Search form

Department of Education Unveils Proposed Title IX Regulations

By Susan D. Friedfel, Monica H. Khetarpal, Marla N. Presley, Crystal L. Tyler and Hobart J. Webster
  • 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Institutions of higher education have been in limbo since September 2017, when the DOE rescinded Obama-era guidance that called for hard-hitting enforcement of Title IX and issued interim guidance as a placeholder until they could engage in the formal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 Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 12, 2018

New York City Releases Guidance on Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training, Notice Requirements

November 12, 2018

The New York City Commission on Human Rights has released Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) as guidance on the “Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act.” New York City employers with at least 15 employees are required to conduct annual anti-sexual harassment training for all employees starting April 1, 2019. Posting and notice requirements... Read More

October 2, 2018

California Restricts Confidentiality Provisions Concerning Information Related to Sexual Harassment

October 2, 2018

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed three bills into law that restrict employers in the securement of non-disclosure, release, and non-disparagement agreements that attempt to limit parties in discussing sexual harassment-related factual information. Senate Bill 820 (SB 820) Settlement agreements that prevent an individual... Read More

October 2, 2018

New York State Issues Final Guidance Regarding Combating Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

October 2, 2018

The State of New York has issued final guidance on combating sexual harassment in the workplace. This includes updated guidance on the mandatory sexual harassment prevention policies and annual employee training applicable to employers in New York beginning October 9, 2018. The updated final guidance and other resources, including a... Read More