Search form

Department of Education Unveils Proposed Title IX Regulations

By Susan D. Friedfel, Monica H. Khetarpal, Marla N. Presley and Crystal L. Tyler
  • November 17, 2018

The Department of Education (DOE) released proposed Title IX regulations dictating the process by which colleges and universities must handle allegations of sexual misconduct on November 16, 2018.

Institutions of higher education have been in limbo since September 2017, when the DOE rescinded Obama-era guidance that called for hard-hitting enforcement of Title IX and issued interim guidance as a placeholder until they could engage in the formal rulemaking process. The proposed regulations, if enacted, will take the place of the DOE’s September 2017 interim guidance. According to the DOE, the new regulations would substantially decrease the number of investigations into complaints of sexual misconduct and save institutions millions over the next decade.

Many of the new regulations deviate significantly from prior guidance. The most significant changes increase the discretion given to universities in crafting procedures for adjudicating Title IX claims within their institutions. The proposed guidance allows universities to choose the applicable evidentiary standard (either “preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence”) in determining responsibility, as long as it is consistent with the standard used in other student disciplinary matters. The new regulations also permit the use of informal resolution processes to resolve sexual misconduct allegations if the parties agree.

Other notable provisions of the proposed regulations include the following:

  • The definition of “sexual harassment” has been more narrowly defined as “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.”
  • For purposes of administrative enforcement, universities would be held to a “deliberately indifferent” standard. In other words, to avoid liability, a university with “actual knowledge” of sexual harassment need only respond in a manner that is not “deliberately indifferent.” An institution would be found deliberately indifferent “only if its response to sexual harassment is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.”
  • “Actual knowledge” is defined in the proposed regulations as notice of sexual harassment or allegations of sexual harassment provided to an official of the institution “who has the authority to institute corrective measures on behalf of the [institution].” In contrast to prior guidance, this definition excludes most professors, administrators, and staff. 
  • Under the proposed regulations, universities would no longer be allowed to investigate allegations of sexual harassment that occurred off-campus.
  • Universities would be required to provide written notice to a respondent upon receipt of a complaint, which would include a statement that the responding party is presumed to be not responsible for the alleged conduct and that a determination of responsibility will be made at the end of the grievance process.
  • Live fact-finding hearings would be mandatory for universities under the new regulations. Investigators also would be precluded from serving as fact-finders. This would eliminate the use of the single-investigator model currently used by many universities.
  • Universities must permit cross-examination of any party or witness by the opposing party’s advisor, but not by the party himself or herself. If a party or witness refuses to submit to cross-examination, that person’s testimony could not be relied on by the fact-finder. The party’s choice of advisor could not be limited by the institution of higher education. 
  • Religious institutions of higher education would no longer be required to seek assurances of exemption from Title IX regulations in advance of a DOE investigation. A religious institution of higher education could invoke an exemption to Title IX’s requirements at any time during the investigation. 

The proposed regulations address other topics, such as constitutional issues and the intersection between Title IX and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. They also clarify that, just as an institution’s treatment of a complaining party may constitute discrimination based on sex, an institution’s treatment of the responding party also may constitute discrimination based on sex. Institutions of higher education must continue to comply with all applicable state laws regarding sexual misconduct and sexual misconduct investigations.

Now that the proposed regulations have been published, the public has 60 days (until January 15, 2019) to submit comments before they go into effect. The final regulations, however, likely will closely mirror the proposal, and colleges and universities should act immediately and carefully review their sexual misconduct policies and practices for compliance. Jackson Lewis’ Higher Education team is well-versed in Title IX issues and will continue to monitor and provide updates on developments in this area. Please reach out to the authors or the attorney with whom you regularly work with any questions.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

July 10, 2019

New Oregon Law Restricts Nondisclosure, Nondisparagement Provisions in Workplace Agreements

July 10, 2019

A new Oregon law limits employers’ use of nondisclosure or nondisparagement agreements with their employees with respect to employment discrimination or sexual assault. The Workplace Protection Act (WPA), signed by Governor Kate Brown, also requires employers to adopt written anti-discrimination policies regarding internal employment... Read More

June 28, 2019

Federal Arbitration Act Preempts New York’s Bar on Agreements to Arbitrate Sexual Harassment Claims, Court Rules

June 28, 2019

An agreement to arbitrate sexual harassment claims is enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), federal Judge Denise Cote has ruled, rejecting arguments that New York law voids such an agreement. Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al., No. 1:18-cv-11528 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2019). While many thought that laws in... Read More

June 21, 2019

New York Expands Harassment Laws

June 21, 2019

Major changes to New York’s harassment laws were among the flurry of bills advanced and passed by the New York State Legislature in the final hours of its 2019 Legislative Session. Employers will face greater potential liability under bills passed on June 19 and 20 to lower the standard of review for sexual harassment cases (S.6577 [... Read More