the Sixth Circuit in Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 581 (6th Cir. 2018) held that cross-examination is a constitutional requirement of due process in the Title IX context involving a university. The Department of Education has opined that the case law, including Baum, does not require a live-hearing with cross-examination as long as another live method of determining credibility is provided.

The proposed rules also expand what a school may investigate and punish by allowing schools to take actions for activity that takes place off campus. 

The Department of Education will issue a separate proposal concerning how Title IX should apply to athletics, including how schools should determine a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team.  

For the next 60 days, the public may submit comments on the proposal. The Department of Education will then need to address each point in writing before the regulations may be finalized. This process is likely to take at least several months. However, even if elements of the proposal make it into the final regulations, the Congressional Review Act will allow Congress to vote within 60 legislative days to overturn the regulations. 

©2022 Roetzel & AndressNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 174
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

David S. Hirt Education Attorney Roetzel Andress Law Firm Cleveland
Shareholder

David represents Ohio school districts and municipalities on a wide variety of issues.

His education law practice includes counseling school administrators, boards of education, and governing bodies on personnel issues, including FMLA and ADA compliance; all aspects of employee discipline, including pre-disciplinary hearings, grievances, and arbitration; policy and regulation revision; and collective bargaining. David also advises school administrators on pupil issues, including student discipline, special education, and issues surrounding...

216-329-0558
Adrienne B. Kirshner Education Attorney Roetzel & Andress Cleveland
Of Counsel

Adrienne focuses her practice on education law, providing guidance to schools on matters relating to the education of students with disabilities, including the evaluation of students with suspected disabilities and issues concerning compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Adrienne reviews IEPs and ETRs for legal compliance, attends IEP and ETR team meeting when warranted, and handles all aspects of litigation concerning student matters. Adrienne also advises school districts regarding compliance with...

216-456-3850
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement