UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
32 OLD SLIP, 26 T H FLOOR
NE W YOR K, NE W YOR K 10005

T IMOT HY C. J . BL ANCH ARD
D IR EC TOR
NE W YOR K OFFIC E

November 5, 2014
Christopher L. Eisgruber
President
Princeton University
Office of the President
1 Nassau Hall
Princeton, New Jersey 08544
Re:

Case No. 02-11-2025
Princeton University

Dear President Eisgruber:
This letter is to notify you of the determination made by the U.S. Department of Education
(Department), New York Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the above-referenced consolidated
complaint filed against Princeton University (University).1 In response to the above-referenced
complaint, OCR examined whether the University responded promptly and equitably to
complaints, reports, and any other notice to the University of incidents of sexual harassment,
sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence, including the students’ reports of sexual
assaults; and whether as a result, students, including the students at issue in the above-referenced
complaints, were subjected to a sexually hostile environment.
Background
Complainants 1, 2, and 3 alleged that the University discriminated, on the basis of sex, by failing
to adopt and publish grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of
student complaints of sex discrimination/harassment, including sexual assault. Additionally, the
complainants alleged that the University failed to respond appropriately to complaints of sexual
assault that three students (Students 1, 2, and 3) made during academic years 2009-2010 and
2010-2011.

1

OCR Case Number 02-11-2025 consolidates three OCR complaints: Case Numbers 02-11-2025 (Complainant 1),
02-11-2167 (Complainant 2) and 02-11-2166 (Complainant 3).
The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by
fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

 Page 2 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
In academic year 2013-2014, the University, which is located in Princeton, New Jersey, had a
total student population of 8,014 students, comprising 5,323 undergraduate students and 2,691
graduate students. The student body was approximately 55 percent male and 45 percent female.
In its investigation, OCR reviewed documentation that the complainants and the University
submitted, as well as the University’s policies and procedures relating to sexual harassment,
including sexual assault/violence. OCR also interviewed Complainants 1, 2, and 3; Students 1,
2, and 3; and University staff and administrators. In addition, OCR reviewed the University’s
handling of individual complaints of sexual harassment filed in academic years 2011-2012 and
2012-2013. Further, OCR conducted on-site visits to review files and recordings on April 30,
2012, and June 27, 2013. OCR also reviewed information contained in the Department’s Office
of Postsecondary Education’s Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool,
including statistics collected pursuant to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and
Campus Crime Statistics Act (“Clery Act”), 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f); this information is located at
http://ope.ed.gov/security/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx, and is discussed in more detail below.
OCR determined that the University’s prior grievance procedures failed to comply with the
requirements of Title IX. OCR also determined that the University failed to provide a prompt
and equitable response to complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, as
required by Title IX, as well as Student 1’s, 2’s, and 3’s complaints of sexual
harassment/violence. OCR further determined that for Student 1, this failure allowed for the
continuation of a hostile environment that limited and denied her access to the education
opportunities at the University. On October 12, 2014, the University provided OCR with a
signed Resolution Agreement, and in accordance with the Agreement, it submitted revised
grievance procedures to address complaints of sexual misconduct (including sex discrimination,
sexual harassment, and sexual assault/violence). OCR’s preliminary review of the new
procedures revealed that it corrects many deficiencies identified in the previous policies and
procedures. OCR will review these procedures in detail as part of its monitoring of this
Agreement, which when fully implemented, will resolve the University’s noncompliance with
Title IX.
Legal Authority
OCR is responsible for enforcing Title IX, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its
implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex
in education programs and activities receiving financial assistance from the Department. The
University is a recipient of financial assistance from the Department. Therefore, OCR has
jurisdictional authority to investigate this complaint under Title IX.
The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a), provides that no person shall, on
the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any education program or activity operated by a recipient. Sexual
harassment that creates a hostile environment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title
IX. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment can include
unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical
conduct of a sexual nature, such as sexual assault or acts of sexual violence. Sexual harassment

 Page 3 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
of a student creates a hostile environment if the conduct is sufficiently serious that it denies or
limits a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient’s program.2
In determining whether this denial or limitation has occurred, OCR examines all of the relevant
circumstances from an objective and subjective perspective, including: the type of harassment
(e.g., whether it was verbal or physical); the frequency and severity of the conduct; the age, sex,
and relationship of the individuals involved (e.g., teacher-student or student-student); the setting
and context in which the harassment occurred; whether other incidents have occurred at the
college or university; and other relevant factors. The more severe the conduct, the less need
there is to show a repetitive series of incidents to prove a hostile environment, particularly if the
harassment is physical. For example, a single instance of rape is sufficiently severe to create a
hostile environment. Title IX also protects all students at recipient institutions from sex
harassment, including male and female students.
If a recipient knows or reasonably should have known about sexual harassment that creates a
hostile environment, a recipient must take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or
otherwise determine what occurred. If an investigation reveals that discriminatory harassment
has occurred, a recipient must take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the
harassment, eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and prevent the harassment from
recurring. These duties are a recipient’s responsibility regardless of whether a student has
complained, asked the recipient to take action, or identified the harassment as a form of
discrimination. A law enforcement investigation does not relieve the recipient of its independent
Title IX obligation to investigate the conduct. A recipient should not wait for the conclusion of a
criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to conduct its own Title IX investigation; and if
needed, must take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment prior to
the completion of the Title IX investigation/resolution. Additionally, under Title IX, a recipient
must process all complaints of sexual assault/violence, regardless of where the conduct occurred,
to determine whether the conduct occurred in the context of an education program or activity or
had continuing effects on campus or in an off-campus education program or activity. Further,
once a school is on notice of off-campus sexual assault/violence against a student, it must assess
whether there are any continuing effects on campus or in an off-campus education program or
activity that are creating or contributing to a hostile environment, and if so, address that hostile
environment in the same manner in which it would address a hostile environment created by oncampus misconduct.
The Title IX regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b), requires recipients to adopt and publish
grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging
any action that would be prohibited by Title IX, including sex discrimination, sexual harassment,

2

The applicable legal standards described herein are more fully discussed in OCR’s 2011 Dear Colleague letter on
Sexual Violence, which is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html
(April 4, 2011); for further clarification on this topic, see “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence,”
at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf (April 29, 2014). See also OCR’s 2010
Dear
Colleague
letter
on
Harassment
and
Bullying,
which
is
available
at
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html (October 26, 2010), and OCR’s Revised
Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties, at
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html (January 19, 2001).

 Page 4 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
and sexual assault/violence. Title IX does not require a university to provide separate grievance
procedures for sexual harassment complaints, including sexual assault/violence complaints.
A university may use student disciplinary or other separate procedures for these complaints;
however, a university’s grievance procedures for handling discrimination complaints must
comply with the prompt and equitable requirements of Title IX. In evaluating whether a
recipient’s grievance procedures are prompt and equitable, OCR reviews all aspects of a
recipient’s policies and practices, including the following elements that are critical to achieve
compliance with Title IX:
1. notice to students and employees of the procedures, including where complaints may be
filed;
2. application of the procedures to complaints alleging discrimination or harassment carried
out by employees, students, and third parties;
3. provision for adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints, including an
opportunity for both the complainant and respondent to present witnesses and other
evidence;
4. designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for major stages of the complaint process;
5. written notice to parties of the outcome of the complaint and any appeal; and
6. an assurance that the institution will take steps to prevent recurrence of any sex
discrimination or harassment found to have occurred, and to correct its discriminatory
effects on the complainant and others if appropriate.
To ensure that students and employees have a clear understanding of what constitutes sexual
violence, the potential consequences for such conduct, and how the recipient processes
complaints, the recipient’s Title IX grievance procedures should also include the following in
writing:
1. a statement of the recipient’s jurisdiction over Title IX complaints;
2. adequate definitions of sexual harassment (which includes sexual assault) and an
explanation as to when such conduct creates a hostile environment;
3. reporting policies and protocols, including provisions for confidential reporting;
4. identification of the employee or employees responsible for evaluating requests for
confidentiality;
5. notice that Title IX prohibits retaliation;
6. notice of a student’s right to file a criminal complaint and a Title IX complaint
simultaneously;
7. notice of available interim measures that may be taken to protect the student in the
educational setting;
8. the evidentiary standard that must be used (preponderance of the evidence) in resolving a
complaint;
9. notice of potential remedies for students;
10. notice of potential sanctions against perpetrators; and
11. sources of counseling, advocacy and support.

 Page 5 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
The procedures for addressing and resolving complaints of sexual harassment should be written
in language that is easily understood, should be easily located, and should be widely distributed.
For Title IX purposes, a recipient must inform the complainant as to whether or not it found that
the alleged conduct occurred, any individual remedies offered or provided to the complainant or
any sanctions imposed on the perpetrator that directly relate to the complainant, and other steps
the recipient has taken to eliminate the hostile environment, if the recipient finds one to exist,
and prevent recurrence. Sanctions that directly relate to the complainant (but that may also relate
to eliminating the hostile environment and preventing recurrence) include, but are not limited to,
requiring that the perpetrator stay away from the complainant until both parties graduate,
prohibiting the perpetrator from attending school for a period of time, or transferring the
perpetrator to another residence hall, other classes, or another school. Additional steps the
recipient may take to eliminate the hostile environment include counseling and academic support
services for the complainant and other affected students.
To ensure individuals can invoke these grievance procedures without fear of reprisal, Title IX
also prohibits the university and others, including students, from retaliating against any
individual “for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by [Title IX],” or
because that individual “has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner
in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing” under Title IX. Prohibited retaliatory acts include
intimidation, threats, coercion, or discrimination against any such individual. Universities
therefore should take steps to prevent any retaliation against a student who makes a complaint or
any student who provides information regarding the complaint. At a minimum, under Title IX,
the university must ensure that complainants and their parents, if appropriate, know how to
report any subsequent problems; and should follow up with complainants to determine whether
any retaliation or new incidents of harassment have occurred.
Pending the outcome of an investigation, Title IX requires a recipient to take steps to ensure
equal access to its education programs and activities and to protect the complainant from further
harassment as necessary, including taking interim steps before the final outcome of the
investigation. The recipient should undertake these steps promptly once it has notice of a sexual
harassment allegation and should provide the complainant with periodic updates on the status of
the investigation. It should notify the complainant of his or her options to avoid contact with the
alleged perpetrator, and allow students to change academic or living, transportation, dining and
working situations as appropriate. For instance, the recipient may prohibit the alleged
perpetrator from having contact with the complainant pending the results of the investigation.
The specific interim measures implemented and the process for implementing those measures
will vary depending on the facts of each case. When taking steps to separate the complainant
and the alleged perpetrator, a recipient should minimize the burden on the complainant and thus
should not, as a matter of course, remove the complainant from classes or housing while
allowing the alleged perpetrator to remain. If an accused student is found responsible and a
recipient determines that he/she must be separated from the complainant, it must do so in a
manner that minimizes the burden on the complainant. Recipients should also check with
complainants to ensure that the interim measures are effective and, if ineffective, identify
alternatives. In addition, recipients should ensure that complainants are aware of their Title IX
rights and any available resources, such as advocacy, housing assistance, academic support,

 Page 6 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
counseling, disability services, health and mental health services, and legal assistance, and the
right to report a crime to campus or local law enforcement.
In addition, if there is an incident involving potential criminal conduct, the university must
determine, consistent with state and local law, whether appropriate law enforcement or other
authorities should be notified, bearing in mind that a university’s Title IX investigation is
different from any law enforcement investigation, and a law enforcement investigation does not
relieve a university of its independent Title IX obligation to investigate the conduct. A
university therefore should not wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal
proceeding to begin its own Title IX investigation; and if needed, must take immediate steps to
protect the complainant in the educational setting. These duties are a university’s responsibility,
regardless of whether a student has complained, asked the university to take action, or identified
the harassment as a form of discrimination.
If the complainant requests confidentiality or asks that the complaint not be pursued, a university
should take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the
request for confidentiality or request not to pursue an investigation. If the complainant insists
that his or her name or other identifiable information not be disclosed to the alleged perpetrator,
the recipient should inform the student that honoring the request may limit its ability to respond
fully to the incident, including pursuing disciplinary action against the accused. The recipient
should notify students of the information that will be disclosed, to whom it will be disclosed, and
why. The recipient should also explain that Title IX includes protections against retaliation, and
that school officials will not only take steps to prevent retaliation but also take strong responsive
action if it occurs. If the student still requests that his or her name not be disclosed to the
accused or that the recipient not investigate or seek action against the accused, the recipient will
need to determine whether or not it can honor such a request while still providing a safe and
nondiscriminatory environment for all students, including the student who reported the
harassment.
Grievance procedures generally may include voluntary informal mechanisms (e.g., mediation)
for resolving some types of sexual harassment complaints; however, it is improper for a
complainant to be required to work out the problem directly with the alleged perpetrator, and
certainly not without appropriate involvement by the recipient (e.g., participation by a trained
counselor, a trained mediator, or, if appropriate, a faculty member or administrator). The
complainant must be notified of the right to end the informal process at any time and begin the
formal stage of the complaint process. Moreover, in cases involving allegations of sexual
assault/violence, mediation is not appropriate even on a voluntary basis. OCR recommends that
recipients clarify in their grievance procedures that mediation will not be used to resolve sexual
assault/violence complaints.
Throughout the recipient’s investigation and in any hearing, both parties must have equal
opportunity to present relevant witnesses and other evidence and to otherwise participate in the
process. Also, in order for a recipient’s grievance procedures to be consistent with the Title IX
evidentiary standard, the recipient must use a preponderance of the evidence standard for
investigating allegations of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence. If a recipient

 Page 7 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
provides for appeal of the findings or remedy, it must do so for both parties. The recipient must
maintain documentation of all proceedings.
In addition, a school must ensure that responsible employees with the authority to address sexual
assault/violence know how to respond appropriately to reports of sexual assault/violence; that
other responsible employees know that they are obligated to report sexual assault/violence to
appropriate school officials; and that all other employees understand how to respond to reports of
sexual assault/violence. A school should provide training to all employees likely to witness or
receive reports of sexual assault/violence, including professors, university law enforcement unit
employees, university administrators, university counselors, general counsel, athletic coaches,
health personnel, and resident advisors. Training for employees should include practical
information about how to prevent and identify sexual assault/violence, including same-sex sexual
assault/violence; the behaviors that may lead to and result in sexual assault/violence; the attitudes
of bystanders that may allow conduct to continue; the potential for revictimization by responders
and its effect on students; appropriate methods for responding to a student who may have
experienced sexual assault/violence, including the use of nonjudgmental language; the impact of
trauma on victims; and, as applicable, the person(s) to whom such misconduct must be reported.
The training also should explain responsible employees’ reporting obligation, including what
should be included in a report and any consequences for the failure to report and the procedure
for responding to students’ requests for confidentiality, as well as provide the contact
information for the school’s Title IX coordinator. A school also should train responsible
employees to inform students of: the reporting obligations of responsible employees; students’
options to request confidentiality, available confidential advocacy, counseling, or other support
services; and students’ rights to file a Title IX complaint with the school and to report a crime to
campus or local law enforcement.
The Title IX implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a), requires that a recipient designate
at least one employee to coordinate its responsibilities to comply with and carry out its
responsibilities under that law. The recipient is further required, by the Title IX implementing
regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9(a), to notify all students and employees of the name (or title),
office address, and telephone number of the designated employee(s). In addition, OCR’s 2011
Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Violence states that recipients should notify all students and
employees of the electronic mail (email) address of the Title IX Coordinator. The coordinator’s
responsibilities include overseeing the recipient’s response to Title IX reports and complaints of
sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, and identifying and addressing any patterns
or systemic problems revealed by such reports and complaints. The coordinator or designee
should be available to meet with students, as needed. The Title IX coordinator should not have
other job responsibilities that may create a conflict of interest. Also, as noted above, recipients
must ensure that employees designated to serve as Title IX coordinators have training or
experience in handling sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence complaints, and in
the operation of the recipient’s grievance procedures.
The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9, requires that recipients notify
applicants for employment, students, employees, and all unions or professional organizations
holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient that it does not
discriminate on the basis of sex in its education programs or activities, and that it is required by

 Page 8 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
Title IX not to discriminate in such a manner. The notice must also state that questions regarding
Title IX may be referred to the recipient’s Title IX coordinator or to OCR.
Factual Information
The Sexual Harassment/Violence Reporting Process
Designation and Notice of Title IX Coordinator
OCR determined that the University has complied with the Title IX regulations at 34 C.F.R. §
106.8(b) and 106.9, with respect to the designation and notice of its Title IX Coordinator. The
University has designated the Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity as the Title IX
Coordinator and notified its students and employees of the name, office address,3 and telephone
number of the designated employee in various University publications; including the
University’s Rights, Rules and Responsibilities, the University’s Annual Security and Fire Safety
Report, and Working at Princeton, a Handbook for Administrative and Support Staff. The
information
is
also
available
on
the
University’s
website
at
http://sexualmisconduct.princeton.edu/coordinator. The University’s Title IX Coordinator is
responsible for overseeing the University’s centralized response to complaints and reports of
sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence.
OCR found that the University’s Title IX Coordinator receives training in handling sexual
harassment, including sexual assault/violence complaints, and in the operation of the
University’s grievance procedures. In addition, the Title IX Coordinator regularly attends
webinars and conferences relating to sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence.
Notice of Non-Discrimination
OCR determined that the University has nondiscrimination notices that comply with the
regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9(a). The notices include the name, title,
address, and telephone number of the Title IX Coordinator, and appear in several publications,
including the University’s Equal Opportunity Policy; the University’s Rights, Rules and
Responsibilities; University’s website, at http://www.princeton.edu/pub/RRR/eop; the
Undergraduate admission materials and financial aid application; Working at Princeton, a
Handbook for Administrative and Support Staff; and Rules and Procedures of the Faculty of
Princeton University and Other Provisions of Concern to the Faculty.4
Grievance Procedures
During OCR’s investigation and until September 2014, the University used two policies to
address complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence: (1) the
Nondiscrimination/Anti-Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedures (the General Policy);
and, (2) Rights, Rules and Responsibilities (RRR). The University also published a document,
3

The email address of the Title IX Coordinator is included in the University’s revised policies and procedures.
The non-discrimination statement also is displayed prominently on many notices, announcements, and pages on the
University’s website.
4

 Page 9 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
entitled, Frequently asked Questions Regarding Allegations of Sexual Misconduct and the
University Discipline Process (the FAQ);5 and a document entitled, Title IX Administrative
Review Procedure Based on an Alleged Pattern of Risk to the Physical Safety of the University.6
During its investigation, OCR reviewed the most recent version of the General Policy published
in hard copy, dated November 2011. OCR also reviewed a version of the General Policy
available on the University’s website, dated August 2013, which differed from the earlier version
only in that contact information for filing complaints and making inquiries referenced individual
titles rather than individual names.
OCR found that complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, against
students typically were investigated and resolved through the student disciplinary process
administered by the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students (ODUS) and Office of the
Dean of the Graduate School (ODGS), respectively. Pursuant to the RRR, after receiving a
complaint, a University dean would conduct an initial investigation; following this, ODUS or
ODGS would convene a Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline, Subcommittee on Sexual
Assault and Sexual Harassment (the Committee) comprised of faculty, staff, and students. The
Committee would then hold a hearing to review evidence and hear from witnesses, including the
complainant and the accused. Following this, the members of the Committee would convene to
determine responsibility and, if necessary, sanctions. The accused had the right to appeal the
Committee’s determination; however, the complainant did not have this right.
Notice of the Procedures
Students, employees and third parties previously could file complaints of sexual harassment,
including sexual assault/violence against employees and third parties, using the procedures
outlined in the General Policy. The General Policy provided information regarding how and
where such complaints could be filed, and informal options for resolution. The General Policy
contained a description of the investigation, complaint resolution, and appeal process for
complaints filed against employees and third parties alleging sexual harassment, including sexual
assault/violence; however, the process for investigating and resolving complaints contained in
the General Policy did not apply to students.
Complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, against undergraduate and
graduate students generally were investigated and resolved through the student disciplinary
process (the RRR), administered by the ODUS and ODGS, respectively. However, the sections
addressing sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual misconduct in the RRR (found in
sections 1.2.3 and 1.6.5) did not include a description of or reference to how to file a complaint
of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or sexual misconduct, including sexual assault
or other sexual violence, or detail the investigative process, resolution, and appeal processes.
OCR also found that three separate documents, the RRR, a document entitled Sexual Misconduct:

5

See http://www.princeton.edu/odus/docs/sexual-misconduct-FAQ.pdf (July 14, 2014) (Note that OCR reviewed an
earlier version of this FAQ during its investigation).
6
See https://www.princeton.edu/diversity/documents/Title-IX-Administrative-Review-Procedure.pdf (Effective July
2013).

 Page 10 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
Resources, Services, and Options at ODUS,7 and the FAQ, each contained incomplete
information describing the process for addressing sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or
sexual misconduct complaints against students. These documents often did not clearly reference
one another.
Designated and Reasonably Prompt Timeframes
The General Policy stated that the University will “make an effort” to conclude the complaint
resolution process within 45 working days. However, the General Policy did not give a
timeframe for appeals; and the RRR did not include any timeframes for complaint resolution or
appeals. The only timeframes found in the procedures in the RRR stated that when a matter is
first presented to the ODUS or ODGS within one week of the end of an academic term, it may be
held for consideration until the following term. The FAQ also did not contain specific
timeframes for either process; it stated that the University sought to conduct disciplinary
adjudications with “reasonable promptness” and that the information gathering process will
proceed as quickly as possible but “given the complexity of sexual misconduct cases, it may take
days or weeks.” Further, with respect to a “statute of limitations” on filing a complaint of sexual
misconduct, the RRR stated, “Our student disciplinary procedures are only invoked when there is
a complaint of sexual misconduct against a current University student.” [emphasis added]. This
position could discourage students from filing sex discrimination/harassment complaints against
former students by implying that the University is unable to investigate or take any action with
respect to such complaints, such as providing support for the complainant and taking steps to
address the effects of the harassment.
Adequate, Reliable, and Impartial Investigation/Notice of Outcome/Preventive Steps
The procedures found in the General Policy and the RRR did not explicitly provide the
complainant with an equal opportunity as the accused student to present witnesses and other
evidence. OCR determined that these rights were outlined in the FAQ; however, as noted, the
FAQ was not directly referenced in the General Policy and/or RRR (the RRR referenced the
document, Sexual Misconduct: Resources, Services, and Options at ODUS, which referenced the
FAQ). The RRR specifically provided certain rights to a charged undergraduate or graduate
student participating in the hearing process, but did not provide equivalent rights to the
complaining student.8 These rights included: (a) obtaining reports detailing the alleged
misconduct, and the names of the members of the Committee; (b) being informed in writing of
the charge(s) and of the specific day and time to appear before the Committee; as well as the
ability to (c) request the appearance of anyone with information about the matter; (d) have an
advisor; (e) testify on his/her own behalf; (f) question witnesses or be questioned by the
committee members; (g) submit additional character statements in writing; and (h) make a
closing statement.

7

This document outlines University resources and describes the options available to complainants and accused
students, and is located at http://www.princeton.edu/odus/standards/sexual-misconduct/.
8
The FAQ states that all of these rights, except for the right to have the names of the members of the Committee,
are provided to the complainant as well as the accused.

 Page 11 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
The University used a “clear and persuasive” standard of evidence rather than the appropriate
“preponderance of the evidence” standard during the hearing process, including the findings
phase, under the RRR. The University used a “preponderance” standard of evidence under the
General Policy.
The General Policy stated that the appropriate dean or vice president would provide a summary
of the findings to both parties, although it did not explicitly state that it would be in writing. The
General Policy and RRR did not indicate that written notice of the outcome of the complaint (or
any appeal) would be provided to either party. Further, neither the General Policy nor the RRR
provided for an assurance that the University would take steps to prevent further harassment or
remedy its effects, if appropriate.
The General Policy included an informal as well as a formal process; however, it did not notify
parties of their right to end the informal process and begin the formal process at any time. The
RRR does not include an informal process.
The General Policy provided for appeal rights only to the individual found to have violated the
General Policy. Neither party had a right to appeal if there was a determination that the behavior
did not violate the General Policy, or if there was a finding of inappropriate behavior not rising
to the level of a violation. Further, the RRR did not provide a right of appeal to the complaining
party; only the respondent had the right to appeal. In practice (although not written in the RRR),
the University would prepare a transcript of the hearing only in the event of an appeal, at which
time it would be provided to both parties; however, as stated above, only the respondent had the
right to appeal.
Additionally, the General Policy did not include a provision notifying the complainant of the
right to proceed with a criminal investigation and a Title IX complaint simultaneously, although
this was included in RRR.
Handling of Criminal Complaints and Law Enforcement’s Role
The University informed OCR that if the Department of Public Safety (DPS) receives a report of
an incident of sexual assault or violence, officers will meet with the complainant and first ensure
that he/she is receiving appropriate medical care and feels safe; will explain the individual’s right
to report the incident to the University and/or file a criminal complaint with local police; and will
provide information about counseling services at the University. If a student chooses to file a
criminal complaint, DPS will turn over the case to the local police department to conduct its own
criminal investigation. The DPS officers may take a statement and/or obtain other general
information, but they typically do not conduct a detailed investigation; rather, these
investigations are led by either a University dean (for internal complaints) or the local police
department (for criminal complaints). The University noted that if the individual files a criminal
complaint, the police department rarely will share information with DPS or the University
because of concerns that this will interfere with the criminal investigation.
The University informed OCR that it does not wait for the conclusion of a criminal
investigation/proceeding to begin its own administrative investigation (whether for Title IX or

 Page 12 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
other purposes), and that it takes immediate steps to protect its students. The University stated
that it will proceed with a Title IX investigation while a criminal complaint is active; however,
whether (and/or for how long) the University might delay its administrative investigation
depends on a variety of circumstances, such as the wishes of the complainant, the severity of the
alleged misconduct, the status of the criminal investigation, whether the respondent is currently
enrolled, and the safety of the campus community. The University stated that because its Title
IX grievance procedures reference a resolution within 45 working days, any delay typically will
not last very long.
Requests for Confidentiality
University staff informed OCR that if a student wishes to remain confidential, the University
would first encourage a student to move forward and explain that without further information,
the University’s ability to redress the issue would be limited. University staff further stated that
if the University has independent information beyond what the student told University staff, the
University would nonetheless have to explore this, and would explain this to the complainant in
advance. University staff stated that the University would also encourage the student to visit
Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources and Education (SHARE), and make clear that
he/she always has the option to request an investigation at a future date.
The University informed OCR that while responsible employees generally may move forward
with an investigation despite a request for confidentiality if the need for safety supersedes a
student’s interest in confidentiality, employees at SHARE will not breach a student’s
confidentiality unless there is persuasive evidence of a “clearly identified threat” that someone
will be endangered. Nonetheless, SHARE employees will explain all options to an alleged
victim, including the investigative process.
Training/Outreach
Every year, the University conducts education and prevention initiatives for the campus
community, including faculty, staff, and students. All faculty and staff are required to take
several trainings every year addressing sexual harassment prevention, discrimination and the
legal aspects of supervision. The University also provides multiple trainings to undergraduate
and graduate students regarding sexual harassment prevention and alcohol education. The
University also disseminates a Title IX resource letter/email each year to all students, faculty,
and staff. In addition, the University conducts specific training for individuals responsible for
addressing complaints of sexual harassment/assault/violence, as well as those individuals
serving in a resource capacity. These individuals and offices include the Title IX Coordinator
and any assistants, SHARE office staff, SHARE Peer Advisors, the Ombuds office,
Residential College Advisors, the Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline, the Residential
College Disciplinary Board, Title IX investigators, community members who have
volunteered to serve as advisors to complainants and respondents in student disciplinary
hearings involving sexual misconduct allegations, DPS staff members, athletics staff
members, the LGBT Center, the Women's Center, the Office of the Dean of the Faculty,
Human Resources, ODUS, and ODGS.

 Page 13 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
The University advised that training to the aforementioned individuals/groups includes a
discussion of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

The University’s policies and procedures for complaints of sex discrimination;
The University's responsibility to address sex discrimination;
The role and obligations of the Title IX Coordinator and the Assistant Title
IX Coordinators;
How to appropriately respond to allegations and complaints;
Applicable confidentiality requirements;
Notifying complainants of their rights to file criminal complaints and how to do so;
Understanding how Title IX investigations differ from criminal investigations;
Protecting and preserving evidence;
Conducting thorough, prompt, and impartial investigations;
The University's prohibition of retaliation;
The roles of alcohol and drug use;
How to appropriately coordinate and cooperate with other members of the
University community and local law enforcement;
Implementing interim measures; and
Interactive discussions involving practical hypotheticals.

In addition, the University conducts community-based trainings/outreach programs for students
each academic year.9
Climate Information/Climate Assessment/Response
The University informed OCR that it maintains a standing committee on Sexual Misconduct
Policies, Prevention and Programs (SMPPP) to provide oversight and monitor campus activities
relating to sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment and assault, for members of the
University community, including students, faculty, and staff. The SMPPP collects and reviews
data, monitors training activities, reviews the effectiveness of campus programs and policies, and
provides recommendations on new policies and activities. The University also informed OCR
that it implemented a tracking system for all complaints of sexual discrimination. The Title IX
Coordinator uses this system to identify patterns of risk, and whether a specific student poses a
risk to the physical safety of the University community. If the Title IX Coordinator determines
that a pattern exists sufficient to pose a risk to the campus community, she will intervene as
appropriate to mitigate the risk.10
9

These include The Way You Move freshmen orientation performance and debrief; a residential education program
during orientation; SHARE peer programs in colleges and with high risk groups; Domestic Violence Awareness
Month programming; Sexual Assault Awareness Month programming; STANDBY bystander mobile website; Sexual
harassment briefing to recreational sports club leaders; STEP UP! pro-social behavior and bystander intervention
program for student athletes; Ongoing awareness raising and education through social media, listserv, and the
University’s website; SHARE Peer Program liaisons to eating clubs and residential colleges.
10
The University’s Title IX Administrative Review Procedure Based on an Alleged Pattern of Risk to the Physical
Safety of the University outlines how the Title IX Coordinator determines whether a student poses a safety risk to the
University community based on a pattern of sexual harassment. In these cases, the Title IX Coordinator reviews the
matter herself “to determine whether any action should be taken to protect the University community.” The Title IX
Coordinator employs a preponderance of the evidence standard, makes a finding, and imposes any interventions.

 Page 14 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

Review and Analysis of the University’s Handling of
Complaints and Reports of Sexual Harassment/Assault/Violence
The complainants alleged that the University failed to respond promptly and appropriately to
complaints of sexual assault that three students (Students 1, 2, and 3) made during academic year
2009-2010 and 2010-2011.
Student 1’s Complaint
Complainant 1 alleged that the University discriminated against Student 1, on the basis of her
sex, by failing to respond appropriately to a complaint Student 1 made during academic year
2009-2010, in which she alleged that Student A sexually assaulted her. Complainant 1 alleged
that the disciplinary hearing, the appeal process, and a subsequent re-hearing were neither fair
nor equitable.
OCR determined that in response to Student 1’s complaint, the University informed Student 1 of
the student disciplinary process and available resources, including counseling and health
services. The University stated that it informed Student 1 that the University could administer a
no-contact order (NCO) between Student 1 and Student A; Student 1 stated that she did not recall
receiving this information and the University did not provide documentation to support that a
NCO had been offered to Student 1. The University also granted Student 1’s request to change
her dormitory.
After an investigation and a hearing, the University determined that Student A was responsible
for sexually assaulting Student 1 and suspended him. Student A appealed and was allowed to
remain on campus during the appeal. Student A withdrew about a month after being informed of
the University’s determination; this status did not bar Student A from visiting campus. Student 1
told the University that she observed Student A on campus and felt very uncomfortable; she also
informed OCR of the negative impact of seeing Student A. The University responded, in part,
by advising Student 1 of her right to request a NCO. Student 1 asserted to OCR that this was the
first time the University discussed the option of a NCO in detail with her, but that she declined
the offer because at that time she believed Student A had been suspended; and until the next
month was unaware that Student A had filed an appeal and had the right to remain on campus.
The University did not inform Student 1 that Student A had appealed his decision and remained
enrolled pending the outcome of the appeal until the end of the next month. Student 1 informed
OCR that once she learned of Student A’s appeal, she decided not to request a NCO because she
believed any NCO would unfairly apply equally to her, although she had done nothing wrong.
Student A’s appeal was subsequently granted, overturning the initial determination.
Following a rehearing, the University again found Student A responsible for sexual assault and
re-imposed the suspension. A NCO order was issued at that time. OCR did not find any

The policy states that all interventions “will be limited to protecting the physical safety of the University
community, and any particular member of the University community,” and makes clear that the process is separate
from the University’s standard disciplinary process “as these processes serve different purposes.”

 Page 15 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
evidence to indicate that there was further interaction between Student A and Student 1 on
campus, or that Student 1 was subjected to harassment by other students.
The evidence established that Student 1 was subjected to a sexually hostile environment when
she was sexually assaulted by Student A. OCR determined that the University did not provide a
prompt response to Student 1’s complaint, as the appeals process was unduly long. Although the
University issued its initial decision within a month of her complaint, the University’s final
decision on Student A’s appeal was not issued until nine months after the initial determination.11
The University also failed to provide Student 1 with an adequate, reliable, and impartial
investigation, as the University used a “clear and persuasive” evidentiary standard during the
investigation and hearing and allowed only Student A, not Student 1, to present in-person
character witnesses. In addition, Student 1 was not given equal written notice of the outcome of
the complaint, as she was not notified of the sanctions that directly affected her, including that
Student A had an opportunity to appeal; and that Student A filed an appeal and could remain on
campus during the appeal. While the University provided an opportunity for Student A to appeal,
it did not provide an equal appeals process for Student 1. The evidence supports that the
University took some interim steps before the final outcome of the investigation to protect the
complainant, including providing her with information about counseling and other resources and
changing her dormitory. However, the University did not implement a NCO until eleven months
after Student 1 filed her complaint. The evidence supports that Student 1 did not agree to a NCO
earlier, at least in part, because the University did not inform her of Student A’s appeal and
enrollment status at the University. Based on a totality of circumstances, OCR determined that
there was sufficient evidence to support that Student 1 continued to be subjected to a sexually
hostile environment as a result of the University’s failure to provide a prompt and equitable
response to Student 1’s complaint.
Student 2’s Complaint
Complainant 2 alleged that the University discriminated against Student 2, on the basis of her
sex, by failing to respond appropriately to a complaint Student 2 made during academic year
2010-2011, alleging that Student B sexually assaulted her. Complainant 2 asserted that
University staff discouraged Student 2 from filing a complaint or gathering evidence; did not
provide Student 2 with rights during the investigation and hearing on an equitable basis with the
accused; subjected Student 2 to direct and inappropriate lines of questioning during the hearing;
limited Student 2’s ability to present witnesses and other evidence and participate in the

11

OCR evaluates on a case-by-case basis whether the resolution of sexual violence complaints is prompt and
equitable. OCR has noted that, based on its experience in typical cases, there is a 60-calendar day timeframe for
investigations. “Whether OCR considers an investigation to be prompt as required by Title IX will vary depending
on the complexity of the investigation and the severity and extent of the alleged conduct. OCR recognizes that the
investigation process may take longer if there is a parallel criminal investigation or if it occurs partially during
school breaks. A school may need to stop an investigation during school breaks or between school years, although a
school should make every effort to conduct an investigation during these breaks unless doing so would sacrifice
witness availability or otherwise compromise the process.” OCR has explained that this timeframe does not include
appeals, but that a school should be aware that any unduly long appeals process may impact whether the school’s
response was prompt and equitable as required by Title IX. See F-8, in OCR’s “Questions and Answers on Title IX
and Sexual Violence.”

 Page 16 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
disciplinary hearing; failed to provide Student 2 with appeal rights (Student B did not appeal);
and employed the incorrect evidentiary standard during the disciplinary hearing.
After investigation, the University found that it did not have sufficient evidence to substantiate
that Student 2 was sexually assaulted. Namely, the University determined that based on its
investigation, the versions of events offered by Student 2 and Student B regarding their
interaction over the course of a weekend were “diametrically opposed” and could not be
reconciled.
Based on the evidence obtained in OCR’s investigation, including its review of the University’s
investigation, OCR concluded that the evidence did not support that Student 2 was subjected to a
sexually hostile environment, but that while prompt, the University did not provide an equitable
response to response to Student 2’s complaint, as required by Title IX. Upon receipt of Student
2’s complaint, the University informed Student 2 of the complaint reporting options and
available resources, including counseling and medical services. The University also issued a
NCO restricting contact between Student 2 and Student B. OCR determined that the University
conducted a prompt (i.e., within approximately two and one half months, including a school
recess period) and thorough investigation of Student 2’s allegations of sexual assault by
interviewing relevant witnesses; reviewing relevant documentation; and, providing both Student
2 and Student B with the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, question the opposing
party, provide opening and closing statements, and avail themselves of an advisor and character
witness statements. OCR found insufficient evidence to substantiate Complainant 2’s assertions
that University staff discouraged Student 2 from filing a complaint or gathering evidence;
subjected Student 2 to direct and inappropriate lines of questioning during the hearing; or limited
Student 2’s ability to present witnesses and other evidence and participate in the disciplinary
hearing. OCR also determined that the University provided written notice to Student 2 and
Student B regarding the outcome of the complaint, and that it conducted the investigation in a
timely manner. OCR determined, however, that the University’s disciplinary hearing process
employed an inappropriate “clear and persuasive” evidence standard during the investigation
used to determine the outcome of the complaint; and did not provide Student 2 with an
opportunity to appeal the outcome of the hearing although Student B had this right.
Student 3’s Complaint
Complainant 3 alleged that the University discriminated against Student 3, on the basis of her
sex, by failing to respond appropriately to a complaint Student 3 made during academic year
2010-2011, alleging that Student C sexually assaulted her. Specifically, Complainant 3 alleged
that University staff: discouraged Student 3 from filing a complaint 12 and permitted Student C to
file a retaliatory complaint of sexual assault against her; failed to take appropriate interim
measures; did not provide comparable rights to Student 3 and Student C during the investigation;
failed to provide an impartial disciplinary hearing; used the incorrect evidentiary standard during
the disciplinary hearing; failed to provide Student 3 with appeal rights (Student C did not appeal)
12

Specifically, Complainant 3 alleged that University staff told Student 3 that a University investigation would be
disruptive to her life; informed Student 3 that she would have to prove her case using the clear and convincing
evidence standard (rather than the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard); and warned Student 3 that
many students found the grievance procedure frustrating because they could not muster the necessary evidence.

 Page 17 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
or the opportunity to receive a copy of the disciplinary hearing transcript; and failed to take
measures to prevent the recurrence of sexual harassment. The University found that it did not
have sufficient evidence to substantiate that Student 3 was sexually assaulted.
Based on the evidence obtained in OCR’s investigation, including its review of the University’s
investigation, OCR concluded that the evidence did not support that Student 3 was subjected to a
sexually hostile environment, but that, while prompt, the University did not provide an equitable
response to Student 3’s complaint, as required by Title IX. OCR determined that in response to
Student 3’s complaint, the University advised Student 3 of the complaint reporting options, and
the availability of health and counseling services. The University also provided the complainant
with housing and academic accommodations, and issued a NCO restricting contact between
Student 3 and Student C. Student 3’s counsel objected that this NCO continued and subjected
Student 3 to restrictions on attending campus events, including some graduation events. OCR
determined that the University conducted a prompt (i.e., within less than two months) and
thorough investigation of Student 3’s allegation of sexual assault by interviewing relevant
witnesses; reviewing relevant documentation; and, providing both Student 3 and Student C with
the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, ask questions of the opposing party and
witnesses, provide opening and closing statements, and avail themselves of an advisor and
character witness during the disciplinary hearing. OCR also determined that the University
provided written notice to Student 3 and Student C regarding the outcome of the complaint.
OCR found insufficient evidence to substantiate Complainant 3’s assertions that University staff
discouraged Student 3 from filing a complaint; failed to provide appropriate interim measures;
and failed to take measures to prevent the recurrence of harassment. OCR concluded, however,
that the University’s disciplinary hearing process was not equitable, as the University gave only
Student C the opportunity to appeal the outcome of the complaint. OCR also determined that the
University employed an inappropriate “clear and persuasive” evidence standard during the
investigation used to determine the outcome of the complaint.
Review of Other Sexual Harassment Complaints Filed with University
According to the Clery Act statistics outlined in the Office of Postsecondary Education’s
Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool, in academic year 2011-2012, the
University reported 16 on-campus forcible sex offenses, 14 of which occurred in University
residence halls. It also reported 4 off-campus forcible sex offenses. In academic year 2012-2013,
the University reported 17 on-campus forcible sex offenses, 14 of which occurred in the
University residence halls. It also reported 3 off-campus forcible sex offenses.
OCR reviewed the records relating to the University’s handling of seven complaints of sexual
harassment, including allegations of sexual assault that were filed against students or staff at the
University between academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.13 Most of these cases involved
allegations of sexual assault/violence sufficient to create a sexually hostile environment; and in
two cases, the University’s investigation confirmed the reported allegations of sexual
13

The University informed OCR that this number does not match its reported Clery Act numbers because the Clery
numbers encompass reports of sexual offenses made to confidential sources. The University noted that confidential
reports do not trigger an investigation. It stated that this practice allows the University to analyze patterns and
trends on campus without revealing confidential information.

 Page 18 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
assault/violence. OCR determined that in all cases involving a current University student, the
University offered interim measures during the pendency of the investigation, such as academic
accommodations, counseling services, access to Public Safety Protection, SHARE services, and
NCOs. However, OCR’s review of the complaint files revealed concerns relating to the prompt
and equitable nature of the process, including failure to provide the complainant with written
notice of the complaint outcome, inequitable application of the NCO to the complainant and not
the accused student, use of an inappropriate “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard, not
allowing the complainant an equal opportunity to participate in the appeals process, and delays in
the investigative process.
Conclusions
Based on its investigation, OCR determined that the University complied with Title IX
requirements regarding the notice of non-discrimination and with Title IX requirements
regarding the designation and notice of a Title IX coordinator.
OCR determined that the University’s prior sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence,
policies and procedures did not comply with the applicable Title IX requirements. As noted
above, the University used the General Policy to address sexual harassment complaints against
employees and third parties, and RRR, the discipline process, to address sexual harassment
complaints against students. The University provided supplemental guidance in several
documents, including its FAQs, Sexual Misconduct: Resources, Services, and Options at ODUS,
and Title IX Administrative Review Procedure Based on an Alleged Pattern of Risk to the
Physical Safety of the University. OCR determined that these procedures did not provide
adequate notice to students and employees of the University’s sexual harassment, including
sexual assault/violence, policies and procedures, as these documents each contained incomplete
information describing the process for addressing sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or
sexual misconduct complaints against students. These documents often did not clearly reference
one another, resulting in a policy that was not easily understood or easily located. Additionally,
the RRR noted that the disciplinary procedures could not be invoked when there was a complaint
of sexual misconduct against a student who had graduated or otherwise left the University; OCR
determined that this might have discouraged students from filing sex discrimination/harassment
complaints against former students, and implied that the University was unable to investigate or
take any action with respect to such complaints.
The University’s prior sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, policies and
procedures also did not include designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major
stages of the grievance process, including the complaint resolution and appeals procedures.
Specifically, the General Policy did not give a timeframe for appeals, and the RRR did not
include any timeframes for complaint resolution or appeals.
OCR also determined that the prior policies and procedures did not provide for an adequate,
reliable, and impartial investigation, as appeal rights were provided only for the accused student,
not the complainant; the RRR process did not use of the preponderance of the evidence standard
in investigating allegations of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence; written
notice was not required to be provided to the parties of the outcome (and appeal) and sanctions

 Page 19 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
imposed on the perpetrator that directly relate to the complainant; and there was no assurance
that the University would take steps to prevent further harassment and to correct its effects, if
appropriate. The prior policies and procedures also did not explicitly provide for equal
opportunities for the complainant and accused to present witnesses and other evidence and to
participate in the hearing process; these rights were described in the separate FAQ document.
OCR determined that the General Policy did not notify parties of their right to end the informal
process and begin the formal process at any time. Additionally, the General Policy did not
include a provision notifying the complainant of the right to proceed with a criminal
investigation and a Title IX complaint simultaneously.14
OCR also determined that the University failed to provide prompt and equitable response(s) to
complaints of sexual assault/violence of which it had notice (including complaints made by
Students 1, 2 and 3, and other students’ complaints/reports). OCR further determined that, for
Student 1, the University’s failure allowed for the continuation of a sexually hostile environment
that limited and denied Student 1’s access to the University’s educational program. Thus, OCR
concluded that the University did not comply with the applicable Title IX regulations at 34
C.F.R. §§ 106.8, 106.31.15
Resolution Agreement and the University’s 2014 Revised Sexual Harassment Policies
and Procedures
On October 12, 2014, the University provided OCR with the enclosed signed Resolution
Agreement, which addresses the compliance concerns identified in OCR’s investigation and,
when fully implemented, will resolve the University’s noncompliance with Title IX. As part of
the Agreement, the University submitted revised grievance procedures to OCR on October 8,
2014. The University adopted the new “Sex Discrimination & Sexual Misconduct Policy” (the
Policy) on September 15, 2014, and the Policy is on the University’s website.16 The University
has affirmed that the procedures are internally consistent and provide for the prompt and
equitable resolution of complaints of sexual misconduct (including sex discrimination, sexual
harassment, and sexual assault/violence) filed against students, employees, and third parties.

14

The University stated that the police department does not always share information with the University because of
concerns that it will interfere with the criminal investigation. OCR determined that at the time of OCR’s
investigation, there was no indication that the police department had agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding
with the University on this topic.
15
Complainant 1 further asserted that the Campus SaVE Act, a federal law recently enacted as part of The Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. No. 113-4) (VAWA) is contrary to and/or does not include
some of the requirements articulated in OCR’s “Dear Colleague Letter” of April 4, 2011, including recipients’ use of
the preponderance of the evidence legal standard, responses to incidents regardless of whether they are “reported” to
campus officials or local law enforcement, and promptness in obtaining resolution. OCR notes that the VAWA has
no effect on a school’s obligations under Title IX. VAWA amended the Violence Against Women Act and the
Clery Act, which are separate statutes. Nothing in Section 304 or any other part of the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2013 relieves a school of its obligations to comply with the requirements of Title IX,
including those set forth in OCR’s “Dear Colleague Letter” of April 4, 2011. OCR is responsible for enforcing Title
IX and has applied Title IX as reflected in OCR guidance. OCR does not enforce the SaVE Act.
16
http://sexualmisconduct.princeton.edu/policy.

 Page 20 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
OCR’s preliminary review of the new Policy revealed that it already includes many of the
revisions required by the Agreement and thus corrects many of the deficiencies identified in the
University’s previous sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, policies and
procedures. For example, the new Policy consolidates its sexual harassment, including sexual
assault/violence, procedures into one document that addresses complaints of harassment filed
against students, employees and third parties; states that the University will use the
preponderance of the evidence standard for investigating allegations of sexual harassment,
including sexual assault/violence; includes appeal rights for both parties; requires both parties to
be provided concurrent written notice of the outcome of the University’s investigation and any
appeal; and includes designated and reasonably prompt timeframes (45 days, unless extended for
good cause and with notice to the parties) for the investigation and appeal processes. OCR found
that in the new Policy, other students are not involved in the investigative process and neither
party is allowed to cross-examine the other or to present character witnesses.
The new Policy also includes the University’s specific assurances that it will respond to
complaints or reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault/violence with measures designed to
stop the behavior, eliminate the discrimination, prevent the recurrence of the harassment, and
remediate any adverse effects of the harassment on campus or in University-related programs or
activities. The Policy specifically states that if the accused student is no longer enrolled, the
University may not be able to take disciplinary action, but will still seek to meet its Title IX
obligations by providing support for the complainant and taking steps to end the prohibited
behavior, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects. The Policy also states that, upon receipt
of a sexual harassment or sexual assault/violence complaint or report, the University will provide
reasonable and appropriate interim measures designed to preserve the complainant’s educational
experience, the safety of all parties and the broader University community, maintain the integrity
of the investigative and/or resolution process, and deter retaliation. The Policy includes a
provision requiring that, if requested by the complainant, the University will promptly implement
a one-way no contact order (with the burden of no contact on the accused) if the University has
made a finding of responsibility under the Policy, even if an appeal may be filed, or has been
filed and is pending.
Finally, the Policy makes clear that while discretion regarding the process relating to sexual
harassment, including sexual assault/violence, complaints is important, complainants and
accused students are not restricted from discussing and sharing information with others who may
support of assist them in present their case. Finally, the Policy outlines a student’s options,
including pursuing a criminal and/or University investigation at the same time and states the
University promptly resume its Title IX investigation as soon as it is notified by the law
enforcement agency that the agency has completed the evidence gathering process and will not
wait for the conclusion of a criminal proceeding to begin its own investigation and will, as
appropriate, provide interim remedies.
OCR will review the revised policies and procedures in detail as part of its monitoring of the
Agreement to ensure their compliance with the terms of the Agreement and applicable Title IX
requirements. OCR expects to complete this review by December 7, 2014.

 Page 21 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
In addition to revising its sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, policies and
procedures, the University has agreed to:















Provide training to all staff responsible for recognizing and reporting incidents of sexual
harassment, and any other University community members, officials/students directly
involved in receiving, processing, investigating, adjudicating, and/or resolving
complaints of sexual misconduct.
Provide annual information sessions to students regarding sexual misconduct (including
sex discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault/violence); develop and
implement a public awareness and bystander intervention campaign; and revise its
existing materials or develop new materials on sexual misconduct to be distributed to
students during orientation and upon receipt of complaints of sexual misconduct.
Conduct annual climate checks with students to assess the steps and measures taken by
the University pursuant to this Resolution Agreement and otherwise; and use gathered
information to inform future proactive steps to achieve its goal of a campus free of sexual
misconduct, in particular sexual assault/violence.
In addition, SMPPP will review and monitor systemic issues relating to sexual
misconduct and Title IX compliance, including applicable policies, procedures, trainings
and campus climate. SMPP will identify and annually recommend, strategies to ensure
that students understand their rights under Title IX and the University’s sexual
misconduct policy and procedures; understand how to report possible violations of sexual
misconduct policy/Title IX; and to ensure that the University takes each complaint
seriously and provides a prompt and equitable response in accordance with the
requirements of Title IX. Additionally, the committee will recommend additional
strategies for improving the effectiveness of the University’s procedures, support
services, and resources available to students and for the prevention of sexual misconduct,
including outreach and educational activities.
Request from external local law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the
University, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), where there is not an existing
MOU, to improve communication and coordination and to address the protocols and
procedures for referring allegations of sexual misconduct, sharing information, and
conducting contemporaneous investigations.
In accordance with its OCR-approved, revised grievance procedures, review all
complaints and reports of sexual misconduct made from academic year 2011-2012 to
September 1, 2014, to determine whether the University investigated each complaint or
report promptly and equitably and take appropriate action to address any problems
identified in the manner in which these complaints were handled, including providing
appropriate remedies that may still be available for the complainants in these cases, such
as counseling or academic adjustments.
Provide the students identified in the complaint with remedies relating to the educational
and other expenses incurred from the date on which each student first reported alleged
sexual violence to the University to the date of resolution.
Annually track, and provide to OCR documentation of, the University’s responses and
handling of all sexual misconduct/Title IX allegations reported during the previous
calendar year.

 Page 22 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025
OCR will monitor implementation of the Agreement. If the University fails to implement the
Agreement, OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to enforce the
specific terms and obligations of the Agreement. Before initiating administrative enforcement
(34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10), or judicial proceedings to enforce the Agreement, OCR shall give
the University written notice of the alleged breach and a minimum of sixty (60) calendar days to
cure the alleged breach.
This concludes OCR’s investigation of the complaint and should not be interpreted to address the
University’s compliance with any other regulatory provision or to address any issues other than
those addressed in this letter. This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCR
case. This letter is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or
construed as such. OCR’s formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR
official and made available to the public. The complainant may have the right to file a private
suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds a violation.
Please be advised that the University may not harass, coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against
any individual because he or she has filed a complaint or participated in the complaint resolution
process. If this happens, the complainant may file another complaint alleging such treatment.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related
correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, we will
seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if
released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
Should you have any questions, please contact Stacy L. Bobbitt, Compliance Team Investigator,
at (646) 428-3823 or stacy.bobbitt@ed.gov; David Hensel, Compliance Team Attorney, at (646)
428-3778 or david.hensel@ed.gov; Jocelyn Panicali, Compliance Team Attorney, at (646) 4283796 or jocelyn.panicali@ed.gov; or Nadja Allen Gill, Compliance Team Leader, at (646) 4283801 or nadja.r.allen.gill@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Timothy C.J. Blanchard
Encl.
cc: Sankar Suryanarayan, Esq.