Ennis, Denise (him); (bilT'IC) From: Sent: rhureday, June 09, 2011 3:26 PM To: OCR Cleveland Subject: Fwd: Complaint Attachments: OCR Complaintdocx MCI-twee CLEVELANDJNI (In 'I?r 7 our 5. ml Date}: Fri: Jun 3: 20] 1 5114130 PM US EDUCATION Subject: Complaint true qu mm :13 To: nor/riled onv Cc: (bits); (but/(C) Dear Sin?Maclam, Please ?nd attached a complaint for ?ling with the Office of Civil Rights. Please respond with an e-mail confirming receipt. Also, please send the appropriate mailing address where the Consent Form signed by the victim can be sent. Than]: 11ml (bile); (bits); {bili'lCi VUVU (bimifeitnc) (M115): (bililC) (bll?l; (bl(7(Cl Page 02 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 03 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 04 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 05 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 06 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 07' of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page US of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 09 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 10 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 11 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 12 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 Page 13 of E38 Withheld pursuant to exemption (DJIITIIC) Of the Freedom Of information and F?I'i'u?Eleur AC1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS CLEVELAND OFFICE eon SUPERIOR AVENUE EAST, SUITE 750 CLEVELAND, omo 441 14-251 1 0, I-. .I :3 15.1w?; 11;; Lou Anna K. Simon, Of?ce of the President Michigan State University 450 Administration Building East Lansing, Michigan 48824?1046 Re: OCR Docket 15?11-2098 Dear Dr. Simon: On June 9, 201 1, the US. Department of Education (the Department), Of?ce for Civil Rights (OCR), received the above?referenced complaint ?led on behalf of a student (the Student) against Michigan State University (the University) alleging that the University discriminated against the Student on the basis of sex. Speci?cally, the complaint alleges that the University ed to respond appropriater when the Student reported that she was sexually assaulted (131(6); (mam) libli?l; (M11703) I In addition, the complaint alleges that the University failed to take appropriate action whe students engaged in retaliatory harassment of the Studen (1310(0) Finally, the complaint alleges that the University retaliated against the Student for reporting the sexual assault (1310(0) (131003) OCR is responsible for enforcing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 etseq., and its implementing regulation, 34 CPR. Part 106. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities that receive Federal ?nancial assistance. Additionally, the regulation implementing Title DC, at 34 CPR. 106.71, incorporates by reference the prohibition against retaliation contained in the regulation implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at 34 C.F.R. Thus, Title IX also prohibits retaliation against individuals who seek to enforce rights protected by the statute. As a recipient of Federal ?nancial assistance from the Department, the University is subject to the requirements of Title IX. Accordingly, OCR has jurisdiction over this complaint. The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by l'osrering educational and claiming equal aceess Page 2 - Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon Because OCR has determined that it has jurisdiction and that the complaint was ?led timely, it is opening this complaint for investigation. Based on the complaint allegations, we will investigate the following issues: I whether the University interfered with or limited the ability of a student to participate in or bene?t from the services, activities, or privileges provided by the University by effectively causing, encouraging, accepting, tolerating, or failing to correct a sexually hostile environment of which it had actual or constructive notice in violation of the Title IX implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. 106.31; a whether the University has adopted grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of student complaints under Title IX in accordance with the Title IX implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. 106.803); and 0 whether the University retaliated against the Student for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured under Title IX, in violation of 34 106.71. Please note that opening allegations for investigation in no way implies that OCR has made a determination with regard to their merits. During the investigation, OCR is a neutral fact?finder, collecting and analyzing relevant evidence from the complainant, the recipient, and other sources, as appropriate. OCR will ensure that its investigation is legally suf?cient and is dispositive of the allegations, in accordance with the provisions of Article of Case Processing Manual. For your reference, the document enclosed entitled omploinr Processing Procedures? includes information about: I complaint evaluation and resolution procedures, including the availability of Early Complaint Resolution a regulatory prohibitions against retaliation, intimidation and harassment of persons who ?le complaints with OCR or participate in an OCR investigation; and an application of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act to OCR investigations. Additional information about the laws OCR enforces is available on our website at: We intend to conduct a prompt investigation of this complaint. The Title IX regulation, at 34 C.F.R. 106.71, incorporates by reference the procedural requirements of the Title VI regulation, at 34 CPR. 100.6, which requires that a recipient of Federal ?nancial Page 3 - Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon assistance make available to OCR information that may be pertinent to reach a compliance determination. In addition, in accordance with the regulation implementing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 .S.C. 1232g, at 34 C.F.R. and the Title VI regulation at 34 CPR. OCR may review personally identi?able records without regard to considerations of privacy or con?dentiality. Accordingly, we are requesting that you forward the following information to us within ?fteen calendar days of the date stamped at the top of this letter: I. the name and title of the employee responsible for coordinating the University?s compliance with Title IX and documentation of where this employee?s contact information is published; copies of all University policies and procedures regarding sex discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault, including but not limited to, grievance procedures, disciplinary policies, investigative procedures, and campus police Itblt??l; (WHO) 3 copy of the niversity?s student conduct code and any other document(s) that contain the University?s policies and procedures regarding student discipline; (blt?l; (bl(7(C) the names and titles of all University employees who are responsible for investigating complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault made by students; a copy of any documents or records that discuss or relate to a complaint of sexual assault ?led with the University by the Student or on behalf of the (till?{U3} Iineluding, but not limited to, correspondence, e?mails, memoranda, meeting minutes, notes, videos or voice recordings, student records, investigative ?les and reports, police reports, interview memos, transcripts, hearing transcripts or notes, discipline records, or any other documents or records that discuss or relate to the complaint, the University?s investigation of the complaint, the disposition of that complaint, and any action the University took, including interim and disciplinary measures, to address the complaint; the name and title of each individual, including campus police, involved in investigating or otherwise addressing the above-referenced complaint; Page 4 - Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon list of any meetings held with the Student to discuss the sexual assault allegations; for each such meeting, please provide: I the date the meeting was held I the purpose of the meeting I the names and titles of the individuals present for the meeting I any documentation related to the meeting, including c-mails, notes, memoranda, meeting minutes, correspondence or other related documents; a copy of any other written complaints and a detailed description of any verbal complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault made against a University student during the 2009-2010 and 2010-20] 1 school years (bii?l; (bi(7(C) for each complaint referenced in #5 above, please provide copies of any documents regarding the University?s handling of each complaint, including but not limited to, correspondence, e-mails, notes, meeting minutes, memoranda, investigative summaries, witness interviews, disciplinary records and other related documents; (bi(7(C) (bii?i; (biiTici (bili?i; (b)(7(Cl (bl(7(C) (bili?i; (bl(7(Cl Page 5 - Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. (bll?l; (bill'lC) (bll?l: (bl(7(Cl a copy of any written complaints and a description of any verbal complaints made to University of?cials, including campus police, by any student or other individual a ainst (blt5l; (bit?NC) :(bllel? (bl blease also include any documentation generated by the University in response to the complaints, including but not limited to, electronic records, notes, memos, correspondence, and e-mails; (bll?l; (b)(7(Cl a listing of the dates of any training regarding Title IX as it applies to sexual harassment, including sexual assault and violence, the University provided or offered to 1) University personnel; and 2) University students during the past three academic years, including copies of any related materials distributed at the trainings; and any additional information that the University believes will assist OCR in investigating this complaint. In addition to the information requested above, OCR may need to request other documentation and we may also need to interview persons at the University with knowledge of the facts of this case. If we determine that an on-site visit is necessary, we will contact you to schedule a mutually convenient time for the visit. Please note that this complaint may be appropriate for Early Complaint Resolution (ECR), a voluntary process similar to mediation during which an OCR staff person facilitates communication between the patties in an attempt to resolve complaint allegations. If we believe that this complaint is appropriate for ECR, we will contact you to discuss this option. Upon receipt of this letter, please notify OCR of the name, address, and telephone number of the person who will serve as the University?s contact person during the resolution of this complaint. When contacting this of?ce about the above?referenced complaint, please refer to OCR Docket 1541-2098. If you have any questions, please contact Mrs. Terri Senior Equal Opportunity Specialist, by telephone at Page 6 - Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon (216) 522-49?8 or by e-mail at or Ms. Sacara Martin, OCR Attorney, by tEIEphone at (216) 522-7640 or by e-mail at Sincerely, Wm? Meena Morey Chandra Team Leader UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS CLEVELAND OFFICE 600 SUPERIOR AVENUE EAST, SUITE 750 CLEVELAND, OHIO 441 1 4-261 1 8'1 CL: Ewan-n (2:3 .h --Jh J. Ila-31,5 (blt?l; (more) Re: OCR Docket #15-1 1-2093 De b6;bTC On June 9, 201 l, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department), Of?ce for Civil Rights (OCR) received the aboveurefercnced complaint you ?led against Michigan State University [the University), on behalf of a University student (the Student), alleging that the University discriminated against the Student on the basis of sex. Speci?cally, you allege that the University Wkly when the Student reported that she was sexually assaulte (WHO) I ition, you allege that the University failed to take appro riate action - - - idents engaged in retaliatory harassment of the Studen (him); Finally, you also allege that the University retaliated against the Student for reporting the sexual assault iblf?l: lbliTLCL I (hire); (bit? OCR is responsible for enforcing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 a! sec}, and its implementing regulation, 34 C.F.R. Part 106. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities that receive Federal ?nancial assistance. Additionally, the regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 CPR. 106.71, incorporates by reference the prohibition against retaliation contained in the regulation implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at 34 CPR. Thus, Title IX also prohibits retaliation against individuals who seek to enforce rights protected by the statute. As a recipient of Federal ?nancial assistance from the Department, the University is subject to the requirements of Title IX. Accordingly, OCR has jurisdiction over this complaint. 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 (blt'f'lC) Because OCR has determined that it has jurisdiction and that the complaint was ?led timely, it is opening this complaint for investigation. Based on the complaint allegations, we will investigate the following issues: 0 whether the University interfered with or limited the ability of a student to participate in or bene?t from the services, activities, or privileges provided by the University by effectively causing, encouraging, accepting, tolerating, or failing to correct a sexually hostile environment of which it had actual or constructive notice in violation of the Title IX implementing regulation at 34 CPR. 106.31; - whether the University has failed to adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of student complaints under Title IX in violation of the Title IX implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. and I whether the University retaliated against the Student for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured under Title IX in violation of 34 106.71. Please note that opening allegations for investigation in no way implies that OCR has made a determination with regard to their merits. During the investigation, OCR is a neutral fact??nder, collecting and analyzing relevant evidence from the complainant, the recipient, and other sources, as appropriate. OCR will ensure that its investigation is legally suf?cient and is dispositive of the allegations, in accordance with the provisions of Article of Case Processing Manual. In addition the allegations discussed above, OCR noted that your complaint contained a list of speci?c allegations against the University under Title IX. Most of these allegations relate to the University?s handling of the alleged sexual assault and will be addressed through our investigation of the legal issues listed above; however, OCR is dismissing two of those allegations for the reasons discussed below. Pursuant to operating procedures, we will dismiss a complaint allegation where the information provided, even if true, fails to state a violation of one of the laws OCR enforces, in this case, Title IX. OCR finds that the information you provided with respect to the above allegation does not state a violation of Title IX. While Title IX requires Universities to take appropriate action to address allegations of sexual assaultfharassment, including actions to stop such conduct and prevent its recurrence, Page 3 (bill'tCl Title IX does not contain a speci?c requirement that Universities publicize information regarding individual incidents of sexual assault in order to raise awareness about sexual violence. As noted above, OCR will be investigating the appropriateness of the University?s response to the alleged sexual assault at issue in your complaint. Title IX also does not govern what information is widtheld or released pursuant to therefore, OCR is dismissing this allegation effective the date of this letter. (blt?i; (blt7tcl Itbll?l; IOCR ?nds that this information does not state a violation of Title IX. Accordingly, we are dismissing this allegation effective the date of the letter. OCR works to resolve allegations of discrimination and appropriately. We will communicate with you periodically during our investigation. When contacting our of?ce about your case, please refer to OCR Docket #15-1 1-2098. Please note that your complaint may be appropriate for Early Complaint Resolution (ECR), a voluntary process similar to mediation during which an OCR staff person facilitates communication between the parties in an attempt to resolve complaint allegations. Additional information regarding the ECR process was sent with our letter acknowledging your complaint. If we believe that your complaint is appropriate for ECR, we will contact you to discuss this option. If you have any questions, please contact Mrs. Terri Senior Equal Opportunity Specialist, by telephone at (216) 522-4978 or by e?mail at or Ms. Sacara Martin, OCR Attorney, by telephone at (216) 522?7640 or by e?mail at Sacara.Martin@cd.gov. Sincerely, with We Meena Morey Chandra Team Leader UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS. REGION XV 135? EUCLID AVENUE, SUITE 325 September 1, 2015 {bits}; (WHO) Re: OCR Docket #15-11-2098 Dear (more) This is to notify you of the disposition of the above-referenced complaint that you ?led with the US. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Cleveland Of?ce, against Michigan State University (the University} on .iune 9, 201 l. The complaint alleged that the University discriminated against your daughter on the basis of sex. Speci?cally, the complaint alleged that the University failed to respond appropriately when your daughter reported that she was sexually assaulted Itblt?l; (WHO) tliblt?l; Iin addition, the complaint alleged that the University failed to take appropriate action when the Msmdents engaged in retaliatory harassment of the Student (bl(7{C) IFinally, the complaint alleged that the University retaliated against the Student for reporting the sexual assault when it Itblt?l: {more} I As a result of its investigation, OCR detennined that the University failed to adequately notify students and employees of the name or title ot?its Title IX Coordinator, and the University?s notice o-Fnondiscrirnination failed to indicate that inquiries could he referred to the University?s Title EX Coordinator or Assistant Secretary as the Title IX implementing regulation requires. Further, OCR determined that the University?s Title IX grievance procedures, in place during the time period covered by investigation, Failed to comply with the requirements ot?Title IX. In addition, taking into accoent all of the evidence gathered during the investigation, 0C R. determined that a sexually hostile environment existed for and affected numerous students and stat-"fen campus at the University during the time period covered by The ofEchiemion stiletto? is to promote student achievement and preparationfol-gimbo?t compo{fineness hyfosren'ng educational" and ensuring equal" access. Page 2 dlbli?l; (bll7lCl investigation; and that the University?s failure to address complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual violence, in a prompt and equitable manner caused and may have contributed to a continuation of this sexually hostile environment. With respect to your individual claims regarding your daughter, after a careful review of the information obtained during the investigation, OCR determined that the University failed to comply with Title in that it failed to provide a prompt and equitable response to the complaint your daughter raised as Title IX requires. OCR found insufficient evidence to conclude that your daughter 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 her complaint. Further, OCR found insuf?cient evidence to support your daughter?s claim that the University tailed to take suf?cient action after she was allegedly subjected As we previously discussed, OCR feund your claim that the University (bite): On August 28, 2015, the University signed the attached resolution agreement (Agreement), which once implemented, will address the compliance concerns OCR has identi?ed. A summary of investigation and ?ndings is presented in the enclosed letter to the University. in the letter, you are referred to as Iand your daughter is referred to as This concludes 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 determination with respect to this matter. This letter is not a formal statement policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to the public. You may 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 resolutioa process. If this happens, the harmed individual may file another complaint alleging such treatment. Under the Freedom oflnformation 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 identi?able information, which, if released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (bite); Page 2 If you have questions regarding this letter, or monitoring o't'the Agreement, please contact MS. Brenda Redmond, the OCR attorney assigned to investigate this complaint, by telephone at (216} 522?2667 or by ewmai] at Brenda?edmmd?fedaov. Sincerely, Meena Morey Chandra Director Enclosure UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, REGION REGJGN xv AVRNLI L. SUE 323 CLEVELAND. OH 44115 Ulnr.) September I, 2.015 Ms. Kristine Zayko Deputy General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Michigan State University 426 Auditorium Road, Room 494 East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Re: OCR Docket 15-11-2098 and laws-1442i 13 Dear Ms. Zayko: The US. Department of Education (the Department), Of?ce for Civil Rights (OCR), has completed its investigation into the above-referenced complaints ?led against Michigan State University [the University). OCR investigated whether the University failed to and equitably respond to complaints, reports, andr'or incidents of sexual harassment and sexual violence of which it had actual or constructive notice, including the reports ?led by the two complainants in the above-referenced complaints; and whether, as a result, students, including the complainants, were subjected to or continued to be subjected to a sexually hostile environment. OCR also examined whether the University failed to take appropriate action when one of the complainants reported being subjected to retaliatory harassment. OCR is responsible for enforcing Title ofthe Education An'iendments of 972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 arsed, and its implementing regulation, 34 GER. Part lea Title 09?. prohibits discrimination on the basis oi?scx in education programs and activities operated by recipients of Federal ?nancial assistance from the Department. Title also prohibits retaliation against any individual who seeks to make complaints or to enforce rights protected by this statute. As a recipient of Federal ?nancial assistance from the Department, the University is subject to these laws. Therefore, OCR had jurisdiction to investigate these complaints. Background The University is located in East Lansing, Michigan and during academic year 2014-2015, had approximately 50,085 students enrolled. Of these, 33,786 were undergraduates and l1,299 were graduate and professional students. The student body is 51.5 percent female and 43.5 percent male. The Department ofErt'Hcmi-uu '3 mission is to promote student (telnet-twice! bi?fbxl?eriug excellence um! 6:133?:ng cqum' acct-?ts, orig!) t' Page 2 Ms. Kristine Zaylco OCR received the first complaint (154122098) on June 9, 20} I, and it alleged that the University discriminated against a student (Student A) on the basis of sex by failing to respond appropriately when Student A reported that she was sexually assaulted. It also alleged that the University failed to take appropriate action when Student A was subjected to retaliatory harassment. Finally, it alleged that the University retaliated against Student A for'reporting the sexual assault when it engaged in activities to malign her character. The second complaint (l 5? 14?2113) was received on January 29, 2014, and it alleged that the University discriminated against a University student {Student B) and others on the basis of sex when the University failed to and equitably respond to complaints, reports and/or incidents of sexual violence of which it had actual or constructive notice, and, as a result, students, including Student 13, were subjected to a sexually hostile environment. OCR investigated these complaints by speaking with Student A?s counsel and her parents, and by interviewing Student B. OCR also inteiyiewed numerous University staff, including the Title IX Coordinator and two Title IX investigators, as well as the lawyer the University hired to conduct an independent investigation regarding Student A?s complaint. OCR reviewed signi?cant amounts of documentation, including information regarding the incidents involving Student A and Student 13; three years of the University?s sexual harassment grievance ?les; the University?s policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault; a 2014 survey the University conducted of its freshman and transfer students regarding sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual violence; and other documents related to the University?s handling ot?incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence. OCR also conducted an onsite campus visit, during which it invited various segments of the University community to participate in focus groups, including student athletes; sorority members; fraternity members; lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) groups; residence hall advisers; Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence (SARV) peer educators; members of the Sexual Assault Crisis Intervention (SACI) student organization; counselors from the University?s Sexual Assault Program; band members; and, students in the University?s Women?s Alliance. OCR offered a full day ol?walk?in of?ce hours, during which students and staff were invited to come and speak to OCR in person, con?dentially, about their experiences or concerns regarding the University?s environment with reSpeet to sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual violence. OCR received input horn additional students and employees, including survivors of sexual violence, who contacted OCR directly after its onsite visit. Finally, OCR reviewed statistics the University reported regarding incidents of sexual assaults in the campus area that were collected pursuant to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Campus Crime Statistics Act (?Clery Act?) 20 USC. Summarv of Findings OCR detennined that the University failed to adequately notify students and employees of the name or title of the Title IX Coordinator, and the University?s notice of nondisciimination failed to indicate that inquiries could be referred to the University?s Title IX Coordinator or Page 3 a Ms. Kristine Zayko Assistant Secretary as the Title IX implementing regulation requires. Further, OCR determined that the University?s Title IX grievance procedures, in place during the time period covered by investigation, failed to comply with the requirements of Title Taking into account all ot?the evidence gathered during the investigation, OCR determined that a sexually hostile environment existed for and affected numerous students and staff on campus at the University during the time period covered by investigation; and that the University?s failure to address complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual violence, in a prompt and equitable manner caused and may have contributed to a continuation of this sexually hostile environment. OCR reviewed three years of internal grievance ?les and found that there was information in many of the tiles to support that the complainants were subjected to a sexually hostile environment, and in some cases there was information to support that the University?s failure to respond appropriately might have led the complainant or others to continue to be subjected to a sexually hostile environment. However, because many of the University?s investigative ?les were incomplete, it is possible the University took additional actions that were not documented. OCR notes that the University?s failure to maintain complete grievance ?les not only impedes investigation, but also raises a concern about whether the University?s Title lX Coordinator had enough information to determine the appropriate action to take in particular cases to adequately address any harassment. Further, it" individual grievances are not adequately documented it could potentially prevent the Title 1X Coordinator from recognizing related incidents or patterns of incidents that need to be addressed. to two of the grievance tiles OCR reviewed, both of which involved complaints of sexual harassment tiled against University employees, the University?s own documentation supported that a sexually hostile environment existed but the University failed to ?nd that sexual harassment had occurred. In one of these cases, the University?s documentation supported that the University?s failure to respond adequately to initial complaints regarding an employee?s behavior, and the employee?s continued additional acts of harassment after the University failed to adequately address his behavior, led to a continuing hostile environment for a number of other employees. OCR also determined that the University failed to provide a prompt and equitable response to complaints filed by Student A and Student 13, as Title IX requires. OCR found insufficient evidence to conclude that Students A or continued to be subjected to a sexually hostile environment as a result of the University?s failure to provide them with a prompt and equitable response to their complaints. Further, OCR 'l'bund insufficient evidence to suppoit Student A?s claim that the University failed to take suf?cient action after she was allegedly subjected to retaliatory harassment by the accused students. OCR also found Student A?s claim that the University retaliated against her to he untimely. On August 28, 2015, the University provided OCR with a signed resolution agreement to resolve the OCR complaints ?led by Student A and Student and to address the other Title IX violations and compliance issues OCR identified; including issues OCR identified with respect to the University?s handling of Title IX complaints and its general climate. Page 4 Ms. Kristine Zayko Legal Authority The regulation implementing Title EX, at 34 CPR. provides that no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the bene?ts of, or be subjected to discrimination under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, or other education program or activity operated by a recipient which receives Federal ?nancial assistance. Speci?c obligations are set forth at 34 CPR. ii 106.3 1 including a recipient?s obligation to ensure that its students are not denied or limited in their ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient?s programs or activities on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX. Hostile environment sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that is sufficiently serious that it denies or limits a student?s ability to participate in or receive the bene?ts, services, or opportunities of a school?s program. 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 of a student creates a hostile enviromnent if the conduct is suf?ciently serious that it denies or limits a student?s ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient?s program. In determining whether this denial or limitation has occurred, OCR considers all relevant circumstances, including the degree to which the conduct affected one or more students" education; the type, frequency, and duration of the conduct; the identity of and relationship between the alleged harasser and the subject or subjects of the harassment; the number of individuals involved; the age and sex of the alleged harasser and the subject of the harassment, the size of the school, location of the incidents, and the context in which they occurred; other incidents at the school; and whether there were also incidents of gender-based but non-sexual harassment. A sexually hostile environment may deny or limit a student?s ability to receive the benefits, services, or opportunities of a school?s program even if there are no tangible effects, a drop in the student?s grades. The more severe the conduct, the less the need to show a repetitive series of incidents; this is particularly true if the harassment is physical. A single or isolated incident of sexual harassment may, ifsuf?ciently severe, create a hostile environment. Moreover, a. series of incidents at the school, not involving the same students, could -- taken together -- create a hostile environment, even if each by itself would not be sufficient. When responding to reported sexual harassment, a school must take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred. The specific steps in a school?s investigation will vary depending upon the nature of the allegations, the source of the complaint, the age of the student or students involved, the size and administrative structure of the school, and other factors. In all cases, however, the inquiry should be prompt, thorough and impartial. If there is a dispute about whether harassment occurred or whether conduct was welcome, in cases where it is appropriate to consider whether the conduct would be welcome, determinations should be made based on the totality of the circumstances such as: statements made by any witnesses to the alleged incident; evidence about the relative credibility of the alleged harassed 3111103 110011111 .101 11101111010 0101.11101dd0 0111 01001010111 01 11101011010 0000111110 0111 1.0 00001011000010 01111110011 01111011011111.0110 00110111111101 1111111 011 11111110 ?33 01111 3111131110111 ?000101110 11 001111010 01111.10 110 10111111 1101-101111111.1001p10 0110111000110 3111111111000 1101111111 (1101111000 11011111111111.100110 10111 1011 1.10111 12101111 010111 01 11 "01) ?13101111010 00110111110 01111.0 00110101111000.1110 00011 1130 '1121111111'011011001 011001100 0111 0.10 11110 1001100 0111 ?11 13010001010011 01:1 111110 1100 "010 ?0011111001 011111111 111 ?0000010 111 1010110100111 1101101110 0111 0111 31111010000 00 110110 00110011101 11101100 ?101111111 0110110011110 311 01111 011 11111111. 01 1.1011011110011111 001100 0 110 11101 10111100 1001100 0 011111 0110 0111; 10111111 1101111110 0111011111110 0111 110111 11101011111 0.10 00011001100101 1001111110 .1111 p011dd0 013101111010 10301 011 11? 11101110001011 1011110010 0100 000111110 11110 0103110011111 01 110110311110 10011111111111 011 :10 1001100 0 01101101 1011 00013 0011110111110 11.110111001011110 11101 511110011100 1101100101.] 0011110111110 11101110010100 11101 10011100 01 1001100 0 10;. 0101111010110 0111 1101111110000 1101111111 111 ?01111011 111 [0111111110 011 0010 ?0111 ?3011101101 1011000 0111001001110 00 110110 01101110001011 101100010 0100 11101103 '111011100010111110110 11011011110101 01 0101011001100110 1101011110111110111 1101011001001 .10 3111111100001 111 1101201013 52110111111 1001100 0111 110111111 5111111110111 c11101110001011 011.110 0100110 01.11 000110110 01.101010 111 1100001011 00111 011111 1110111110 0111 01 00011-1100 1011011113110 0111110111 01 1101111001011 0010 100111 1001100 111100001 01 111011 11101111 0110 011100111 111 1001.100 p110 01110111110 11010111 0.1110110 01 11110011111100 1001100 1011.101 0111.101 0010 11111 01010110111011 0111101. ?11.10 1011 01101111010101111101110 .10 3111111011 0131110111 01 1210011110111 1001100 01.11 ?1110111000101101111011101110 0111 1.10 30111110001) ?11011113110 111 1100001011 00.11 011111 1110111110 01110011011011 10111111101110 011010 0001111 "100001011 0111101110110 1101100 10011110100111 31111101 .10 ?105101 0111 p110 10000.1011110011000 0111 311110101100 0110101111100111101110001011 13110 01 011010 010111101011111 0100110 0111-Ep011101 01011110111110 00 ?11110 11101110001011 0111110 0011011111001 0111 1110110111 ?1110 1111101111110 01110011 ?110 010111111110 ?11101110001011 0111 13110 01 130101110100 11115101100001 1101100 011100110 01011101111111 $010101 .1111 0111101100001 01 1001100 0111 ?11101110001011 01111110010 1111101111 0111011 111110110 1111101100001 .10 1110101 1001100 0111 1:11.10 01101301110111 1110.11 111011011 10 1.11 0101110111011 01 1121111110 011110111110 0111 1111111 .10 111101) 01 0110 1.100 111111010 1.11110 011011111100 011110001011 0111 0110101110 101110110 000001011 1111011000 1110111110 0 11 01 1111011111100 01110111111111 11101110001011 101111111 111010111 01 0000010 010101100 111 0111011010 0111 000111 11010100011111 01 01110011 1120111 1001100 0111 ?1110111110 101110110 ?11 11011110000 112110111100 00001 001.1 0110 10 011 10111 0030110 1110111110 011 ?0011010111 10:1 11011030110 11101110001011010 0011011 00111100110 11111111101131 00111000111 1111101111 01101 131110110 1001100 00110111110 01100110100111011100 101110 111110 11110 :{111000 1011 11111 11101110001011 11030110 011110111 0111100111111 0111011 ?01.11 1.101.101 11.101011101111111 0101111101 1011.1 01011) 1101111000 11011 11 10110 1011111100 0111 10010111 01 1101100 101110 1100110 111101011100 11 11011.1 1110111110 1100001011 1111105110110 011110111011111110110 00110131110 01101110111 0111 10110 01100111 0111 111 1011-1011011 0111101111110 0111 111 0011110110 10001110810110 00110111110 .10 11101110111 0111 10110 11010111010101 1110111110 0111 11100 011111 01011131110111 1110.11 0111110000 000111110 00 110110 11101110111 011.1 101.10 10111011011 .10 110110001 011110111110 1100001011 11111030110 0111110 00110101110 10100111110111 101110 1011101910 0110110110110 00101 0130111 0011 1110111110 1000001011 110110110 0111 1011.1 00110111110 $010010 13000111011011.0001 13111101. 110011 001.1 1001101011 11000110 0111 10111 0011011110 1(0011011110 01110101101100 11.0 11001.10 0011010100 0111 01 101.10 101110110 0110 0111010011100 0111311110110 1111110000 0111001011 1100010 0011010101100 1100 110101110 101010111 "00110000101111000110 011.1 11110 1110111110 0.111102 0111101111 01,111 000d Page a Ms. Kristine Zayko allegations of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment or sexual violence. In order for a school?s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard. Finally, a school should take steps to step further harassment and prevent any retaliation against the person who made the complaint (or was the subject of harassment) or against those who provided information as witnesses. At a minimum, the school?s responsibilities include making sure that the harassed students know how to report any Subsequent problems, conducting follow~ up inquiries to see if there have been any new incidents or any instances of retaliation, and responding and appropriately to address continuing or new problems. The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. requires each recipient to implement speci?c and continuing steps to notify applicants for admission and employment, students, employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission and employment, and all unions and professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the educational program or activity which it operates and that it is required by Title 1X not to discriminate in such a manner. In addition, the regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 CPR. 53 requires a recipient to designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under Title IX and its implementing regulation, including the investigation of any complaint communicated to such recipient alleging its noncompliance with Title or alleging any actions which would be prohibited by Title IX. The recipient must notify all of its students and employees of the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or employees appointed. Additionally, OCR policy states that recipients should provide the electronic mail (email) address of the designated Title coordinator. Further, the regulation implementing Title at 34 C.F.R. reason, requires a recipient to adopt and publish procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any actions prohibited by Title IX and its implementing regulation. OCR has identified a number of elements in evaluating whether a recipient?s grievance procedures are prompt and equitable, including whether the procedures provide for: (I) notice of the procedure, including where complaints may be ?led, that is easily understood, easily located, and widely distributed; (2) application of the procedure to complaints alleging discrimination or harassment carried out by employees, other students, or third parties; (3) adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints, including an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence; designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major stages of the complaint process; (5) notice to the parties ofthe outcome of the complaint (both parties must be noti?ed, in writing, about the outcome of both the complaint and any appeal); and an assurance that the school will take steps to prevent recurrence of any harassment and to correct its discriminatory effects on the complainant and others, if appropriate. In addition to the factors discussed above, OCR also examines: a whether the University provides for steps to protect the complainant as necessary, including interim steps before the final Outcome of the Universityls investigation no Page 7? his. Kristine Zayko contact order; change in academic or living situations as appropriate with minimum burden on the complainant; counseling; health and mental services; escort services; academic support; the ability to retake a course or withdraw without penalty); a if the procedures state the standard for review; the procedures must state that the preponderance of the evidence standard will be used for investigating allegations of sexual harassment or violence; a whether the University has policies and procedures to protect against retaliatory harassment; a if the procedures allow the parties access to information used at a hearing; whether the procedures provide similar and timely access to both parties; a if the procedures allow the parties to have a lawyer or other representative at a hearing; whether the procedures provide an equal opportunity to both parties and apply equal restrictions to the ability of the lawyers?representatives to spealt or otherwise participate; a it the procedures allow for an appeal of the ?ndings andfor remedy; whether the procedures provide an equal opportunity to appeal for both parties; OCR will also examine whether the recipient school follows the best practices discussed below: a the procedures should include an adequate de?nition of sexual harassment; including sexual violence; with examples; a the procedures should not require the complainant to work out an issue directly with the accused; sexual assault complaints are not to be mediated even on a voluntary basis; a if the procedures include an informal process; the procedures should notify the partieslof the right to end the informal process and begin a formal process at any time; a the procedures should notify the complainant of the right to proceed with a criminal investigation and a Title complaint simultaneously; a if the procedures allow for cross-examination ot" the parties; OCR strongly discourages allowing paities to personally question or cross-examine each other during a hearing; a the University must not allow conflicts of interest (real or perceived) by those handling the procedures; a the University should inform students at regular intervals of the status of the investigation; a the procedures should include a range of potential remedies and sanctions; and Page 8 Ms. Kristine Zayko a the University should respond appropriately to any requests for con?dentiality for the comp]ainantfvietim; take steps to investigate and respond to complaints consistent with the complainant?s requests for con?dentiality, but should inform the complainant that its ability to respond may be limited in the event of such a request. Further, OCR has identi?ed the following requirements: a the University must maintain documentation of any proceedings; 9 the University must provide training for those implementing grievance procedures (Title 1X coordinator, investigator, adjudicators}. This includes training in: 0 handling of complaints of sexual harassmentfviolence a the school?s grievance procedures; and con?dentiality requirements. Regardless of whether harassment occurred, a school violates the regulation implementing Title IX it?it does not have procedures in place that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any actions prohibited by Title IX and its implementing regulation. Title IX does not require a school to adopt a policy specifically prohibiting sexual harassment or to provide separate grievance procedures for sexual harassment complaints. However, its nondiscrimination policy and grievance procedures for handling discrimination complaints must provide effective means for preventing and responding to sexual harassment. Thus, if because of the lack ofa policy or procedure specifically addressng sexual harassment, members of the School community are unaware of what kind of conduct constitutes sexual harassment or that such conduct is prohibited sex discrimination, a school?s general policy and procedures relating to sex discrimination will not be considered effective. A grievance procedure applicable to sexual harassment complaints cannot be prompt or equitable unless members ofthe school community are aware of information such as, its existence, how it works, and how to file a complaint. Distributing the procedures to administrators, or including them in the school?s administrative or policy manuai, may not by itselt?be an effective way of providing notice; as these publications are usually not widely circulated to and understood by all members of the school community. Factual Information a Title IX. Coordinator and Notice of Nondiscrimination The regulation implementing Title at 34 CFR. 106.8ta), requires a recipient to designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under Title lX. During the times relevant to investigation, the University designated the. Director of the University?s Of?ce of Inclusion and intercultural Initiatives (l3) as the University?s Title IX Coordinator. The University published her name, of?ce address, phone number and email address on its website. Information regarding the Title 1X Coordinator, Page 9 Ms. Kristine Zayko including her contact information, was also listed in the University?s Revised Sexual Harassment Policy, the University?s Student Handbook, and various employee handbooks; all of which are all online. Based on the above, OCR determined that the University complied with the regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. with respect to designating a Title IX Coordinator. The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 CFR. 106.9ta), requires each recipient to implement specific and continuing steps to notify relevant individuals that it does not discriminate on the basis ofses in the educational program or activity which it operates and that it is required by Title IX not to discriminate in such a manner. he University?s Notice of Nondiscrimination, used by the University?s 13 Office, provides that the University prohibits discrimination on a number ofbases, including sex, in its pro grams and activities. With respect to sex, it Speci?cally references Title IX and states: ?Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities and extends to employment and admission to institutions that receive Federal ?nancial assistance.? It also states that OCR is the agency charged with enforcing Title IX. The Notice of Nondiscrimination states that individuals who want additional information or assistance should contact the I3 of?ce; and lists the 13 office?s address, phone number, fax number, website address, and e?mail address. However, the notice does not provide the name or title of the Title IX Coordinator. The notice also does not state that inquiries may be referred to OCR. According to the University?s Title IX Coordinator, the University?s Notice of Nondiscrimination is posted in buiidings all over campus. She stated that it also appears on the University?s website, in its publications, and in contracts the University enters into with outside parties. In light of the foregoing, as the niversity?s Notice of Nondiscrimination does not indicate that inquiries may be referred to the Title IX Coordinator or Assistant Secretary, OCR finds that the University?s Notice ofNondiscrimination does not comply with the requirements of 34 CPR. Further, as the Notice of Nondiscrimination does not provide the name or title of the Title IX Coordinator, OCR finds that the University has not adequately notified students and employees of contact information for the Title EX Coordinator as required by 34 CPR. a Title IX igrievance Procedures The Title regulation, at 34 CPR. requires recipients to adopt and publish prompt and equitable procedures to address Title IX complaints. In the fall when Student A notified the University that she had been sexually assaulted, but declined to tile a formal complaint, the University did not have a system for addressing potential Title IX harassment incidents without a formal complaint. Moreover, the University?s procedures required that a disciplinary hearing be conducted by the student judicial body before any action could be taken against a student accused of sexual harassment. The student judiciary hearings required the complainant to testify on his or her own behalf in front of the alleged haras3er; and, required the complainant to present witnesses and other evidence to support his or her case against the alleged harasser. OCR became aware of her situation through media reports and also became aware of information suggesting that the University was not handling the matter Page 10 Ms. Kristine Zayko in accordance with Title Di. Thus, OCR provided some teclmical assistance to the University regarding its Title Di obligations, including Title [X?s requirements regarding the University?s policies and procedures, in the fall of 201 0; and the University issued revised Title IX policies and procedures in .lanuary 2011. The complaint was then ?led in .tunc of 20] 1. These are the policies which OCR reviewed during its investigation and which are discussed below.I ADP and Revised Sexual Harassment Policy The University?s Anti?Discrimination policy (ADP), which is posted online and in the University?s student handbooks, prohibits all forms of discrimination, including sex discrimination and harassment. It contains a complaint procedure for addressing such claims; but the procedure, as written, does not require the University to investigate allegations of discrimination. Instead, the complaining party is granted a hearing before the Anti- Discrimination Judicial Board 13) and is required to present evidence to prove the ADP has been violated by a preponderance of the evidence. it the ADJB ?nds that the ADP had been violated, it cannot impose discipline, but can recommend that rte nor-in disciplinary proceedings be initiated by relevant University administrators when such actions ?were known, or reasonably should have been known, to be prohibited by the policy.? The ADP contains no timcframes; no provision giving the parties an oppottunity to present witnesses and relevant evidence; no provision stating that written notice of the outcome will be provided to the parties; and, no assurance that the University will take steps to prevent recurrence of harassment and to correct its discriminatory effects on the complainants and others in response to technical assistance regarding the ADP in 2010, the University adopted Interim ADP Hearing Procedures and a Revised Sexual Harassment Policy. The Interim ADP Hearing Procedures replaced the ADJ process and the student disciplinary procedures for processing complaints of harassment carried out by students. However, all claims against employees or third parties were still covered under the regular ADP procedure. Pursuant to the Interim ADP Hearing Procedures, all complaints of harassment ?led against students are investigated under the oversight ofthe 13 office. OCR noted that the interim ADP Hearing Procedures deal with student discipline and only apply to allegations of harassment. Thus, from the wording of the interim ADP Heating Procedures, allegations of sex discrimination generally. e. different treatment based on sex, continue to be handled under the University?s existing ADP procedures, whereby the complaining party is granted a hearing before the ADJB and is required to present evidence to prove the ADP has been violated by a preponderance of the evidence. The University, however, informed OCR that the ADJB process is no longer used and informed OCR that it intended to eliminate it from its policies. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy clearly states that all complaints ol?alleged sexual harassment are investigated under the oversight of the nivcrsity?s Title IX Coordinator. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy provides that the Title 1X Coordinator may initiate an investigation without a formal complaint if the University has ?suf?cient notice" that sexual harassment may have occurred, which is a change from the University?s previous process that required a formal complaint before the University would take any action. OCR notes that the I The University adopted newly revised Title IX policies in January 2015 Page i 1 Ms. Kristine Zaylto Revised Sexual Harassment Policy only applies to complaints of sexual harassment; it does not apply to other types of sex discrimination complaints. The University?s Title IX investigator informed OCR, however, that incidents of sex discrimination are also investigated by the l3 office, using the l3 complaint processing procedure. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy provides notice to students and employees of the procedures, including where complaints may be filed, that is easily understood; however, the procedures are not easily located on the University?s website. The University informed OCR that the policies are distributed during student orientations and are available in the 13 of?ces and other appropriate locations on campus. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy states that the University will address complaints of sexual harassment involving any member of the University community as well as third parties. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy further provides that ifthe Title IX Coordinator tinds that a student has violated the policy, the Title IX Coordinator has the authority to file a complaint with the Department of Student Life to seek disciplinary- action against a student under the student disciplinary code. In those cases, the Title IX Coordinator is the complainant and the accuser is permitted to participate, or not, in the hearing at his or her own level of comfort. Under the Revised Sexual i'iarassment Policy, complaints against faculty and staff are also investigated under the oversight of the Title 1X Coordinator; but according to the University, discipline is issued by the supervisor of the reSpondent, in consultation with the t3 of?ce, human resources, and the Office of the General Counsel. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy states that sexual assaults and other crimes should he reported to the University?s police department, regardless of whether the matter is also reported and is being investigated as sexual harassment. The policy provides the contact information the University police. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy states that the investigation will be conducted in accordance with the 13 complaint processing procedures {13 Complaint Procedures). The 13 Complaint Procedures set forth designated timeframes for the major stages of the complaint process. Specifically, the procedures provide that investigations will be completed within 90 days and that the University will have an additional 30 days to issue a written investigative report and findings. OCR does not ?nd these timeframcs to be sufficiently prompt to satisfy the requirements of Title IX. The l3 procedures state that the investigation will be conducted in an impartial, fair and unbiased manner. The 13 Complaint Procedures state that both parties will be given an opportunity to provide any documentation. names of witnesses, and other information they deem relevant. The 13 Complaint Procedures state that both parties will be notified of the outcome of the investigation and will generally have an opportunity to view the report; however, the procedures do not specifically require that the parties be notified in writing of the outcome of the investigation. The 13 Complaint Procedures do not speci?cally state that investigations of sexual harassment will be conducted using a particular standard of review, e. preponderance of the evidence standard. Although the procedures provide for interim measures while the investigation is pending, changes to class or housing assignments, the i3 Complaint Procedures do not state that the University will talte steps to minimize the burden on the victim. Page Ms. Kristine Zaylto The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy states that the informal resolution of any complaint is completely voluntary; and that informal resolution, such as mediation, will not be used to resolve allegations ofscxual violence. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy provides that where an investigation results in a finding that sexual harassment has occurred, the University will talte remedial action, including where appropriate disciplinary action, to eliminate the harassment and prevent its recurrence. Additionally, the University added a provision stating that it may talte interim measures to protect the alleged victim during an investigation, such as making changes to class or housing assignments for students or work assignments for employees. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy?s de?nition of a hostile environment provides that harassment is conduct that ?unreasonably interferes with an individual?s work or performance in a course, program or activity? and as worded requires tangible effects on the victim, g, a drop in grades, to establish that harassment occurred. It makes no reference to the preponderance of the evidence standard; although according to the University the preponderance of the evidence standard is the standard that they have always used. In addition, the policy includes a footnote that the University will investigate all complaints of sexual harassment to determine if a hostile environment is present on campus even when the alleged incident occurred off campus. This seems to ignore situations where a hostile environment is created off campus at a University- Sponsored event; however, the University?s witnesses informed OCR that the University would investigate such incidents the same way it investigates on-campus incidents. he policy does not state that the parties will be given the opportunity to identify witnesses and other evidence as part of the investigi-ition, and does not require the University to provide the parties with written notice of the University?s decision on the grievance. in addition, the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy does not discuss what constitutes consent to sexual conduct for purposes of examining sexual assaults; however, the University provided OCR with a checklist for examining sexual assault that the ADP Hearing Board uses, which states that there is no consent if the agreement to sexual conduct was not reasonably understood to be mutual or the agreement to have sex was not reasonably understood to he freely given. The checklist also provides that there is no consent if the respondent knew or should have known that the accuser was unconscious because of drugs, alcohol or other contributing factors; the accuser was ?unaware? because of drugs, alcohol or other contributing factors; or the accuser was otherwise mentally or physically helpless because of drugs, alcohol or other contributing factors. The checklist also provides that there is no consent if consent was revoked and the sexual conduct continued. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy states that the review of sexual harassment complaints, including formal investigations, will be conducted confidentially to the extent permitted by law, except insofar as information needs to be disclosed so that the University may effectively investigate the matter or take corrective action. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy states that persons who complain about sexual harassment, or who cooperate in the University?s investigation and handling ot?sexual harassment reports or complaints, shall not be subject to retaliation for complaining or cooperating, even if the University finds that no sexual harassment occurred. lt provides that if a complainant or witness believes that she or he is being subjected to retaliation, she or he should contact Page l3 Ms. Kristine Zayko the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources (staff), the Associate Provosti?Associate Vice President liar Academic Human Resources (faculty and academic staff), the Vice President for Student Affairs and Services (students). or the Title IX Coordinator (faculty, staff, or students). The University uses its interim ADP hearing procedures for adjudicating student complaints of harassment within the student judicial system. Once the complaint goes to the student judicial system, which is within the Office of Student Life, the 13 office becomes the complainant. According to the University, aeeusers have the option of being a co-complainant with the University, but they typically choose not to be. Even if not a co?complainant, the accuser can still participate in any hearing. Regardless of the accuser?s involvement, he or she is permitted to write an impact statement and the board reviews it if and when they issue sanctions. Once a case gets to the studentjudicial process, an administrator invites the respondent to come in to talk about next steps. 1f the respondent accepts responsibility, the administrator makes a decision regarding sanctions. According to the University, the administrators are trained on sexuai harassment, sexual assault, and related matters. The respondent can deny responsibility and choose a hearing before an administrator or an ADP hearing board. in that case, the 13 office presents its case to the administrator {or the hearing board as applicable) at the hearing, and the burden is on the respondent to show that the 13 decision was arbitrary and capricious or had procedural problems. The point of the hearing is not to rehear the facts, but only to let the respondent challenge the [3 findings. According to the University?s Title IX investigator who handles student complaints, at the hearing itself, both parties are permitted to give an opening statement and then there is an opportunity for the administrator (or hearing board as applicable) to ask questions. Neither side can ask questions ofeach other. According to the University, the hearing board members have also been trained on the University?s sexual harassment policies and the preponderance of the evidence standard by the University?s general counsel?s office. The hearing boardtadministrator has a copy of the 13 investigative report prior to the beginning of the hearing. The respondent can submit a written statement, and may bring witnesses. The I3 office, as the complainant, can present witnesses as well. The Interim ADP procedures do not discuss whether the parties have access to information used at a hearing, nor do they discuss the right to have a representative at the hearing.? The University stated that after closing statements, the impact statement is read and the hearing board (or the administrator as applicable) deliberates and must make a decision about whether to uphold the 13 finding, and if so, it must determine the appropriate sanctions. The University stated that if the administrator or hearing board believes the respondent met the burden of proof, the administrator or hearing board would have to run any decision to overturn the 13 of?ce?s decision past the University?s general counsel?s office first. The University indicated, however, that they have not yet had a case where the administrator or hearing board believed that the respondent met his or her burden of proof. The decision of the ADP hearing board or administrator is issued to the parties in writing, but not to the accuser, unless he or she elected to be a concomplainant. According to the University?s Title lX investigator who handles student complaints, she notifies the accuser of the outcome of Page 14 Ms. Kristine Zayko the hearin via telephone, email, or both. Both parties have the right to appeal, but the accuser has no right to appeal unless he or she was a co-complainant; otherwise, the decision to appeal rests solely with the i3 office. However, the Title IX investigator stated that the i3 office always considers the accuserls preferences. The University informed OCR that there are two levels of appeal. The first level is to a Student Appeals Board and the second is to the Vice President of Student Affairs. The University stated that the University?s Of?ce of General Counsel provides training regarding Title IX to members of the Student Appeals Board and to the Vice President. The parties have five days to file an appeal with the Student Appeals Board, which then has two weeks to issue a written decision. According to the Interim ADP procedures, the grounds for appeal include that the applicable procedures were not followed, there was a con?ict of interest involving a member of the hearing board, or the information presented at the hearing does not support the decision reached by the hearing hoard or the sanction imposed. The written appeal decision goes to both parties, the respondent and the [3 of?ce {and the accuser if he or she is a co-complainant). Both parties have five days to appeal that decision to the Vice President. The grounds for appeal are that the applicable procedures were not followed, there was a conflict of interest involving a member of the Student Appeals board, or the information presented at the appellate hearing does not support the decision reached by the Student Appeals Board or the sanction imposed. According to the Interim ADP procedures, the Vice President ?normally will issue a decision in writing within two weeks.? However, the policy states that this timeframe may be extended for good cause, provided the parties are given notice of the extension and the expected date of the decision. The University informed OCR that the Vice President?s decision is final. The Title IX investigator informed OCR that it is fairly common for respondents to appeal. She stated that one of the grounds for appeal is inappropriate sanctions. She stated that sanctions are held in abeyance during appeals, but interim measures are in place throughout the appeal process. Based on review of the case files, even if a student does not appeal, any sanctions issued by an administrator or the hearing board are subject to the approval of the Vice President of Student Affairs. The Title IX Coordinator stated that complaints against faculty and staff are also investigated by the 13 office; however, once the investigative report is completed, if the 13 office finds a violation of the University?s ADP or sexual harassment policy, the matter is referred to the respondent?s supervisor, who consults with human resources, the I3 office, and the general counsel?s of?ce to determine the appropriate sanctions. According to the University, there is no hearing process and employees have no right of appeal from the 13 decision; however, unionized employees may challenge procedural errors in the way the University implements the sanctions through the union?s grievance process. In reviewing the employee tiles, however, OCR noted at least one instance where a union employee was permitted to negotiate a resolution ofa sexual harassment complaint prior to the completion of the investigation. The University informed OCR that it has two Title IX investigators to handle all of the Title IX Page 15 'Vls. Kristine Zaylto 1 complaints from students and statl Both investigators expressed that at times they have dif?culty keeping up with the caseload, as the number of complaints has increased in the last couple of years.2 After reviewing the above, OCR ?nds that the University has not provided a prompt and equitable grievance procedure for the resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any actions prohibited by Title DC and its implementing regulation as required by 34 CPR. for the reasons provided below. With respect to complaints of sex discrimination that do not involve harassment, the niversity?s ADP is the only process that, as written, would cover such complaints. The ADP is not a prompt and equitable grievance procedure pursuant to the regulation implementing Title EEK, as it does not require the University to conduct an investigation, and instead requires each individual to prove his or her own case before the ADIB. In addition, it contains no timeframes; no provision giving the parties an opportunity to present witnesses and relevant evidence; no provision stating that written notice of the outcome will be provided to the parties; and, no assurance that the University will take steps to prevent recurrence of harassment and to correct. its discriminatory effects on the complainants and others. The University has indicated that the ADP process is rarely used and that the University intends to eliminate it. Further, the University informed OCR that its current practice is for the [3 office to investigate sex discrimination claims consistent with the University?s revised sexual harassment policy and its 13 complaint procedures. However, OCR finds that the University has not provided clear notice that individuals can go to the 13 office for sex discrimination claims, as the ADP itself only references the A7013 complaint process. To be clear and effective, the itseifmust refer individuals to the [3 office, and the sexual harassment policy must be revised to clarify that it covers other allegations of sex discrimination. OCR found that the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy provides notice to students and employees ofthe procedures, including where complaints may be filed, that is easily understood; however, the procedures are not easily located on the University?s website. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy applies to complaints alleging sexual harassment carried out by employees, other students, or third parties. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy states that the investigation will be conducted in accordance with the l3 Complaint Procedures, which set forth designated timeframes for the major stages of the complaint process; however, OCR noted that the timetrame provided, 90 days to complete the investigation and an additional 30 days to issue a written investigative repert and findings, is not suf?ciently prompt to satisfy the requirements of Title IX. The 13 Complaint Procedures provide for an impartial, fair and unbiased investigation; and provide both parties an opportunity to provide any documentation, names of witnesses, and. other information they deem relevant. However, OCR noted that neither the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy nor the 13 Complaint Procedures specifically require that the parties be notified in writing of the outcome of the investigation. With respect to 2illiccording to the University's counsel. after onsite visit, the University hired one additional Title DC investigator, and is in the process of hiring more. On May 29, 2015, University counsel infonned OCR that it is developing a stand-alone of?ce, the Office Equity, which will handle all equity complaints, including sexual assault complaints. Counsel stated that the new office will have a director, two senior investigators and four investigators. Page 16 Ms. Kristine Zayko appeals, the University does not provide the victim with notice of the outcome unless he or she is a co-complainant. The Revised Sexual Harassment Policy provides that where an investigation results in a finding that sexual harassment has occurred, the University will talre remedial action, including where appropriate disciplinary action, to eliminate the harassment and prevent its recurrence. OCR finds that the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy does not satisfy the requirements of the regulation implementing Title IX at 34 ORR. Speci?cally, it does not provide reasonably prompt timeframes for completing the investigation; is not casin located on the University?s website: provides for interim measures while the investigation is pending, changes to class or housing assignments, but it does not state that the University will take steps to minimize the burden on the victim: does not provide for written notice of the outcome to both parties; and, the accuser is not given the same appeal rights as the accused, unless he or she chooses to he a co-compiainant with the University, which most do not. Further, OCR noted that the Revised Sexual Harassment policy and its related procedures do not contain many of the other elements OCR has recommended should be part of a prompt and equitable grievance procedure. Specifically, the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy does not contain an adequate definition of sexual harassment, including sexual violence, with examples. in addition, it states that the University will investigate conduct that occurred off campus, but only to evaluate whether there is a hostile environment on campus. OCR finds that the grievance procedure therefore does not cover all potential alleged violations of Title EX, as a sexually hostile environment that exists only at a University-sponsored offncarnpus event or program would still need to be addressed by the University in order to comply with Title IX. Further, while the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy states that incidents of sexual assault and other crimes should be reported to the police, even if they are being investigated by the 13 office as sexual harassment, it does not otherwise indicate that individuals have the right to pursue both a criminal complaint and a complaint with the University simultaneously. In Handling of Criminal Complaints and Law Enforcement?s Role OCR spoke with University police officials and the University?s general counsel regarding how complaints of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence that are initially filed with the University?s police department are handled. The police staff member OCR interviewed stated that when the police department receives a complaint, such as ofa sexual assault, they call in a specialized investigator who is trained to investigate allegations ofsexual assault. in such cases, they assign one investigator to gather all of the evidence and work with the complainant throughout the process. The police would transport the complainant to the heapital to have a physical exam done. There are also specially trained nurses at the hospital who conduct sexual assault examinations. He reported that the police sit down with the complainant, explain their process to him or her, and provide him or her with infonnation regarding available resources such as the sexual assault counseling offered by the University. He said that the University police also help the complainant obtain a personal protection order against the respondent if he or she wants one, offering transportation and assistance with the paperwork. Page 17 Ms. Kristine Zaylto He stated that the University police serve as the investigators for the local prosecutor?s office and that the police will arrange a meeting with the complainant and the prosecuting attorney to discuss the case. l-le said that they request that the same prosecuting attorney be used throughout the process when the case involves a sexual assault. The prosecutordetermines whether criminal charges will be pursued after reviewing the police investigation. He stated that in cases of studentuon~srudent sexual assault, the University police strongly encourage the student to contact the 13 of?ce and file a complaint with the University. However, he said that they cannot force students to do so. He stated that if the student will give the police permission. to release his or her name, the police will contact the 13 office and the Vice President of Student Affairs? office and notify them of the incident and the student?s name and other details that do not compromise the criminal case. lfthe student will not agree to release his or her name, the police will still contact the 13 office and the Vice President of Student Affairs and report that an incident occurred, when it occurred, and the location, but not the student?s name. OCR noted that the University?s case files for several cases ofalleged student-againet-student sexual assault did not indicate that the University police consistently operate as described by the police department witness. For instance, a number of the tiles contained no information to support that one trained investigator worked with the alleged victim. Further, multiple tiles contained no information to support that University police provided alleged victims with information about available resources or fully assisted complainants with personal protection orders. According to the University?s counsel, criminal complaints do not affect the University?s own investigation into incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence; except that the University might agree to wait a few days to start collecting evidence to give the police time to do their initial factsfinding. She stated that, otherwise, the University does not delay its internal investigation while a criminal investigation is ongoing. The University intormed OCR that it began providing the police, including the University police, the East Lansing police, and the Meridian 'l?ownship Police, cards to hand out to individuals reporting sexual assault with informatiOn regarding how to file a claim with the University?s Title IX Coordinator. The University provided a copy ofthe information that is handed out, and OCR confirmed that it provides inl?hnnation regarding how to file a complaint with the [3 office, and also states that the University police can contact the 13 office on the individual?s behalf, with his or her permission. It provides the phone number and website address for the i3 office. At the time of OCRE investigation, the University did not have meinoranda of understanding (MOUs) with any o'fthe local police departments. 9 Requests for Confidentiality According to officials in the University?s 13 office, the office will attempt to honor student requests for con?dentiality while investigating any complaint to the extent that it can. One of the University?s Title IX investigators con?rmed that the University tries to honor requests for confidentiality, but tells students that this may not be possible if the University needs to take action to prevent ongoing harassment. Further, the University stated that ifa student refuses to Page 18 Ms. Kristine Zayho tile a complaint or cooperate with the I3 of?ce, as sometimes happens when the report comes from a mandatory reporter and not the student, the 13 office will still investigate the incident ifit poses a safety threat to the University. However, in reviewing the University?s tiles, OCR did not ?nd this to be the University?s practice, and noted a number of cases where no investigation was conducted in situations where the complainants failed to cooperate. '3 TrainingIOutreach Communication with staff about the University?s process and its outreach The University has a web page, which contains a centralized collection ofinformation regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault; including definitions, information on reporting, links to the University?s policies, FAQs, education resources, and information regarding the Title IX Coordinator and the University police. As is discussed in more detail below, the University also has a ?No Excuse for Sexual Assault? campaign through which the University has distributed posters, t-shirts, stickers, buttons, a Title IX brochure, and other items to educate and raise awareness in the University community regarding sexual harassment, sexual assault. and sexual violence. The Title IX Coordinator stated that the University?s Title IX brochure on sexual harassment and sexual assault, which was developed as part of the No Excuse campaign, is distributed at just about every activity that happens on campus. The brochure discusses Title IX and its prohibition against sex discrimination. sexual harassment, sexual assault, and related retaliation. It also gives definitions for sexual harassment and sexual assault and provides information regarding where to report such incidents. providing contact information for the [3 office, the Title IX Coordinator, and the police. It also provides information regarding resources available to victims. The Title IX Coordinator stated that the University also talks about its obligations antler Title IX through numerous trainings on these topies that it makes available to staff. 0 Training provided for the Title IX Coordinator and anyone investigating IX complaints The University?s Title IX Coordinator stated that she had not received any recent training from the University on Title 1X, but that she keeps up to date on recent Title IX developments by reading various legal updates. She also reguiarly conducts Title IX training for the University community. At the time of investigation, the University had two Title IX investigators. Both reported attending recent conferences and trainings that covered Title IX and how to address sexual violence on college campuses. Training for faculty and staff The University provided OCR with a list of numerous trainings on sexual harassment it has provided to its faculty and staff since January 2011; however, the University acknowledged that, with certain exceptions, the training was not mandatory. The University?s Title EX Coordinator Page 19 Ms. Kristine Zaylto stated that new supervisors and administrators, anyone newly given supervisory responsibilities, are required to attend training on sexual harassment. in addition, she stated that the University provides mandatory training on sexual harassment to athletics department staff in the fall of every year; including coaches, the athletic director, trainers, administrators, and other staff. 0 Training for students The University requires students to participate in two mandatory trainings Speci?c to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence. First, all freshman and transfer students are required to watch an on?line video called which covers issues related to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence. The University tracks which students have watched the video, and sends e-inail reminders to those who have not; however, there are no further consequences for those who do not watch the video. The University also requires freshman students to attend a workshop put on by members of the University?s Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence program. While this training is mandatory, there are no consequences imposed on students who do not attend. 0 Training for special groups athletes, coaches, and residence hall advisers According to the University, student athletes are required to watch the SAFE video for two consecutive years. in addition, certain athletic teams including men?s football, men?s basketball, men?s hockey, and women?s volleyball and basketball receive additional training from one of the Title IX investigators. The training covers the University?s sexual harassment policy and investigations. This is now an annual training in the fall. The University provided. OCR with a copy of the materials it uses for this training. Based on the materials, the training also covers sexual assault, consent and incapacitation. OCR noted that during the focus groups, student athletes informed OCR that all student athletes receive ?Branded a Spartan? training, which covers how athletes should hehave so as not to tarnish the Spartan brand. In its data response, the University provided OCR a portion of a January 2014, ?Branded a Leader Student Athlete Playbook," which the University identi?ed as material used for student athlete training. The document provides ?working definitions? of rape, statutory rape, consent (involving alcohol or drugs) and sexual assault. OCR noted that there is no de?nition of consent provided, other than consent when alcohol or drugs are involved. Further, the definition of consent involving alcohol or drugs states in part that ?a male who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman when he knows she is under the in?uence ot?aleohol or drugs may be guilty of rape. The de?nition does not discuss same?sex rape, it does not discuss potential culpability for women in opposite-sex rape, it does not discuss consent with reapect to sexual assault that is not rape, and it does not provide for situations where an individual did not know but reasonably should have known that the victim was incapacitated. OCR also noted that the definition ofsexual assault states: ?If you touch someone in a sexual manner (making sexual contact) and the touching is offensive to that person you have committed sexual assault. ?Sexual contact? is any touching of the sexual or intimate parts ofa person to Page 20 Ms. Kristine Zayko arouse or to meet your sexual desire.? This de?nition seems to require that the touching he done to arouse or meet the perpetrator?s sexual desire, which is not the Title iX standard. The definition is also overbroad with respect to offense. The University informed OCR that the athletic coaches now participate in mandatory sexual harassment training in the fall of every year. The University also conducts annual sexual harassment training for people in the administrative roles in the athletic department. During these trainings, one of the University?s Title IX investigators goes over the University?s policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault, the employees? reporting obligations, how the University investigates incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault, Title [X?s prohibition against retaliation, privacy issues, and possible interim measures. During spring 201-4 onsite, the athletic director, the men?s head basketball coach, and one of the assistant coaches confirmed that they now receive annual sexual harassment training, as do the basketball players. The University informed OCR that coaches are required to report incidents of sexual assault to both the police and the 13 office. In a follow-up interview with the athletic director on February 27, 20M, he stated that the coaches know that any incidents ofsexual harassment should be reported directly to the ES of?ce; however, in follow?up interview with the men?s head basketball coach on February 27. 2014, he stated that he is required to report incidents of sexual harassment or sexual assault to the University?s athletic director, who would then send the report ?up the ladder.? He stated that the athletic director would call the 13 of?ce. He stated that he could call the 13 of?ce as well; however, he did not indicate that this was mandatory. According to the University, the residence hall staff, including resident assistants, also receive special training regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault and how to handle such incidents should they arise. This training also includes information on the University?s policies regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault. Although the University reported that it has done significant training for the residence hall assistants, OCR noted that during the residence hall focus group, the residence hall advisers who attended did not know that the 13 of?ce handled complaints of sexual harassment. OCR noted that in reviewing a sampling of the residence hall incident reports ofsexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence, only a few contained any reference to referring the victim to the 13 office. University?s proactive efforts to prevent sexual violence In the spring of2013, the University began its ?No Excuse for Sexual Assault? campaign on campus. The University stated that the purpose of the campaign is to educate the University community on the definition of sexual assault, to dcbunlr common regarding sexual assault, to provide information on how to report sexual assault, to increase University knowledge regarding the role of the Title IX Coordinator, and to otherwise raise awareness to prevent and better respond to sexual assault. As part of the No Excuse campaign, the University distributed posters with images and messages intended to dispel various regarding sexual assault. The posters contain contact Page 21 Ms. Kristine Zaylto information for the University?s sexual assault hotline and the University police. During the fall of 201 3, the University continued the campaign; handing out shirts, stickers, buttons, and brochures with the slogan at the University?s fall welcome programs, the international student resource fair, and other events, including a ?Walk a Mile in Her Shoes? event put on by the University?s lnter?'atet?nily Council in October 2013 that was designed to raise awareness regarding sexual assault and relationship violence. The University also developed a Facebook page for the No Excuse campaign. During investigation, the University indicated that it was planning a second phase of the campaign, which would focus on bystander intervention. The University also put in place ?Spartan help lines? that students can call for assistance with incidents of sexual assault, bias incidents, and other emergency situations. The University stated that staffdistributed magnets anti posters with information regarding the Spartan help lines. The University indicated that the materials have been translated into different languages such as Korean, Arabic, and Chinese. During focus groups, a number of students mentioned seeing the No Excuse campaign materials and the Spartan help line magnets. The University provided OCR with several of the No Excuse posters and a No Excuse t?shirt, and a Spartan Help line magnet. The University also provided OCR with a copy of a ?Title 1% Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault? brochure it developed as part of the No Excuse campaign. The brochure discusses Title IX and its prohibition against sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and related retaliation; gives appropriate de?nitions for sexual harassment and sexual assault; and provides infonnation regarding where to report such incidents. The brochure also provides information regarding interim measures that might be provided; con?dentiality; and, contact information for the University Counseling Center?s Sexual Assault Program (including the phone number for the program?s 24-hour crisis line), the Sparrow Hospital BANE (sexual assault nurse examiner) Program, the University?s Olin Health Center, the University?s Women?s Resource Center, and the University's Safe Place, which provides services, including emergency housing, to individuals who do not wish to return home due to sexual assault or relationshipfdomestic violence. On April 20M, the University ran a full?page color ad in the University newspaper advertising the No Excuse campaign and encouraging students to participate in Sexual Assault Awareness Month events. The ad contained a statement, signed by the University?s president, the Title IX Coordinator, and the chief of the University police, that the University is committed to addressing campus safety and sexual assault awareness. 0 Resources available to complainants and respondents The University offers various resources to students who report being subjected to sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual violence, including a 24?hour crisis line; the Sexual Assault Program described above that ofters counselors who have been specially trained on assisting those subjected to sexual harassment and sexual assault; student support groups; and access to interim measures through the 13 office such as housing and class changes and academic support to the affected student as needed. The University also provides students with regarding Safe Place. In addition, the University stated its police provide students reporting Page 22 lvls. Kristine Zayko sexual assault or sexual violence with investigators specially trained in sexual assault as well as assistance in obtaining a personal protection order, including providing free transportation to and from the court and assistance in filling out the relevant paperwork; although the case files reviewed and student focus groups did not support that these services are being provided as described, particularly with regard to providing an individual, trained police investigator for incidents. Finally, there is a student organization, Sexual Assault Crisis intervention which provides assistance and support to individuals subjected to sexual assault. A local hospital, not affiliated with the University, has nurses who have been Specially trained in examining and assisting victims of sexual assault (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner. or SANE, nurses}. All of the above resources are referenced on the University?s website. investigation revealed that students seeking counseling from the University?s Sexual Assault Program counselors have at times had to wait two to four weeks before seeing a counselor. The University acknowledged that occasionally there can be a wait to see these counselors, but asserted the students can see other counselors within the counseling center. According to University staff, the University has a list of outside counselors they can refer students to, if the student has health insurance that will cover counseling services. Students complained that at times the University did not offer assistance such as no-contaet orders and academic assistance unless the complainant specifically requested it. Others complained that the University was not good at keeping students updated regarding the status of complaint investigations. 6' Studenti'CIimate Information OCR held onsite focus groups for student athletes, sorority members, fraternity members, LGBT groups, residence hall advisers, SARV peer educators, members of the SACI student organization, counselors from the University?s Sexual Assault Program, band members, and students in the University?s Women?s Alliance. in addition to the focus groups, OCR had a full day of walk?in office hours, at which students and staff could come and speak to an OCR staff person, confidentially, about their experiences or concerns regarding the University?s environment with respect to sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual violence. In order to reach those who could not attend the focus groups or office hours, the University sent an e-mail to all students and employees providing contact information. OCR received input from additional students and employees, including survivors of sexual violence, through direct contact with OCR as a result of this outreach. in general these interviews re?ected a lack of knowledge, particularly among the students, regarding the University?s Title IX policies and procedures. That expressed lack of knowledge is consistent with the flaws identi?ed above regarding the University?s notice of its policies and procedures. Most interviewees had not heard of the 13 cities and did not know which University office handles complaints of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual violence {other than the police for criminal matters). Matty students stated that if they needed to find the University?s policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment they would look on the University?s Page 23 Ms. Kristine Zaylto website. When asked who they would report such incidents to if they heard about them, students mainly identified the police or their resident adviser; some other responses included coaches, University counselors, the Women?s Resource Center, and the Olin Health Center. The students were familiar with different campaigns that the University launched to educate students; including the No Excuse campaign, the Spartan Help Line and the separate safety campaign called ?If you see something, say something.? The few individuals OCR spoke with who had knowledge of the University?s Title 1X complaint process, or had been through it, stated that the University was slow to process complaints. The reasons for delays mentioned included: inability to get in touch with the respondent; summer break; and delays in the appeals process, especially delays by the Vice President during the appeals stage. A couple of individuals also indicated that the University police are slow to process cases and need more staff. Most of the students OCR spoke with had not experienced any incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual violence themselves; however, most of them knew someone who had been subjected to sexual harassment or assault while attending the University. The majority of the students described the campus as generally safe and mostly wellnlit. Students informed OCR that there are emergency call phones around campus for student use. Many students identi?er! the fraternities as places to avoid for purposes ofsexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence. OCR heard from one of the focus groups that a female student had reported being raped at a fraternity the week before OCR's visit. Others stated that the fraternities and contain bars in the campus area should be avoided due to reports of students being sexually assaulted after having drugs slipped into their drinks. Some students reported that the Cedar Village Apartments, which are not University apartments but are located near campus, have a reputation for sexual assaults. Many students referenced a walkway on campus near the river (the river trail) as being routinely referred to by students as the ?rape trail?; however, based on discussions with the students, none had any specific information regarding any recent attacks on the trail, and the name seems to have come from incidents that occurred many years ago (the 1970s or 1980s). Even so, a few students across focus groups stated that parts of this area are not well?lit and that students are told to avoid that area at night. A number of students stated that the University?s athletes have a reputation for engaging in sexual harassment and sexual assault and not being punished for it, because athletes are held in such high regard at the University. Based on discussions with the student athletes and University staff, the student athletes receive more training on the topics of sexual harassment and sexual assault from the University than other students; however, at least one male athlete stated that athletes may not report an incident involving a fellow athlete to the [3 office. The male athletes also referenced the ?Branded a Spartan? training the athletes receive, which covers upholding the Spartan name, and stated that making a report about sexual assault might tarnish the Spartan brand; however, they stated that their response would depend on the severity of the Situation. Students in the LGBT focus group felt that incidents involving LGBT students, particularly in the dorms, are not reported and are not taken seriously. The students gave examples of Page 24 'Vls. Kristine Zaylro harassment against LGBT students; including anti-LGBT messages written on Whiteboards in the dorms and pride flags being torn down in the dorms; however; it is unclear whether these incidents were reported to the University. The LGBT students stated that use of certain derogatory terms is widespread on campus. They also expressed concern that the University?s training regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault, in particular the SARV workshop; does not adequately cover issues concerning the LGBT community. A couple of individuals in different focus groups stated that international students are particularly at risk for incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and need training that takes into account language and cultural differences. One staff member stated that international students are very unlikely to report being subjected to sexual harassment or sexual assault. The discussions with the students and staffindieated that there are many more incidents of sexual assault occurring than are being reported. in one of the focus groups, one of the student advocates reported assisting three different students who had been subjected to sexual assault at the hospital in the previous month; but noted that none of these students reported the incidents to the University. A number of others reported specific instances where friends or acquaintances had been sexually assaulted but had not reported it to the University. When OCR asked what prevents students from reporting, the responses included: fear of the perpetrator; concerns about con?dentiality; fear that the respondent would not be held accountable because the accuser andfor the respondent were drinking; fear of getting in trouble; fear that no one would believe them; fear of being revietimixcd or blamed for the incident; fear that no action would be taken as a result; and lack of knowledge of the reporting and investigative process. OCR repeatedly heard that members of the University community reporting sexual assaults had challenging experiences with the police. OCR received a number of reports of University and local police mistreating individuals who reported sexual assaults by making a scene; being rude or unprofessional; being dismissive, blaming the accuser; or not following up on a complaint. During focus groups; resident assistants who attended recalled incidents in which they helped students report incidents of sexual assault to the police; and the police were rude or unprotiessional to the accusers. During the focus group with the sexual assault program counselors, one recalled a situation in which the University police discouraged a student ?nm tiling a report; telling her that she should not ruin someone?s life. A member of the University student group designed to assist individuals who have been sexually assaulted stated that the University?s Title IX investigator who deals with student complaints has done a good job of coordinating with advocacy groups. The individual stated that there is a Capital Area Sexual Assault Response Team which includes the University?s Title IX investigator; representatives from the East Lansing police; the University police; representatives from the local hospital; SACI, and a couple of other advocacy groups. The team meets once a month to talk about issues they have as a community and how they can improve. 0 Online Survey ofFreshman and Transfer Students In the spring of 201 4; the University conducted a survey of its freshman and students regarding sexual harassment; sexual violence. and sexual assault. Nearly 1.000 students responded to the University?s survey. The majority of students (95. 9'6} repolted that they had Page 25 Ms. Kristine Zayko not been the victim of sex sexual harassment or sexual assault by a student, employee or a third party during the 2013-2014 academic year. The majority of students also reported that they had not personally witnessed any such incidents during the same time period. A signi?cant percentage of students had discussed or heard ether students discussing incidents of sex discrimination, sexual harassment or assault that occurred on campus or at a campus or University activity during the 2013-2014 academic year. Pursuant to the survey results, most students (about 89%) reported receiving at least some information, training and education from the University regarding sex discrimination, sexual harassment or sexual assault. The majority also reported being either very familiar or somewhat familiar with the University?s policies on sexual discrimination and harassment. Of the respondents, 74.9% answered ?false? to the statement: ?Someone can still give consent for sex if they are using alcohol or drugs.? In addition, 92.3% agreed that consent for sexual conduct could be revoked at any time. The majority of students reported that they would be very likely or somewhat likely to report if they were the subject of sexual discrimination, sexual assault, or sexual harassment: however, when asked who they would report the incident to ?rst, less than 1% identi?ed the t3 of?ce. Based on the responses, students were most likely to ?rst report the incident to the University police family members or ?'iendsn'oommate Further, when students were asked who else they would report or would consider reporting the incident to, only 12.8% selected the 13 of?ce out of a list of options (when they could select as many options as they wished). Students were more likely to select the University police the University?s Sexual Assault Program family members the University?s counseling center the East Lansing Police (3 a friendi?roommatc a resident assistant Safe Place and the Olin Student Health Center Similarly, the majority of students reported that they would be very likely or somewhat likely to report an incident of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual assault they witnessed involving another University student; however, when they were asked who they would ?rst report the incident to, less than l% reported that they would report the incident to the t3 of?ce. When asked to identify who else they would report or consider reporting the incident to, only 10.6% selected the 13 of?ce out of a list of options (when they could select as many options as they wished.) When students were specifically asked it? they were aware that the 13 of?ce is a place they can go to report sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual assault, the majority said no. Only 7.4% of students were able to correctly identify the name of the University?s Title 1X Coordinator. In contrast, 71 5% of the students surveyed correctly identi?er] the University?s bead basketball coach.3 a Student A The University conducted a more comprehensive student climate survey in April 20 5: however, the results are not yet available. Page 26 Ms. Kristine Zayko Student A alleged that the University discriminated against her based on her sex during the 2010? 201 1 academic year when it failed to respond appropriately alter she reported that she was sexually assaulted by two male students in the campus dorms and when it failed to take appropriate action to address retaliatory harassment by the two male students. She also alleged that during that same year, the University retaliated against her for reporting the assault by taking actions to malign her character. OCR found that the last allegation regarding retaliation by the University was untimely filed. OCR generally will only take action with respect to complaint allegations tiled within 180 days of the last act ofalleged discrimination, unless a waiver of timeliness requirement is requested and granted. to this case, the complainants declined to request a waiver, therefore OCR did not pursue this retaliation allegation further. Student A initially reported the sexual assault to the University police, but declined to ?le a sexual harassment complaint with the University. At that time, the University did not have a system for addressing potential Title 1X harassment incidents without a formal complaint. As such, the University had not planned to take any further action with respect to this alleged incident ofsexual assault. Through media reports, OCR became aware of the alleged sexual assault incident soon after it occurred; and also became aware of information suggesting that the University was not handling the matter consistent with Title 1X. Thus, OCR offered technical assistance to the University regarding its Title IX obligations. The University then initiated an investigation of the alleged sexual assault of Student A. An OCR complaint was tiled on behalfofStudent A in June 2011. According to the Ceinplainants, the University did not respond appropriately to Student A?s report that she had been sexually assaulted. The Complainants stated that although the University moved the male students? housing to prevent contact with Student A, it moved the male students to new campus housing, which seemed to reward the male students for their hehavim. They also stated that the University?s failure to terminate the male students? housing contracts was contrary to University protocol and was a failure to appropriately respond to Student A?s report of sexual assault. University personnel told OCR that Student A first reported that she was sexually assaulted when she went to a local hospital. They stated that Student A was met at the hospital by staff from the University?s sexual assault program who gave Student A information on free counseling and advocacy services provided by the University, contact information for the campus police, and information about how to ?le a request with the University's student judicial system to have the male students? housing reassigned. Counseling center staff and a detective from the campus police helped Student A obtain a personal protection order (FPO) against the male students. University staff stated that they met with the male students the day after the sexual assault was reported, and told them to avoid social gatherings and to have no contact with Student A. Student A did not ?le a complaint with the student judicial system requesting that the male students he disciplined or have their housing moved; however, within a few days, University staff moved the male students out of their dorm room where the alleged sexual assault occurred. According to staff, Student A was not informed of the move until four days after she reported the incident. Page 27 Ms. Kristine Zaylto A few days after the report of the alleged assault, the county prosecutor?s office announced that it would not press criminal charges against the two male students. Student A subsequently met with University staff from the University?s sexual assault program and REE-IS and stated that she did not want to proceed with a judicial hearing against the male students. At that time, a judicial hearing was the only University process available for seeking disciplinary action against a student for studentuon?studcnt sexual. harassment. According to staff, Student A?s main concern was that she wouid see the male students in the residence hall where she lived. University personnel stated that they confirmed to Student A at that time that the maie students were instructed not to enter that residence hali. Court records provided by the University confirmed that Student A obtained PPOs against the two male students. The which were in effect for one fuil year, prohibited the male students from following Student appearing at the workplace or residence of Student approaching or confronting Student A in a public place or on private property; communicating with Student A by mail or telephone; or threatening or injuring Student A. The PPOs did not prohibit the male students liom: appearing within the sight ofStudcnt entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased or occupied by Student placing an object on or delivering an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by Student or purchasing or possessing a 'tireami. University officials stated that they met with the male students to ensure that they understood and followed the prohibitions contained in the PPOs. Student A and University staff advocates wanted the male students to be formally evicted from their former residence hall in writing. RBI-IS staff, however, decided that it was not necessary to pursue a contract hearing, which absent a formal complaint filed with the student judiciary by a student was the only procedure for obtaining a formal eviction of a student living in campus housing. According to REES staff, the filing ofa housing contract violation automatically triggers a student judicial hearing. in cases of sexual assault, the University?s practice had been to temporarily move students pending the outcome of such a hearing; however, in the case of the alleged sexual assault that is the subject of Student A?s complaint, no complaint with the student judiciary had been ?led and no criminal charges had been fiied. OCR obtained a list of all temporary housing reassignments that had been made in the 2010-2011 academic year, which included at least one other student accused of sexual harassment. OCR found no evidence that the male students entered Student A?s residence hall after they were moved. OCR also found that the male students were moved into the oldest of the apartment- housing options offered to students and not into the University?s new campus housing. These apartments were a significant walking distance from their classes and any cafeteria for which they had a meal plan. Multiple University staff stated that they checked in with Student A in the weeks following the alleged sexual assault and offered support, counseiing, a referrai to the University?s Safe Place, assistance in creating a safety plan, and a pian for studying and completing assignments on time. During the sprintr 2011 semester, Student A was provided assistance in requesting extra time for tests and assignments. Page 28 Ms. Kristine Zaylto On October 22, Bill 0, after receiving technical assistance from OCR regarding its Title IX policies and procedures, the University hired an outside investigator to investigate whether the alleged sexual assault of Student A constituted a violation of its sexual harassment policy, even though Student A declined to file an official grievance. The University explained that the hiring of an outside investigator was a unique occurrence, and that this measure was taltcn because the University was implementing changes to its Title EX procedures and needed to train its 13 of?ce staff to handle future investigations. The University?s Title Coordinator met with Student A in October 2010, to inform her that it would initiate an investigation into whether or not the University?s sexual harassment policy had been violated. Student A was then advised by the Title IX Coordinator that she could have an attorney or advocate present during the investigation and she could identify witnesses or evidence for consideration. She was also told that the male students would be given the same opportunity to provide witnesses and evidence. The Title IX Coordinator also told Student A that the University has a policy prohibiting retaliation and that she should contact the Title IX Coordinator with any concerns regarding retaliation. She was told that the male students would also be advised of the t-intiuretaliation policy. Student A was also told that the goal was to complete the investigation in two weeks if possible, and that her interview could he conducted if campus if she preferred. in November Bill 0, during the investigation, Student A encountered the two male students in a University building where all of the students studied. The two male students were sitting in a private tutoring room with their tutor. While the door was closed, Student A could see the male students through a glass panel in the door. Student A remained outside the male students? tutoring room for approximately 30 minutes. When the male students were ?nished with their tutoring session, they left the room and walked past her to exit the building. Student A called the police to report that the male students had violated their PPOs by not leaving the building when she entered it. Student A stated that the male students were supposed to stay 500 feet away from her, but that the police had told her that the SUtJ-foot rule has exceptions. Alter this encounter, the male students were assigned to a speci?c study area in the building that was separate from Student A?s study area and required them to use a separate entrance from the general student bodv. On November S, 2010, Student A provided the University police with a list of other times that she had seen one or both male students since the PPOs were issued. Student A?s list stated that in October 2010 one or both male students had seen her on three different occasions while walking on the street. and had walked past her rather than making any effort to stay away. She also alleged that the male students had seen her while eating in two of the University?s dining halls on four different occasions in October 2010. She alleged that the male students would see her in the dining hall, make contact with her, and then continue eating without leaving. She alleged that on one occasion, one of the male students did not leave the dining hall after seeing her but rather put his hood up and looked away; and another time one of the male students did not leave even after making numerous contacts with her. Student A also alleged that she saw the male students on three other occasions in October and November 2010; but each time she saw the male students, they did not leave the area. According to a University police official and Page 29 \rts. Kristine Zaylto other University personnci, the University police did not pursue any of these allegations because they determined that the male students had not violated the PPOs. Student A did not report any further encounters with the male students after their study area was moved in November Bill 0. The outside investigator completed his investigation in December 201 The investigator and the University?s Title IX Coordinator met with Student A on December 19, 2010, and shared with her the conclusions in the investigator?s report. The report concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that a violation ofthe University?s sexual harassment policy had. occurred, because the gathered was insut?cietit to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual conduct was unwelcome. OCR reviewed the entire investigative record generated by the independent investigator during the course of his investigation, which included his final written report; his memoranda of witness interviews he conducted; and documentary evidence he had obtained. According to the investigative tile records, the investigation included interviews of all three students who were involved in the incident, along with the male students? suitemate who was the only third?party witness present that evening. The investigator also reviewed the forensic nurse examiner report conducted in the hospital emergency room where Student A was treated on the morning after the alleged sexual assault: drawings of the dormitory room where the incident happened; statements given to the police by Student A and one of the male students; a ?oor plan of the residence hall floor where the alleged assault took. place: a written statement from Student A?s friend who Student A called on the night of the incident and who accompanied her to the hospital and the police station that night; and a copy of the county prosecutor?s public statement. The investigator?s tile also included written witness questions prepared by the investigator along with his handwritten notes from the interviews, follow?up questions he prepared for his second meeting with the students, the finalized written statements for each of the witnesses, and other records and notes showing the investigator?s deliberative process. The investigator?s notes showed, among other things, that he applied a totality of the circumstances analysis by wci ghin all of the facts he identi?ed as supporting a finding that the sexual conduct was unwelcome against all the facts he identified which negated such a ?nding, to determine which conclusion was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Also included in the investigative tile were the investigator?s notes of his review of Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance. The investigator stated that he told the students that he wanted to complete the investigation as soon as possible, but did not give them any speci?c time??ames. He said he took handwritten notes of his interviews and then met with each student to review their statements. He gave the students an opportunity to add or correct any part of their statements prior to finalizing the statements. He said he interviewed the two male students before he interviewed Student A, because it was more difficult to arrange a meeting time that suited her and her attorneys. He gave all three students and their lawyers an opportunity to name additional witnesses or provide evidence, but they did not provide any additional information. He confinned the statements in his report that in making his conclusions he considered the totality of the circumstances and used a preponderance of the evidence standard. The students were noti?ed in person of the outcome of the investigation and given an opportunity to review the final written report. Student A?s attorneys requested and were granted a copy of the written report, which was redacted to remove Page 30 u- Ms. Kristine Z-ayko personally identifying, information. According to the investigator and the Title IX Coordinator. Student A?s attorneys were provided information about pursuing the matter further through the University?s student judicial process. In the investigator?s report. be quoted OCR's Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance regarding what constitutes unwelcome sexual conduct. stating that conduct is unwelcome if the student did not request or invite it and regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive. He also set forth factors from Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance concerning making a determination about whether the preponderance of the evidence sopported a conclusion that the sexual conduct was unwelcome. He indicated that he found the three students to be credible. but that they offered diametrically opposed positions as to whether the sexual conduct that all agreed occurred had been unwelcome. He laid out the factors he believed suggested that the sexual conduct was unwelcome and also the factors he found weighed against the activity being unwelcome. Based on the totality of the evidence. the investigator concluded that he could not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct was unwelcome. According to University records. once the University?s investigation was completed. the male students were no longer con?ned to their limited study area. but they remained living at the older apartments for the remainder of the school year and they continued to refrain from entering the residence hall where Student A lived. In light ofthe foregoing. with reapect to Student A. OCR has concluded that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the University failed to respond when Student A reported that she was sexually assaulted by two male students in a campus dorm room. Speci?cally. OCR determined that the University was first notified about the alleged sexual assault within a day of its occurrence. but it took the University weeks to initiate an investigation because its Title IX procedures at the time required. as a threshold matter. that the victim file an of?cial complaint ofsexual harassment and participate in a hearing. which Student A declined to do. Alter being advised by OCR that the University was required to make a prompt. thorough. and impartial inquiry into any allegation of sexual harassment of which it has notice. the University took steps to conduct such an inquiry. retaining a neutral outside investigator to investigate this matter. The actual investigation. once it was initiated by the University. tool: approximately 56 days to complete. The investigator spoke with Student A and her attorneys at least twice during those 56 days. review ofthe outside investigator?s investigative file showed that the investigator conducted a thorough and adequate investigation by considering all of the available evidence. The investigator?s notes. and his statements to OCR. demonstrated that he relied on the totality of the circumstances and applied a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof when making his determination. As Student A never formally filed a complaint with the University. there was no evidence that the University informed Student A of any right to appeal the investigator?s findings; however. as noted above. Student A and her attorneys were notified that Student A could file her own complaint with the University through its student judicial process. OCR notes that. based on the investigator?s report. he considered certain evidence regarding welcomeness that OCR found inappropriate. Nonetheless. review of the investigator?s Page 31 lvls. Kristine Zaylto report and his supporting documentation led OCR to eonciude that the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Student A was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct that created a sexually hostile environment. Further. based on OCR's review. the University provided Student A with a resolution process comparable to OCR also found that the University toot: appropriate interim measures to protect Student A and prevent further harassment. Specifically. investigation established that the mate students were moved out of Student A?s dorm within two days of her reporting the alleged sexual assault to the University police. and they did not reenter the hall. The male students were not placed in the University?s newer and more sought?after apartments as the Complainants alleged. Rather, they were placed in older apartments that were far away from Student A and from the main campus so as to minimize encounters between the students. Moreover. these interim measures were taken as soon as the allegations of assault were made and prior to the University conducting an University personnel also assisted Student A in requesting and obtaining PPOs. and University of?cials met with the male students to ensure that: they understood and followed the prohibitions contained in the PPOs. University personnel offered temporary housing to Student A through Safe Plaeei heiped Student A develop a safety plan. and assisted her with any academic concerns. Student A reported to the police that she had seen the male students in a University building in a tutoring room and they made contact with her and did not leave: however, she did not allege any conduct by the male students that coutd be considered ongoing harassment or retaliation. Even so. once the University was notified that the students were encountering one another in this building. the University toot: immediate steps to ensure that Student A did not encounter the male students and she reported no further incidents. in light ofthe foregoing. the evidence supports a conclusion that the University tonic interim measures to protect Student A, and that the interim measures were reasonably calculated to prevent harassment from recurring. The University determined through the outside investigation that no sexuai harassment had occurred; thus, the University took no further corrective action. However, the evidence supports that the University tool: steps to ensure that Student A knew where to report any further harassment and that after the investigation eras concluded she was made aware that she might see the male students on campus. The services provided by the University?s scxuai assault program remained available to Student A, the male students continued to live in housing away from the main campus. and the PPOs against the male students remained in place through the end of the school year. Based on the foregoing. OCR determiner] that once the University initiated the investigation. it provided a thorough. impartial and equitable response to Student A's complaint; and OCR found insuf?cient evidence to conclude that Student A continued to be subjected to a hostile environment due to any failure on the part of the University to investigate the complaint. OCR found insuf?cient evidence to support Student A?s claim that the University failed to take sufficient action after she was subjected to alleged retaliatory harassment. a Student Page 32 Ms. Kristine Zayko Student alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a male student in a fi'ateniity house in the fall of 2012. She did not initially report the incident to the University. She stated that she subsequently sought assistance from the University?s Sexual Assault Program, and learned that she could file a complaint with the University?s 13 of?ce. She stated that she went to the Sexual Assault Program to seek counseling. but they informed her that they had a long wait list. She stated that she filed a complaint with the 13 of?ce in February 20l 3. OCR obtained the University?s investigative file; and based on documentation in the ?le, the l3 office learned about the alleged sexual assault involving Student through REHS in the fall of 2012, and reached out to Student in November 2012 and again in January 2013 by offering to meet with her to discuss resources available to her and a possible investigation by the University; however, at that time. Student informed the l3 office that she did not want its assistance. As noted above, Student ultimately ?led a formal complaint with the [3 office in February 2Ul 3; however, the University?s Title IX investigator did not attempt to contact the accused until over a month later when she sent him an e?mail regarding the allegation which also informed him that the University prohibits retaliation against anyone bringing a claim of sexual harassment or participating in a sexual harassment investigation. He did not respond. She attempted to contact him again twice in April 2013 via email. but he did not respond. The Title .IX investigator interviewed Student B, and permitted her to provide evidence and witnesses in support of her complaint. Student identified a friend who had been with her on the day of the alleged incident and the Title IX investigator interviewed this witness. This witness was not with Student when the alleged sexual assault occurred, but stated that she received a text from Student after the incident in which Student stated that something had had happened. OCR noted that Student visited a local hospital after the alleged sexual assault for an examination and treatment, and her medical records were part of the investigative file. Emails demonstrate that Student aslted about ?ling a complaint with the police, and the Title IX investigator her that she was free to do so, and that the 13 investigation would continue regardless of whether she filed with the police. The Title IX investigator emailed her investigative report to both Student and the accused male student in July 2013. The report found that the male student had violated the University?s sexual harassment policy. Speci?cally, the report concluded that Student gave a credible account ofthe alleged sexual assault; and because the male student had not responded to the Title IX investigator?s attempts to reach him, and there were no other witnesses, the preponderance of the evidence established that the male student had engaged in unwelcome sexual contact with Student 13 that. was suf?ciently severe that it created a hostile environment and violated the University?s sexual policy. In her emails to Student and the accused male student forwarding the report. she stated that they had one week to raise any comments or questions or to suggest modifi cations to the report. Based on documentation in the investigative file, the accused male student emailed the Title IX investigator after receiving the report. He stated that he had not responded to the earlier emails because he believed they were Spam. He stated that he remembered the day of the incident and that he wanted his account to be heard. However, the next day the accused male student emailed the Title 1X investigator again and stated that he had no comment to make regarding Page 33 Ms. Kristine Zaylto the incident, other than to state that he was not guilty. The Title IX investigator responded the same day, intiorming the accused male student that if he wanted to submit a response to the report, the Title IX investigator would consider it. The accused male student did not respond, and the investigator issued her final report in late July 2013. The matter next went before the University?s studentjudicial system and a hearing was scheduled to review the Title IX investigator?s report. The accused student was informed that at the hearing, the hearing board would review the Title IX investigator?s report and that the burden would be on the accused student to demonstrate that the Title IX investigator?s finding was arbitrary and capricious, that the finding had no basis in fact or resulted from procedural error. The accused male student was noti?ed of his right to bring witnesses to the hearing; however, as noted above, the hearing was just to review the Title IX investigator?s report, not to rehear the facts. Thus. the accused student was informed that no new information or witnesses could he presented unless he demonstrated that he was not given an opportunity to present this during the investigation. The Title IX investigator asked Student what level otiinvolven'lcnt she wanted to have at the hearing. Speci?cally, she was told that she could have no involvement, she could be a co? complainant with the University, or she could write an impact statement. Student chose to write an impact statement, but she did not otherwise participate in the hearing. Due to a lack of available hearing board members, the ADP heath did not take place until early November Elli 3. The University?s Title IX Coordinator acknowledged that the University has struggled at times to ?nd enough available trained hearing board members to hold hearings as quickly as they would like. The University?s counsel informed OCR that during the 20l3~2014 academic year, it trained alternate hearing board members to ensure suf?cient hearing board members are readily available. At the November 20l3 hearing, the accused male student argued that the Title IX investigator?s decision should be overturned because she did not consider his version of the events. However, the accused student admitted that on advice of counsel, he had declined to share his side of the story with the Title IX investigator when he was given the opportunity to do so. On November 5, 2013, the ADP hearing beard upheld the 13 of?ce?s investigation. and issued sanctions recommending that the accused student be permanently removed from the University. The Title IX investigator noti?ed Student of" the outcome via email that. day, and noti?ed her that the accused student would have ?ve days to appeal. The accused student appealed the decision to the University Student Appeals Board on or about November 10, 2013. In his written appeal, he argued that the initial emails sent to him regarding the complaint had the subject line ?Of?ce of Inclusion? and gave him no indication of the nature or severity of the matter. He stated that he receives many general entails from the University. He argued that when he received notice of the charges, he did not respond on advice from counsel, but argued that he should have an opportunity to respond in detail to the charges. He argued that the charges were false. He also argued generally that the sanctions imposed were inappropriate. According to the University, sanctions do not take effect while appeals are pending. Page 34 Ms. Kristine Zaylto Based on documentation provided by the University, the Student Appeals Board can only overturn the hearing hoard's decision where the presented does not support the decision reached by the hearing board, or the sanction the hearing hoard imposed; applicable procedures were not tbllowed; or there was a conflict of interest. The accused male student alleged that he had not been properly notified of the allegations, had not been permitted to present his case, and that the sanction imposed was inappropriate. On November 2.7, 2013, the Student Appeals Board upheld the original sanctions, finding that the accused male student was given an opportunity to provide his side of the case but chose not to. The letter further stated that the Student Appeals Board did not ?nd that the appeal was sufficient to support changing the original hearing board decision. The accused male student tiled another appeal, raising the same arguments, to the Vice President of Student Affairs on December 5, 2013. Pursuant to the Universityis procedures, the Vice President can only overturn the Student Appeals Board decision where the information presented at the appellate hearing did not support the decision reached by the Student Appeals Board or the information presented at the hearing did not support the sanction imposed, or applicable procedures were not followed or there was a conflict of interest. The Vice President ofStudent Affairs issued a final written decision to the accused student upholding the original decision and sanctions and officially implementing his dismissal from the University on January Ill, 2014, nearly a year after Student 3 ?led her original complaint. Emails in the tile demonstrate that the University kept Student 13 informed in writing regarding the status of the appeals and the outcome of those appeals. Student stated that she was satis?ed with the University?s decision on her complaint, but was not satisfied with the time it tech to fully resolve it. Student 13 told OCR that she would go her long periods of time without hearing anything about her complaint from the 13 office, and that she would have to seek updates herself; however, she also stated that the Title 1X investigator was helpful and would answer her questions. Eamails in the University?s file show that the Title IX investigator provided Student 13 with a copy of the l3 investigative report; and provided her with information regarding the hearing and appeal dates as well as the outcomes ofthose proceedings. The emails also demonstrate that. the Title IX investigator responded when Student 13 requested updates regarding the status of her case. Student 13 stated that while the investigation and appeals were ongoing, she worried that the respondent was on campus and that she might run into him at any time. However, Student acknowledged that she suffered no additional harassment from the accused student while her complaint was processed by the University. With respect to interim measures for Student 13, the Title IX investigator recalled that she offered Student services such as changes to her schedule and counseling, which Student declined. She stated that she asked Student 13 if she and the male student shared any classes or lived at the same dorm. and Student 8 reapondcd that they did not. She stated that she provided Student with contact information for the police, and emails in the file confirm that she informed Student that the 13 office would continue its investigation if she filed with the Page 35 Ms. Kristine Zayko police. Further, she stated that Student B?s friend accompanied her to meetings with the Title IX investigator to provide support, and missed a class as a result; and the Title IX investigator offered to help her get an excused absence for the class. With respect to counseling, Student 8 stated that by the time she ?led the complaint with the University she was already seeing a private counselor, but that she did receive group counseling through the University. Based on information and documentation provided by the University and Student B, the University also provided Student with certain academic assistance as an interim measure. Student stated that the University agreed to tell the respondent to stay away from her, and he did, but she had to ask for this interim measure; the University did not offer it. As noted above, she stated that she was not subjected to any additional incidents of sexual harassment during the time that her complaint was processed. Based on the information above, OCR concluded that the University did not provide Student with a prompt grievance process. Student 8 ?led her formal complaint with the University on February 2013. The University?s Title IX investigator did not attempt to contact the respondent until late March 2013. Further, the entire complaint process, including appeals, was not completed until January 2014, nearly a year after the complaint was filed. As noted above, the sanctions imposed on a student thund reSponsihle for sexual harassment do not take effect until all appeals are exhausted. Based on the documentation in the ?le, the delays were due in part to the University?s inability to get in touch with the accused male student, which according to him, was because the subject line ofthe University?s e-maiis gave him no indication that a complaint had been ?led against him. OCR con?rmed this by looking at the e-mails to the accused student in the investigative ?le. Further delays were caused by the University?s inability to put together a hearing board and by the multiple appeals ?led by the accused student. OCR ?nds that the University?s investigation, however, was thorough, impartial and equitable. Alter reviewing the Title IX investigator?s report and investigative ?le, OCR ?nds that the evidence was suf?cient to support the Title IX investigator?s ?nding. Speci?cally, the conduct described by Student 13 was unwelcome conduct ofa sexual nature that was suf?ciently severe to create a sexual] hostile environment. OCR also ?nds that the ADP hearing and the subsequent appeals. though not prompt, were impartial and eq uitablc. In summary, OCR ?nds that the University did not provide Student with a prompt grievance process regarding her Title 1X complaint; however, OCR ?nds that the investigation itself was thorough, impartial and equitable, and that the subsequent hearings and appeals were impartial and equitable. 6 Complaints of sexual harassment filed under the University?s grievance process According to the Clery Act statistics outlined in the Of?ce of Postseeondary Education?s Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool, in 2m 1, the University reported 15 forcible sexual offenses on campus, 13 of which happened in campus housing. It reporter! no off Page 36 Ms. Kristine Zaylto campus forcible sexual and one forcible sex offense on public property. In 2012, the University reported 20 forcible sex offenses, Id of which occurred in campus housing. It also reported one off campus forcible sex offense, and one forcible sex offense on public property. In 2013, the University reported 27 forcible sex offenses on campus, 23 of which occurred in campus housing. It also reported three off?campus forcible sex offenses. It reported no forcible sex offenses on public OCR reviewed the University?s gti evance files related to complaints of sexual harassment. sexual assault and sexual violence filed with the University by students and staff during the 201 l?2012. 2012?201 3 and 2013-2014 academic years. In total, OCR reviewed approximately 150 case ?les. OCR 'lbund significant concerns regarding 30 of the files and selected those files for further evaluation. After reviewing those files, OCR identified the following concerns: a In cases that went to a hearing, auditor were appealed, OCR found that complainants had to wait months, and at times close to a year, before they received a ?nal resolution of their complaint. Further, the sanctions imposed, such as a dismissal from the University, did not take effect until after all ofthe appeals were exhausted; thereby creating the potential for additional acts of harassment or retaliatory harassment during the delay. a OCR found a number of other files where the University failed to provide a prompt response, and others where OCR was unable to determine the timeframe within which the University responded due to a lack of documentation in the tile. 6 A signi?cant number of the files contained no investigative report anda?or otherwise lacked information regarding whether an investigation was completed, whether the University ever issued findings andlor the reasons for those findings. In some of these cases, the University had been notified of the identity of an individual accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault, but the tile contained no documentation to support that the University followed up on that information. a OCR noted a few instances where the University failed to talte sufficient action against an individual accused of or suspected ofengaging in sexual harassment, who was then accused ofthe behavior again. The most troubling example of this was a University counselor who allegedly sexually harassed students who sought counseling services after being sexually assaulted. The University received a complaint about this counselor, but initially took no action against the counselor until additional complaints were filed. Staff had noticed inappropriate behavior by this counselor in the past, but had not immediately reported those concerns to the 13 office. ?1 In reporting incidean that occurred on public property the University added the following caveat: ?Elite did not receive usable data from all of the Local Law Enforcement Agencies that have jurisdiction over the geographic locations for which we report. One Local Law Enforcement Agency advised that it could not separate our reportable Public Property from other areas within its patrol jurisdiction; therefore no data from that Agency is included in the above report. in the spirit of full disclosure, listed below are the statistics that it reported: 2 liot-cible sex offenses. . Page 37 l'vls. Kristine Zayko :3 Many of the files contained little or no information regarding interim measures and assistance offered or provided to the alleged victims. 6 Many of the tiles lacked documentation to support that the parties were provided the right to present evidence or witnesses. at The majority of the tiles lacked documentation to support that the parties were provided with written notice of the outcome of the investigation. a The majority of the files gave no indication that the complainants were given any opportunity to appeal the outcome or the remedies. in The majority of the tiles documentation to support whether any action was taken after any investigation had been completed to prevent recurrence of the harassment and to remedy the el"liects., ifany. on the complainants. OCR identi?ed two cases in which the University?s tiles retl not the University?s inappropriate application of the standard for sexual harassment. The first case involved an employee who reported being repeater.in subjected to sexual harassment by another employee. The 13 of?ce investigated the matter by interviewing the two employees and one of their ce-werlters. The Title investigator also reviewed emails between the two employees. The Title IX investigator concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supported that the accused employee had engaged in the conduct the reporting employee described which the investigator characterised in the report as ?consistent. unwelcome romantic pursuit.? The University concluded that the accused employee had engaged in unwelcome conduct efa sexual nature towards the reporting employee. but concluded that the conduct was not severe enough to constitute sexual harassment because it was not physical. the reporting employee was in a more powerful position than the accused employee, and the conduct only went on fora few months. This determination was made despite the report?s characterization of the accused employeeis emails to the reporting employee as ?consistent unwanted romantic pursuit which is specifier-111}? recognized as a type of sexual harassment.? The determination was also made despite the reporting employee?s statements regarding how upsetting the conduct was and how it significantly affected the reporting employee?s work; and despite the fact that the Title IX investigator found the reporting employceis account regarding how it impacted the reporting employee?s work environment to he credible. Despite this information, the Title IX investigator found no violation of the University?s sexual harassment policy. Further, based on the decumentation in the file. it was unclear whether the University took appropriate interim measures to protect the reporting employee. Based on the documentation in the tile, while the investigation was through and prompt, OCR concluded that the University?s conclusion was not supported by its investigatieiL as the information the University provided indicates that the reporting employee was subjected to a sexually hostile environment. OCR has concluded that the University should have taken additional actions to remedy the effects on the reporting employee. While the documentation is suf?cient for OCR to conclude that the reporting employee was subjected to a sexually hostile Page 38 Ms. Zaylro environment, OCR was unable to conclude whether the reporting employee continued to be subjected to a sexually hostile environment due to the lack of documentation in the tile. In the attached resolution agreement, the University has agreed to provide individual remedies to the affected employee. The University"s tiles regarding two separate complaints tiled against another employee also reflect inappropriate application of the standard for sexual harassment. This employee was accused on multiple occasions, by different employees. of making sexual comments and engaging in inappropriate touching. The first complaint file was opened around April 20 I. The complaint was made by a female employee who reported that the accused employee had made sexual comments to her and had engaged in inappropriate touching. Based on what. appears to be a draft investigative report, dated lviay 201 during the University?s investigation, three witnesses reported that while they did not see the incidents reported by the female employee, they had seen the accused employee engaging in similar behavior. Further, the report indicated that the accused employee had been accused of similar behavior on two prior occasions by other employees when he worked in two different positions at the University. Despite this, the University determined that the accused employee?s behavior did not rise to the level of sexual harassment; and concluded that his behavior was unprofessional and recommended that his conduct ?be addressed in a way that prevents any further occurrences, such as relocation. . Based on information contained in a separate 2012 complaint tile regarding the accused employee (which is discussed below) it appears that the University completed an investigation into the 120i case, but there is no final investigative report in the tile for this case or written notice of the outcome of the investigation. Another complaint -?as tiled against the same employee in April 2013, at which point he was working in a different position at the University. The complaint was filed by a fellow employee, who reported that the accused employee engaged in inappropriate touching. A second employee came forward and reported that the accused employee had engaged in similar conduct towards her. Witnesses continued observing some ofthe behavior, and one of the witnesses recalled the accused employee making sexual comments to him on two occasions. In an undated investigative report, the University concluded that the accused employee likely engaged in the alleged conduct, which while sexual and unprotcssional, did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. The investigative report did not indicate whether the University took any further action. in the investigative report, the University referenced the 2011 complaint and discussed the sanctions the respondent received for that conduct, which included a 30-day suspension; a transfer to a different position; and training on the University?s conduct policies and on prohibited harassment. OCR has insufficient information to determine if the investigation into this second complaint was prompt. It is unclear whether the University tool: appropriate interim measures to protect the complainants. There was insuf?cient documentation of the discipline or remedies the University implemented. In the most recent report from 2012, the Title IX investigator noted that the male employee did not seem to take the allegations seriously. in sum, OCR concludes the tiles strongly indicate that a number of employees were subjected to a sexually hostile environment as a result of the accused employee?s actions. Further, the University?s documentation suggests that the sexually hostile environment continued as a direct Page 39 Ms. Kristine Zaylto result of the University?s failure to adequately address his behavior. in light of this. in the attached resolution agreement. the University has agreed to provide individual remedies to the affected employees. in reviewing all of the above-referenced grievance files. OCR did not seek additional documentation nor did OCR interview any witnesses regarding these specific complaints. However. in reviewing the University?s grievance files. OCR found a number of cases where the information available supported that the complainants were subjected to a sexually hostile environment and that the University?s failure to respond appropriately might have led the complainant or others to continue to be subjected to a sexually hostile environment. One of the more troubling examples of peer on peer assault involved a case where a female student reported being raped by a male student in early 2012. While the felnale student gave an initial interview to the Title 1X investigator. she subsequently failed to respond to contacts from the 13 office. which therefore closed her case without an investigative report. Information in the file supports that the University was noti?ed of the identity of the male student and was provided with iniormatien that he had sexually harassed four other University students. However. there is no information in the file to support that the University took any action regarding this in?l?hnnation. thus potentially subjecting the initial complainant. as well as other students. to ?uther sexual harassment by the male student. As noted above. however. the University?s grievance tiles often appeared incomplete; thus. the University could have taken additional action that was not documented. Conclusion OCR determined that while the University has designated a Title IX Coordinator. it does not have an appropriate notice of nondiscrimination that complies with the requirements of 34 CPR. 106.9(a) and did not. in conjunction with the notice of nondiscrimination. appropriately notify students and employees of the identity of the Title IX Coordinator as required by 34 CFR. Further. OCR determined that during the time period relevant to the above?referenced complaints. the University did not have prompt and eduitablc Title 13: grievance procedures as required by the Title IX regulation at 34 C.F.R. OCR also determined that the University faiied to provide a prompt and equitable response to complaints of sexual harassment. sexual assault and sexual violence filed by Student A. Student 8. and other students and employees. as Title IX requires. OCR found insnf?eient evidence to conclude that Students A or continued to be subjected to a sexually hostile environment as a result of the University?s failure to provide them with a prompt and equitable response to their complaints. OCR found insuf?cient evidence to support Student A?s claim that the University failed to take sufficient action after she was allegedly subjected to retaliatory harassment by the accused students. Additionally. there was iniihrmation in many of the other grievance files that OCR reviewed to support that the complainants were subjected to a sexually hostile environment and in some cases there was information to support that the University?s failure to reSpond appropriately might have led the complainant or others to continue to be subjected to a sexually hostile environment. Further. in two of the grievance files OCR reviewed. both of which involved complaints of Page 40 Ms. Kristine Zaylto sexual harassment filed against University employees, OCR determined that the tiles reflected flawed analysis. In these cases, the University?s own documentation strongly supported that a sexually hostile environment existed. in one of these cases, the University?s documentation supported that the University?s failure to reSpond adequately to initial complaints regarding an employee's behavior, and the employee?s continued additional acts of harassment after the University failed to adequately address his behavior, led to a continuing hostile environment for a number of other employees. Taking into aceoont all ofthe evidence gathered during the investigation, OCR determined that a sexually hostile environment existed for and affected numerous students and staff on campus at the University during the time period of investigation, and that the University?s failure to address complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual violence, in a prompt and equitable manner caused and may have contributed to a continuation of this sexually hostile environment. In making this determination. OCR considered infonnation it obtained from the University?s grievance files. ln addition, OCR considered the information it obtained from the students and staff OCR spoke with as part of its onsitc visit, including focus groups and walkuins, as well as individuals who contacted OCR atter the onsite. OCR also considered the results ofa freshman and transfer student survey the University conducted on issues involving sexual harassment and sexual assault in the spring ot?2014. Since OCR opened its investigation of these two complaints, the University has taken significant action to address concerns, such as hiring more Title IX investigative staff, developing MOUs with local police and implementing a campus wide awareness campaign against sexual assault, but additional steps must be taken. OCR has included such additional remedies in the attached resolution agreement to address the compliance issues it identified with respect to Title IX. Resolution Agreement On August 28, 2015, the University provided OC with the enclosed, signed resolution agreement, which once fully implemented, will address the Title IX compliance issues OCR identified during its investigation. Under the terms of the Agreement. the University will: 6 Revise its notice of non-discrimination and publicize the revised notice. 9 Issue a public anti?harassment statement notifying all members of the University community that the University does not tolerate sexual harassment and encouraging students to report any such incidents to the Title IX Coordinator. 9 Revise, and following OCR review and approval, implement and publicize its Title IX complaint procedures and other procedures to comply with Title lX. a Train staff on the revised Title complaint procedures to ensure the University community understands the University?s obligations under Title IX and how to properly conduct and document future Title IX investigations. 6 Provide mandatory training to its students regarding the role and duties of the 13 office and the Title Oi coordinator; what constitutes sex discrimination, sexual harassment and Page 41 Ms. Kristine Zayko sexual assault and how to report such incidents; the University?s definition of consent for sexual conduct: the University?s prohibition against sexual harassment; the University?s revised Title EX policies and procedures; consequences for violating the niversity?s Title IX policies; and resources available to students. a Review and revise any and all training materials used to train student athletes with respect to matters involving sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault Branded a Spartan materials), and to ensure that these provide a correct de?nition of consent; strongly encourage the reporting of incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual violence; and otherwise comply with the University's revised Title IX policies and procedures. a Develop a memorandum of understanding with the University police, and revise the memoranda of understanding, with the East Lansing police and other local law enforcement agencies that outlines how they will coordinate with the University to ensure such complaints are properly addressed and to ensure that alleged victims are adequately info rm ed of their rights. a Provide training to the University police on how to interview and interact with alleged victims in a manner that is sensitive and respectful. a Assess its Title investigative staff and counseling sta'l'fto determine whether the University has adequate stall? to adequately process Title IX complaints in a timely manner and provide counseling services. 9 Create a committee {Sexual Violence Advisory Committee or comprised of representatives from faculty, staff, the undergraduate and graduate student bodies and appropriate administrative offices that will meet at least twice a semester to identity strategies for: (at) ensuring that students understand their rights under Title IX and how to report possible violations of Title IX and the prevention of sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual violence incidents, including outreach and educational activities. 9 Conduct a series of student and employee climate cheeks over the next three academic years to assess the etioctivencss ofsteps taken pursuant to this Resolution Agreement, or otherwise by the University, to provide a campus free of sex discrimination and harassment; in particular sexual assaults and sexual violence 6 Develop a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the University?s overall anti? harassrnent efforts. 6 Examine past grievance files and evaluate, using procedures revised pursuant to this agreement, whether it properly handled those grievances and whether any additional action or remedies are warranted. 6 Further, pursuant to the agreement the University has invited the complainants in two of the grievance files OCR reviewed to meet with the University to discuss possible remedies, as OCR found the University applied Title [X?s legal standards improperly when determining that these complainants were not subjected to a sexually hostile environment. a Contact Student A and Student and notify them of the changes to the University?s Title IX policies and offer them remedies to address any been incurred as a result of the University?s delay in processing their complaints. 6 Evaluate the safety of certain areas of campus, including the area surrounding the River Walk trail to ensure the areas have sufficient lighting and emergency phones. Page 42 Ms. Kristine Zayko OCR will monitor the University?s implementation ot'the resolution agreement. lt'the tails to implement the agreement. OCR may initiate t-tdministrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to ent?oree the speci?c terms or obligations ofthe agreement. Before initiating administrative (34 C.F.R. 100.9. 100.10) orjudicial proceedings to enforce the Agreement. OCR shall give the University written notice otithe alleged breach and sixty (60) calendar days to cure the alleged breach. This letter 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 determination with respect to these cases. 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 complainants may have the right to tile a private suit in federal court whether or not OCR ?nds a violation. Please be advised that the University may not harass. coerce. intimidate. or diserin?tinate against any individual because he or she has filed a complaint or participated in the complaint resolution process. Hi this happens. the complainants may lile another complaint alleging such treatment. Under the Freedom of ll'tformation Act. it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. [a the event that OCR receives such a request. we will seek to protect. to the extent provided by law. personally identi?able information. which. if released. could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion ol'personal privacy. Should you have any questions. please contact OCR attorney Brenda Redmond at (216} 522?266? or at Brenda.redmond'rr'edgov. Sincerely. A 777W Meena Morey Chandr Director linclosure Resolution Agreement Michigan State University OCR Docket Numbers 15-11-2098 and 15-14-2113 Michigan State University (the University) has entered into the following agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Of?ce for Civil Rights (OCR), to resolve the above-referenced complaints and to ensure the University?s compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq, and its implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 106. This resolution has been entered into voluntarily by the University and does not constitute an admission by the University that it has failed to comply with Title IX or its implementing regulations. During the course ofthe investigation, OCR recognizes that the University has engaged in ongoing and proactive efforts to enhance the effectiveness of its policies and procedures, assess and expand the scope of its resources, and expand its educational and programing initiatives, including: developing new and more comprehensive Title IX policies and procedures, creating a University task force on sexual assault and relationship violence, implementing a campus-wide ?No Excuses" awareness campaign regarding sexual assault, sexual violence and relationship violence, hiring additional Title IX investigative staff, imposing new Title IX training requirements for faculty and staff, signing memoranda of understanding with all surrounding local enforcement agencies, Creating a special victims unit within the University?s police department to handle incidents of sexual assault and sexual violence, issuing a campus-wide survey to assess the University?s climate with respect to sexual assault and sexual violence, issuing statements in the University newspaper and through emails notifying the University community of the University?s commitment to addressing incidents of sexual assault and sexual violence, and creating a new University of?ce (Of?ce of Institutional Equity), that once in place will investigate all claims of harassment and discrimination on campus. In addition to the steps the University has already taken, the University agrees to the following to ensure that it will and equitably respond to all incidents of sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence of which the University has notice (including incidents that the UniVersity knew or reasonably should have known about); take prompt and effective steps to end the sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence, eliminate any hostile environment; prevent its reoccurrence; and, as appropriate, remedy its effects on the complainant and others. The term ?complainant? used throughout this Agreement refers to an individual who is the subject of alleged sex discrimination, regardless of how the report comes to the attention of the University, or someone who has made a report of sex discrimination to the University. A. Public Anti-Ha Statement No later than September 15, 2015, the University President will issue a statement to the University community, including University students, employees, and third parties associated Page 2 MSU Resolution Agreement a OCR Docket #slS-l 1?2093 and 15-14-2113 with the University, which will be widely published, including in the University?s newspaper and on the University?s website, stating that University policy prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault, and violence. The statement will encourage any student, employee or third party who believes he or she has been subjected to sex discrimination to report the incident(s) to the University, and note the University?s commitment to conducting a prompt and equitable investigation and immediately and appropriately addressing any violation of the University?s policies. The statement will inform University community members of how to report allegations of sex discrimination, including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence; will explain the role of the Of?ce of Institutional Equity (the 0113 of?ce) and the Title 1X Coordinator; will provide contact information for the office and the Title 1X Coordinator; and will discuss the interim measures and protections against retaliation and harassment available to individuals reporting such incidents The statement will inform University community members of the University?s responsibility to take prompt and effective steps to end the sexual and gender?based harassment, assault and violence; eliminate the hostile environment; prevent its recurrence; and, as appropriate, remedy its effects. The statement will encourage students and staff to work together to prevent acts of sex discrimination of any kind; and will highlight resources available to individuals who have been subjected to sex discrimination, including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence. The statement will explain that the University will complete investigations in a prompt and equitable manner; and that, after the completion of the investigation, students and employees found to have engaged in acts of sex discrimination, including sexual and genderubasod harassment, assault, and violence, will be disciplined. The statement will make clear that such discipline may include, if circumstances warrant, suspension, expulsion or termination. Reporting Requirement: By October 1, 2015, the University will submit to OCR documentation demonstrating that the anti-harassment statement has been widely published; including copies of the University?s newspaper and relevant pages of its website where the statement appeared. B. Notice of Nondiscrimination By September 15, 2015, the University will amend its notice of nondiscrimination to ensure that it meets the requirements of the regulation implementing Title IX, including listing the name, title and contact information (including phone number, office address and e-mail) for its Title IX Coordinator; and states that inquiries concerning the application of Title IX may be referred to the Title IX Coordinator or to OCR. The University will broadly publish its revised notice of nondiscrimination, including on the University?s website, and in its promotional materials, student and employee handbooks, application forms and its other published materials in accordance with 34 CPR. Reporting Requirements: By September 15, 2015, the University will provide to OCR for review and approval a copy of its amended notice of nondiscrimination. Within 30 days of approval of the notice of nondiscrimination, the University will provide to OCR a list of the titles of the publications in which the notice of nondiscrimination appears g. University catalog, website, student handbook) and a Page 3 a MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket #siS-l 142098 and 15-14?2113 copy of at least one publication disseminated to the campus community, or printouts or a link to an on-line publication containing the notice. C. Title IX Policies and Grievance Procedures OCR recognizes that the University adopted a comprehensive Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy in January 2015. OCR also recognizes that the University is currently engaged in revising the 2015 grievance procedures and other procedures designed to address complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault, and violence), including its Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy, its Anti-Discrimination Policy Policy Student Conduct Hearing Board Procedures, and its Office of Institutional Equity Complaint Procedures Complaint Procedures) so that such procedures and any related materials are internally consistent, provide for the prompt and equitable resolution ot'complaints by students, employees and third parties alleging all forms of sex discrimination (including sexual and gender- based harassment, assault, and violence) against students, employees and third parties, and otherwise fully comply with Title IX and its implementing regulation at 34 OER. Some of the provisions below are already included in one or more of the University?s policy and procedure documents; with regard to such provisions, the University will retain them in the documents that currently exist and will revise all related policies and procedures and other materials to ensure that these are consistent. The revised policies, procedures, and related documents will include, at a minimum: 1. notice that the procedures apply to complaints alleging all forms of sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence) against employees, students, and third parties; 2. notice of the procedure and how to tile a complaint that is easily understood, easily located and widely distributed; such notice must include the contact information (name or title, of?ce address, email address and telephone number) for the individual with whom complaints may be ?led; 3. the name, title and contact information (phone number, office address and email address) for the Title IX Coordinator and notice regarding the role and duties of the Title 1X Coordinator and the 01E of?ce in the processing of complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence; 4. provisions for the prompt, adequate, reliable and impartial investigation of complaints, including the opportunity for the parties to present witnesses and other evidence and to have similar and timely access to information being considered in the grievance process; 5. designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major stages of the grievance process, including provisions for extensions of time, that apply equally to the parties; Page 4 10. 11. l2. l3. 14. MSU Resolution Agreement OCR Docket #s 1 5-1 1-2098 and 15?14?21 13 written notice of the outcome of the complaint, and any appeals, to all parties, including the reapondent, the alleged victim and, if different, the complainant; an assurance that the University will take prompt and effective steps to end the sexual or gender~hased harassment, assault and sexual or violence; eliminate any hostile environment; prevent its recurrence; and remedy the discriminatory effects on the victirn and others as appropriate; where the procedures allow the parties to have a lawyer or other representative at a meeting or proceeding, a statement that both parties will have an equal opportunity to have lawyersfrepresentatives present and that any restrictions on the lawyersfrepresentatives? ability to speak or otherwise participate will be applied equally to both parties; notice of the opportunity for both parties to appeal the ?ndings, if the procedures allow appeals; and for both parties to participate equally in the appeal process, even if the party has not herself or himself filed an appeal; appropriate definitions and examples of what types of actions may constitute sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence), including a clear and consistent definition of what does and does not constitute consent to sexual conduct; a statement clarifying that the University?s policy and procedures for addressing complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence, apply to all University programs and activities; including those conducted off-campus and in the University?s professional1 and graduate schools; an explicit statement that where relevant, if the off'ucampus misconduct did not occur in the context of a University program or activity, the University will consider the effects of off~campus conduct when evaluating whether there is a hostile environment on campus or in an off-campus education program or activity; a statement that all employees, other than non-professional counselors or ad vo catesz and those employees legally regarded as con?dential resources, are expected to report sexual and genderwbased harassment, assault and violence that they observe or learn about; a provision eXplaining that the complainant has the right to decline to participate in an investigation, appear in a proceeding with the respondent present, or otherwise confront the reapondent during the grievance process, including during any hearings or appeals; The Michigan State University College ofLaw is an independent entity, with separate policies and processes. 2 As described in the April 29, 2014, OCR Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence. Page 22. MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket #sl 5-1 1-2098 and 15-14-21 13 . provisions prohibiting the parties from personally cross-ex amining each other during the grievance process, including during any hearings or appeals; a statement that the University has an obligation to take steps to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred and then to take appropriate steps to resolve the complaint when it knows or reasonably should know about possible discrimination (from any source); regardless of whether the complainant declines to participate in the process. it will also contain a statement that the University will seek to balance a complainant?s request for anonymity or not to participate in an investigation with its broader obligation to campus safety; and that the University will respond to complaints reports, or information about incidents ofsex discrimination to stop prohibited sex discrimination, eliminate any hostile environment, take steps to prevent the recurrence of the sex discrimination, and address any effects on campus or in the context of any University programs and activities regardless of location; provisions ensuring that the parties, including the complainant and the respondent, are afforded regular updates regarding the status of the investigation; If the policy permits the University to act as the complainant for purposes of hearings and appeals, a provision ensuring that the actual complainant is permitted to provide input into whether the University appeals a decision under the grievance process; provisions clarifying that any informal resolution process set ferth in the procedures will only be used if the parties voluntarily agree to do so; that the complainant will not be required to resolve the problem directly with the respondent; and a statement that there will be instances when the informal resolution process is inappropriate mediation is prohibited in cases of sexual assault, and in cases involving a student complaining of sexual harassment against an employee in a position of authority over the student); and that both parties must be noti?ed of the right to end the informal process at any time and begin the formal stage of the complaint process; a statement that the preponderance of the evidence standard will be used for investigating alleged sex discrimination, including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence complaints and making ?ndings related to the allegations; . a procedure for and effectively notifying both complainants and respondents of the initiation of an investigation; the potential policy violation(s) at issue; the right to participate in the investigation; the timeframe for responding; and that the investigation may proceed without the participation of either party; a provision notifying complainants that they may pursue a complaint with the University and the police simultaneously; that the University may need to briefly Page 6 H- MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket flsl??l l?2098 and 15 ?143113 23. 24. 25. suspend the fact-finding aspect of a Title IX investigation at the request of law enforcement while the law enforcement agency is in the process of gathering evidence; that the University will maintain regular contact with law enforcement to determine when it may begin its investigation; that the University will resume its investigation as soon as noti?ed by the law enforcement agency that it has completed the evidence gathering process, or sooner if the University determines that the evidence gathering process will be or delayed; and that the University will not delay its investigation until the ultimate outcome of the criminal investigation; a provision indicating that the University will implement appropriate interim measures during any law enforcement agency?s investigative period when the University has temporarily deferred its investigation, to assist and protect the safety of the and the campus community and to prevent retaliation; a statement that the University will notify complainants, in writing, that interim measures are available during the University's investigation, and during any student conduct process, including appeals, to protect and support the complainant (such as no contact orders, changes in class schedules, counseling, other mental health services, academic assistance, the ability to retake or withdraw from courses without penalty, etc.); where and how to request such interim measures; that the University will take steps to ensure that appropriate interim measures are taken or provided; and that the University will take steps to ensure, where possible and as supported by the available information, that such interim measures minimize the burden on the complainant; with respect to con?dentiality of the parties: a. an assurance that the complaint and investigation will be kept con?dential to the extent possible; is. a statement that if the complainant asks that his or her name not be disclosed to the respondent or that no investigation he pursued, it may limit the scope of the University?s response; c. a statement that Title 1X prohibits retaliation, and that the University will take steps to prevent retaliation and will take strong responsive actions if retaliation occurs; a statement that if the complainant continues to ask that his or her name not be disclosed, the University will take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the request as long as doing so does not prevent the University from responding effectively to the harassment and preventing the harassment of others; e. a statement that the University will evaluate any confidentiality request in the context of its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory Page 7 MSU Resolution Agreement OCR Docket its 1 5-1 b20933 and 15-14-21 13 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. environment for all members of the University community; and a statement that the factors that the University may consider in this regard include the seriousness of the alleged harassment, the age of the individual harassed, whether there have been other complaints or reports of harassment against the alleged harasser, and the rights of the accused individual to receive information about the accuser and the allegations if a formal proceeding with sanctions may result; an assurance that the University will not allow conflicts of interest (real or reasonably perceived) by those investigating or adjudicating complaints; a statement that possible disciplinary sanctions that might result from a ?nding of sexual harassment, sexual assault or sexual violence may include suspension, expulsion or termination; and a statement of the types of remedies that the University can provide to complainants and others as a result of sexual and gender-based harassment, assault or violence; a statement that retaliation and retaliatory harassment is prohibited against any individual who files a sex discrimination complaint with the University or participates in a complaint investigation in any way; and a clear explanation of how retaliation or retaliatory harassment can be reported to the University; a statement that any complaints filed against students in any specialized programs medical school or graduate programs) will be handled through the 0113 of?ce, not through the dean or administrative heads of those programs; and a statement that in cases where sexual or gender?based harassment, assault, or sexual or violence is found to have occurred, the University will determine appropriate, enforceable sanctions reasonably calculated to stop the harassment and prevent its recurrence; and the University will not negotiate a settlement with the employee or student for lesser actions that would not be reasonably calculated to end the sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence; eliminate the hostile environment; prevent its recurrence; and remedy the discriminatory effects on the complainant and others as appropriate. Reporting Requirements: a. By October 31 2015, the University will provide for review a draft of the revised procedures and any additional policies or informational documents that address complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault, and violence). OCR will review these grievance procedures and related materials in order to ensure that these comply with Title IX and this Agreement. b. Within 45 calendar days of confirmation that the revised policies and procedures, and any related materials used by the University, conform with Title Page 3 MSU Resolution Agreement OCR Docket #515-1 1-2093 and 13-14411 13 IX and this Agreement, the Title lX Coordinator will certify to OCR that the University has formally adopted the revised documents; updated all printed publications and on-line publications with the revised documents (inserts may be used pending reprinting of these publications); and electronically disseminated the revised grievance procedures to students and employees._ This documentation will include evidence of the electronic dissemination of the revised grievance procedures to students and employees, a list of the titles of the publications in which the information appears (cg. college catalog, website, student handbook) as well as a copy of any such publications or a link to an on- line publication containing the revised grievance procedures; or if not yet ?nalized, a copy of the insert for printed publications. The University will also provide documentation of how the revised procedures were distributed; and that University police, the Title 1X Coordinator, 01E staff, students, employee union leaders and other appropriate University community members have access to the procedures and know where copies may be obtained. By June 30, 2016, and the same date in 201? and 2018, the University will submit to OCR copies of all grievances tiIed with the University during the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2013 academic years, respectively, that allege sexual or genderubased harassment, assault or violence. Pursuant to this requirement, the University will provide to OCR, for review and approval, documentation related to the investigation of each complaint; such as witness interviews, investigator notes, evidence submitted by the parties, investigative reports and summaries, documentation regarding interim measures provided or offered, any final disposition letters, hearing records, disciplinary records, documentation regarding any appeals, and documentation regarding additional steps taken to stop harassment found to have occurred, prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects on complainants and others as appropriate. I). Documenting Complaints By October 3 1, 2015, the University will develop and submit to OCR for its review a procedure to document each incident or complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex (including sexual or gender-based harassment, assault and sexual violence) received by the University, whether formal or informal, written or verbal, which will require, at a mini-mum: documentation describing the incident or complaint; a record of when and how the incident or complaint was brought to the attention of the University; documentation regarding any investigation conducted by the University, including: witnesses interviewed, documents reviewed, transcripts, recordings and other information considered, Advocate reports, University police reports, etc., related to the investigation; documentation of information reviewed by the adjudicator; Page 9 MSU Resolution Agreement OCR Docket #siS-l 1?2093 and 15-14-2113 - documentation describing the University?s disposition of the complaint, which includes the date of the disposition, the basis for the disposition and a description of any personal sanctions imposed, systemic remedies applied andfor University action taken; - documentation of the dates that the University updated the parties regarding the status of the investigation; documentation that the University provided the parties written copies of any decisions, including any appeals, regarding the complaint, even in cases where the University serves as the complainant for proceedings; - documentation regarding any contacts with law enihrcement regarding each incident or complaint, and any actions taken by law enforcement, if known to the University; documentation of any interim measures offered to the complainant pending the University?s investigation; documentation of any interim measures used by the complainant during the investigative process; and documentation that the complainant was provided with notice of the University resources available and that the University took steps to ensure that these were provided, University police, Safe Place, no contact orders, academic support, counseling, etc); - any other relevant of?cial University records related to the case; - documentation of any remedies provided to individuals found to have been subjected to sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence); and - where sexual or gender-based harassment, assault or violence is found to have occurred, documentation that the University followed up with the co1np1ainant{s) to ensure the harassment has not recurred, and that the discriminatory effects of the harassment have been remedied. Reporting Requirements: a. By October 31, 2015, the University will submit the above-referenced procedure to OCR for its review and approval. b. Within 45 days of approval of the procedure, the University will adopt the procedure as part of its Title DE complaint processing procedures, distribute copies of the procedure, and provide training on the procedure to its Title IX Coordinator and its OIE staff. c. Within 90 days of approval of the procedure, the University will provide OCR with information or documentation con?rming that the procedure has been distributed, the Title EX Coordinator and OIE staff have received training Page 10 MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket #slS-l 1-2098 and 15u14~21 13 on the procedure, and the procedure is being used in the University?s processing of Title IX complaints. E. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) The University has secured and shared with OCR written MOU with the East Lansing Police Department and ?ve other local law enforcement agencies that are likely to receive reports of sexual or gender-based harassment, assault or violence involving members of the University community. The University will revise the as necessary, to provide that members of the University community reporting an incident of sexual or gender?based harassment, assault or violence to the police will be noti?ed that they may pursue a criminal action with the police and a sexual harassment complaint through the University at the same time regarding the same incident andlhat where feasible and applicable, law enforcement will assist the University in obtaining relevant evidence that could be determinative of outcomes in sexual or gender- based harassment, assault and sexual violence cases. The University will also revise the MOUs as necessary to clearly outline how the University and the police will coordinate in such cases, with clear policies on when the University will refer a matter to local law enforcement. The University af?rms that it will periodically review the terms of the MOU and engage in open dialogue with the other law enforcement agencies to improve communication and coordination and address the protocols and procedures for referring allegations of sexual assault and sexual violence, sharing information, and conducting contemporaneous investigations. Additionally, by October 31, 2015, the University will develop a written protocol between the University police and the University?s Title IX Coordinator that outlines how the parties will notify each other when either receives a complaint of sexual or gender-based harassment, assault or violence and to what extent they will coordinate efforts on behalf of the University to and equitably respond; and how they will document those efforts, including all investigatory steps taken. The written protocol with the University police will specify that when the police department receives a complaint of sexual or gender? based assault or violence they will respond with a specialized investigator who is trained to investigate allegations of sexual or gender-based assault or violence; assign one investigator to gather all of the evidence and work with the complainant throughout the process; help the complainant obtain a personal protection order against the respondent if he or she wants one; and provide transportation to obtain the personal protection order and assistance with the paperwork if needed. Reporting Requirements: By October 31, 2015, the University will provide OCR with a copy of its revised MOU with local police departments and the written protocol between the University Police and the University?s Title DC Coordinator. By December 1, 2015, and the same date in 2016 and 201?, the University will submit to OCR documentation verifying that the MOUs are being followed. 3 The University will make its best efforts to obtain concurrence from outside law enforcement agencies to revise the existing MOU when necessary. Page 11 MSU Resolution Agreement OCR Docket #slS?l 1-2098 and 15-14-2113 F. Individuals Receiving Complaints to Notify Complainants of Options and Coordination with Law Enforcement Agencies A complainant may currently report complaints of sexual or gender-based harassment, assault or violence at any time of day. During general business hours the Title IX Coordinator andi?or dcsignees are available to assist complainants, and at all other times University police are available. University Police are a 24 hour-a-day, seven days-awash operation and officers are equipped to receive reports at any time. The University also asserts that information explaining the options available for pursuing a complaint and identifying support resources available on and off-campus is provided to complainants during their intake meeting with the University. By October 31, 2015, the University?s policies and procedures will codify these existing practices and require that upon receipt of a sex discrimination complaint or report by the OIE Of?ce the MSU Police Department or any REHS of?cial, the receiving individual will provide the complainant a written notice describing the available options, including pursuing, or declining to pursue, a criminal complaint with a law enforcement agency, pursuing the University?s investigation and disciplinary process, or pursuing both options at the same time; and the potential implications of pursuing both options (if. a, possible temporary suspension of the fact-?nding aSpect of the University?s investigation while the law enforcement agency is in the process of gathering evidence). The MSU Police Department andfor the OLE will document which option(s) the complainant wishes to pursue at that time, and inform the complainant that he or she may revisit that determination at any time. Reports to REES of?cials shall be communicated to the 0113 of?ce, which will document which option the complainant wishes to pursue. The document will also contain a list of the resources and possible interim measures available for individuals who have been subjected to an incident of sexual or gender?based harassment assault or violence. Reporting Requirements: By October 31, 2015, the University will provide a copy of the written notice developed consistent with Action Item above; and will indicate where the University?s procedures have been updated to codify the practice ot'providin such notice, as well as information regarding how the University intends to document and maintain documentation regarding what option(s) a complainant decides to pursue. G. Title IX Training for University Staff: 1. Title IX Coordinator and Title IX investigators, University Police, Members of the Judicial Hearing Board, Members of the Appeals Board, Vice President of Student Affairs, Athletic Coaches and Staff, Residence Education and Housing Services Staff {including Resident Assistants), and Others Within 45 calendar days of approval of the Title Di policies and procedures revised under Action Item above, the University will begin providing a1muai, mandatory Title iX training to its Title 1X Coordinator, Title IX investigators, members of the ADP hearing board, members of the Student Appeals board, the Vice President of Student Affairs, Residence Education and Housing Services Staff, including resident assistants, University police, and any Page 12 MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket #slS-l 1?2093 and 15-14-2113 other relevant individuals involved in the process. The training, at a minimum, will cover: the University?s revised policies and grievance procedures; the role and duties of the 01E of?ce and the Title Coordinator; how to recognize and appropriately address incidents and complaints under Title lX, including where and with whom to report such incidents; how to identify sex discrimination, sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence; the University?s responsibilities under Title IX to address such allegations; con?dentiality requirements; and information on the relevant resources available to victims. The training for Title IX Coordinators, Title IX investigators and the police will also include instruction on how to conduct and document adequate, reliable, and impartial Title IX investigations, including an emphasis on the complainant?s right to pursue the University?s process and the law enforcement process at the same time, as well as a reminder of the policy prohibiting retaliation and intimidation. It will also include instruction by a quali?ed individual regarding the impacts of trauma due to sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence, and on how to interview and interact with complainants in a way that is trauma-informed, sensitive and respectful. The training will include a de?nition of consent for sexual conduct used by the University. The training will also inform attendees what to do to respond to additional incidents of alleged sexual harassment and retaliatory harassment that the University receives notice of during an investigation. The University will invite members of the East Lansing Police Department and other law enforcement agencies within a 20?mile radius of the University to observe the portion ofthe training covering how to interview and interact with victims; however, OCR understands that the University has no authority to require these outside law enforcement agencies to attend the training. During the training, the University will provide copies of its revised nondiscrimination notice and Title DC grievance procedures to all attendees, or refer them to their location within the publications they already possess er on the University?s website. 2. Other Faculty and Staff Within 45 calendar days of approval of the Title IX policies and procedures revised under Action item above, and hi-annually afterwards, the University will provide, in person or online, mandatory training to all University faculty and staff regarding recognizing and reporting incidents of sexual and gender?based harassment, assault and violence. This includes any staff in the University's graduate and professional programs, including but not limited to its medical and other professional schools. The training, at a minimum, will cover: the role and duties of the 0113 of?ce and the Title Di Coordinator; how to identify sex discrimination, sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence; the University's revised Title Di policies and grievance procedures; how to appropriately address incidents and complaints under Title IX, including where and to whom to repo1t such incidents; the University?s responsibilities under Title IX to address such allegations; the role and duties of the DIE of?ce; relevant resources available to victims; and the issues of con?dentiality and retaliation. During the training, the University will provide copies of its nondiscrimination notice and Title IX grievance procedures to all attendees, or refer them to their location within the publications they already possess or on the University?s website. The University will provide each new employee with the aboveureferenced training within 30 days of his or her start date. Page 13 MSU Resolution Agreement OCR Docket #slS-l l~2093 and 15-14-21 13 Reporting Requirements: Within 45 calendar days of approval of the Title IX policies and procedures revised under Action Item above, the University will provide documentation to OCR demonstrating that training was provided by the University in accordance with Action item above. The documentation will include, at a minimum, the name(s) and credentials of the trainer(s); the date(s) and time(s) of the training(s); a description ofeach training; the type of audience; sign-in sheets for each session with the names and titles of those attending; and copies of any training materials distributed. The University will also provide documentation that it invited members of the East Lansing Police Department and other local police departments to the portion of the training that deals with interviewing and interacting with victims. By one 30, 2016, the University will provide documentation to OCR regarding any such training provided during the 2015-2016 academic year, including any training provided to new employees, and again by June 30, 2017, for the 2016?2012 academic year. H. Staffing/Resources By November 1, 2015, May I, 2016, and November], 2016, the University will conduct an assessment to determine whether it has sufficient staff to investigate and address Title IX complaints in a timely manner. The University will add staff as needed, such as Title IX investigators, police offi cers, board members, adjudicators, appellate authorities, administrative staff, and others as needed to avoid delays in the investigative and appeals process. By November I, 2015, May 1, 2016, and November 1, 2016, the University will assess the staffing levels in its sexual assault counseling program and add appropriately trained staff as needed to ensure that specialized counseling services are readily available to individuals who need them. Reporting Requirements: By November 1, 201 5, May 1, 2016, and November 1, 2016, the University will provide documentation to OCR demonstrating its completion of the assessments referenced above. The University will also provide information to OCR regarding its staf?ng levels for each of the categories listed above; and a list of individuals who were hired in reaponse to each assessment, including each person?s name, title, and the University of?ce he or she works for. 1. Student Information Sessions The University provides a mandatory online training (SAFE) on topics related to sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence to its new freshman, transfer, and graduate students. The University also provides a mandatory workshOp (SARV) on sexual assault and relationship violence to all first~year and transfer students. By September 15, 2015, the University will make annual SAFE training mandatory for all undergraduate and graduate students. The SAFE training will be revised, as necessary, to include information regarding the role and duties of the 01E office and the Title IX Coordinator; the University?s revised es and procedures (once they have been approved by how to recognize incidents of sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and vi olenee); the correlation between alcohol and other drug use and Page 14 MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket #slS-l 1-2098 and 15-14-21 13 sexual assault; what does and does not constitute consent to sexual conduct; how and where to report incidents of sex discrimination, including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence; the consequences for violating the University?s policy against sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence); and resources available to students who have been subjected to sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence). The SAFE training will also address concerns specific to Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (LGBT) students and international students. To ensure that students comply with this requirement, the University will develop consequences for not viewing the training, students will be unable to register for classes until they have participated in the training.) By November 30, 2015, the University will offer a series of in?person information sessions to students to make them aware of the University?s prohibition against sex discrimination (including sexual and gendersbased harassment, assault and violence}; how to recognize such sex discrimination when it occurs; and how and with whom to report any incidents of sex discrimination {including sexual and gender?based harassment, assault and violence). This should include information regarding the role and duties of the OLE of?ce and the Title Def Coordinator. In addition, the sessions will cover the University?s revised grievance procedures for Title IX complaints (once approved by OCR), as well as a general overview of Title Hi, the rights it centers on students, the resources available to students who believe that they have been victims of sexual or gender?based harassment, assault and violence, and the existence of OCR and its authority to enforce Title 1X. The sessions will speci?cally address the connection between abuse of alcohol or other drug use and sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence, and what does and does not constitute consent to sexual conduct; and will inform students about the availability of resources, including University provided counseling, academic assistance, no?contact orders, etc., to individuals who have been victims of sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence). These sessions may be provided as part of the existing annual student orientation for new and returning students, and existing annual residence orientation for students residing in University housing. Reporting Requirements: By December 15,2015, the University will provide documentation to OCR demonstrating its compliance with Action Item I above, including a copy of the revised SAFE training; information or documentation demonstrating that annual SAFE training is mandatory for all students; and documentation regarding the consequences put in place for students who do not complete the training. The University will also provide documentation demonstrating that it held the information sessions referenced in Action Item 1, including a list of dates and times when the sessions were held; the names, titles, and qualifications of the individuals who presented at the infonnational sessions; and copies of any materials that were used or distributed at each informational session. J. Student Athlete Training Materials By October 31, 2015, the University will review and revise, as necessary, any and all training materials used to train student athletes with respect to matters involving sexual and gender? Page 15 - MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket #slS-l 1-2098 and 15-14-2113 based harassment, assault and violence Branded a Spartan materials, MVP materials and other materials) to ensure that these provide a de?nition of consent for sexual conduct that is not inconsistent with the University?s policies and procedures; strongly encourage the reporting of incidents of sexual and gender?based harassment, assault and violence; encourage reporting of all incidents; and otherwise comply with the University?s revised Title IX policies and procedures. Reporting Requirement: By October 31, 2015, the University will provide to OCR a copy of the revised training materials used to train student athletes with reapect to matters involving sex discrimination, including sexual and gender?based harassment, assault and violence revised pursuant to Action Item . K. Sexual Violence Advisory Committee By October 15, 2015, the University will create a committee (Sexual Violence Advisory Committee or comprised of representatives from the undergraduate and graduate student bodies, faculty, staff and appropriate administrative of?ces. The University will invite a wide cross section of the University community so that the membership re?ects a diverse and representative set of student and employee groups. The SVAC will meet at least twice a semester during the regular academic year to identify strategies for ensuring that students understand their rights under Title IX, and how to report possible violations of Title IX, including complaints of sexual and gender- based harassment, assault and violence. Additionally, the SVAC will identify strategies for the prevention of sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence incidents, including outreach and educational activities, and will hold at least one public meeting each academic year to identify student concerns and to determine where and when harassment on the basis of sex has occurred, even if not reported to the University. Recommended strategies should also address the unique needs of LGBT and international students. ?nalized recommendations will be made to the Title IX Coordinator annually, who will work with the University to review and implement the recommendations as appropriate. Reporting Requirements: By December 30, 2015, the University will provide OCR with documentation that the SVAC has been formed in accordance with Action Item K, including a list of names and titles of the members of the committee; the dates of any meetings; copies of any meeting minutes; a copy of the committee?s reeonunended actions; and a detailed description of any strategies the committee developed to prevent incidents of sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence, including any outreach or educational activities implemented. Documentation also should include a copy of any written recommendations, or a narrative summary of any verbal reeo mmendations, received from the students during the public meeting referenced in Action Item K. By June 30, 2016, and June 30, 2017, the University will provide documentation to OCR regarding the 2015-2016 academic year, and the 2016?2017 academic year, respectively. Page 16 MSU Resolution Agreement a OCR Docket #slS-l 1-2093 and 15-14-21 13 L. Climate Cheeks By November 30, 2015, and again during the 2016-201? and 2017?20] 8 academic years, the University will conduct (with the support and assistance of SVAC referenced in Action Item above) periodic assessments of the University climate to assess the effectiveness of steps taken pursuant to this Agreement, or otherwise by the University, to provide for a campus free of sex discrimination and harassment, in particular sexual assaults and sexual violence. The purpose of the climate checks is to, at a minimum, access students? and employees? knowledge about what constitutes sex discrimination (including sexual and gender?based harassment, assault and violence); to gather information regarding their personal or observed experiences with sex discrimination while attending or working at the University; to assess their view of the current climate at the University regarding these issues and any potentially problematic areas on campus dormitories, athletic facilities); to assess their knowledge and understanding of the University?s Title IX policies and procedures and to whom to report incidents of sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence); and to obtain their suggestions for steps the University could take to effectively address these issues. A climate check can be conducted in many ways, including but not limited to, a survey distributed in~person or online, or a poll conducted in-person or online. In addition, the campus may organize an open forum information session for students and employees; and designated, publicized walk-in hours for campus community input. If the University opts to use a survey or poll, the University will submit the survey or poll to OCR for review and approval prior to its distribution. Any process used must be designed to include an assessment of the experiences of LGBT and international students, as well as students from the University?s graduate and professional schools. The University will use information gathered during these climate checks to inform future proactive steps taken by the University to provide for a safe educational and employment environment and compliance with Title IX. Tire University will share information gathered and recommendations with the Title IX Coordinator. Rep ort-ing Requirements: By December 3t], 2015, the University will provide documentation to OCR demonstrating implementation of Action Item L, including a description of how, when, and by whom the climate check(s) were completed; copies of any student and employee written reaponses to surveys or narrative summaries of verbal responses; summaries of other relevant information obtained; and documentation demonstrating the actions that the University plans to take in response to the information gathered during the climate checks. By December 30, 2016, and December 30, 2017, the University will provide OCR with the same documentation regarding assessments conducted and any responsive actions talten during the 2016- 2017 academic year, and the 20137-2018 academic year, respectively. M. Title IX Coordinator: Monitoring Program By December 30, 2015, the Title IX Coordinator will develop a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the University?s overall anti-harassment efforts. In developing the monitoring program, the University will take into consideration the recommendations and suggestions made by the SVAC created pursuant to Action Item K. and the information gathered during the 20 15 climate check described in Action Item L. At a minimum, the Title 1X Coordinator or a qualified dcsignee will annually: review all formal and informal Page 17 MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket #31 5-1 1~2093 and 1544-2113 complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence) received; review all information collected during the climate checks; consult with the compile, evaluate, and analyze data collected, including a disaggregated assessment of whether the reported incidents of harassment have increased or decreased in number and severity and whether there are any particular locations, of?ces, or programs at the University where a sexually hostile climate might exist; and propose recommendations for improvement of the University?s anti-harassment efforts and timelines for implementation of the recommendations. Reporting Requirements: By December 30, 2015, the University will provide documentation to OCR ot'a proposed monitoring program. By June 30, 2016, and June 30, 2017, the University will provide documentation to OCR demonstrating that the Title IX Coordinator completed the annual reviews. This documentation will include information about the complaints received, the type of complaints (sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc.), any trends or patterns identi?ed, a summary of information received from SVAC and during climate checks, and any actions taken in response to the trends or patterns identi?ed. N. Sororities and Fraternities By December 30, 2015, the University will begin providing annual training to the membership of all sororities or fraternities that are registered student organizations. The University will mandate that maintaining status as a registered student organization is contingent on the organization?s membership completing the training. The'University will also offer the training to fraternities and sororities that are not registered student organizations and strongly encourage participation by their members. This training at a minimum will cover: what constitutes sex discrimination, including sexual and genderubased harassment, assault and violence; what does and does not constitute consent to sexual conduct; the correlation between alcohol and drug use and sexual and gender?based harassment, assault and violence; the impact of sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence on victims; the University?s Title IX policies and procedures, including how and where to ?le a complaint of sexual or gender-based harassment, assault or violence; the consequences of engaging in sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence pursuant to the University policies and procedures; and information about bystander intervention. Reporting Requirements: By April 1, 2016, the University will provide documentation to OCR demonstrating that it has implemented Action Item above, including the date(s) the training was provided; the quali?cations of the individua1{s] who provided the training, the material-s used or distributed during the training; measures the University took to make the training mandatory; and a sign?in sheet for the individuals who attended the training, along with the name of his or her sorority or fraternity. The University will provide the same documentation to OCR regarding any such trainings held during the 2016?2017 academic year by June 30, 2017. Page 13 MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket #s15-1 1?2093 and 15-14-21 13 O. Complaint Review By December 3 1, 2015, in accordance with its revised grievance procedures, the University will review the complaints and reports of sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence) involving a student perpetrator made from academic year 2010-2011 through 2014-2015, and all complaints involving an employee perpetrator made from academic year 2010~201 1 through 2014~2015, plus any individual files OCR identi?es, to determine whether the University investigated each complaint or report and equitably, including but not limited to assessing whether: I- the investigation and any appeals were handled at appropriate Title IX de?nitions and legal standards were applied, including but not limited to the preponderance of the evidence standard; I appropriate interim relief was provided to protect the complainant from additional harassment or retaliation during the pendency of the investigation and to provide other support as needed, counseling and academic adjustments; - both parties were given the right to provide evidence and identify witnesses; a both parties were given written notice of the outcome (includin any appeals); 0 equal appeal rights were given to the complainant and the accused; and appropriate steps were taken to prevent the recurrence of sex discrimination (including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence) against the complainant and other members of the University community, and to address any hostile environment created by the sex discrimination, including in cases where the complainant refused to cooperate but the University had suf?cient information to investigate possible sex discrimination and prevent its reoccurrence. The University will take appropriate action to address any problems it identifies regarding how these complaints were handled, including providing appropriate remedies that may still be available for the complainants in these cases, such as counseling or reimbursement for counseling; academic assistance or adjustments; tuition or housing reimbursements; or other appropriate relief. The University will also take steps to determine if any sexual or gender-based harassment may be ongoing as a result of the University?s failure to properly address any of these complaints, and will take appropriate measures to address the sexual or gender-based harassment appropriately. The University is not expected to reinvestigate or rehear matters that have been processed through the University?s studentjudicial system. Reporting Requirements: 3.. By January 15, 2016, the University will submit to OCR for review and approval the results of its review conducted pursuant to Action Item 0, speci?cally identifying any sex discrimination complaints or reports that were Page 19 MSU Resolution Agreement OCR Docket #515-11?2098 and 15-14~2113 not handled and equitably; all supporting materials relating to the University?s review; and the University?s planned action(s) to address any problems identified in the review. 13. Within 45 days of approval, the University will provide OCR with documentation that it has taiten appropriate action to address any problems identi?ed in its review. Individual Remedies for Students A and By September 15, 2015, the University will make efforts to locate the current address or email address for Student A and Student 13; and offer, in writing, to have the Title IX Coordinator meet individually with Student A and Student in person, via telephone, through correspondence, or through other means preferred by Student A and Student regarding the University?s handling of the investigation into their complaint allegations, if Student A and Student are comfortable doing so. The letters to Student A and Student will acknowledge the University?s delay in processing their complaints, and will provide them with a written notice of the outcome regarding their complaints, including steps taken by the University and the resultslof any appeals. The letter will explain that the University is revising its Title IX policies and procedures to ensure that complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual and gender-based harassment, assault and violence are timely processed, that complainants are kept informed of the status of the investigation and any appeals, and that complainants found to have been sexually harassed are timely provided with remedies such as no contact orders, housing changes, academic assistance, and counseling to ensure their needs are addressed and to prevent further harassment. In addition, the letter will offer to provide Student A and Student B, at the University?s expense, with counseling, academic support, reimbursement fer classes, the ability to retake classes without penalty, and other remedies, as appropriate, to address any emotional, academic, or other issues they faced as a result of the University?s delay in processing their complaint allegations. Reporting Requirements: By September 15, 2015, the University will provide documentation to OCR demonstrating its implementation of Action Item P, including copies of the letters issued to each student. By October 31, 2015, the University will submit to OCR copies of any responses received to the letters issued pursuant to Action Item P, and documentation of any actions it took as a result. Q. Individual Remedies for Other Grievants 1. Grievance File #1 In response to concerns regarding the University?s handling of Grievance File on July 24, 2015, the University issued a letter to Employee 1 who tiled a report of sexual harassment. The correspondence explained that the University is revising its Title IX policies and procedures to ensure that complaints of sex discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault are timely and appropriately processed, and that complainants found to have been sexually harassed are timely provided with remedies such as no contact orders, academic or employment Page 20 MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket #slS-l 1-2098 and 15-14w2113 assistance, and counseling to ensure their needs are addressed and to prevent further harassment. In addition, the letter invited the individual to contact the University?s Title IX Coordinator to discuss any emotional, employment or other issues the individual faced as a result of the University?s processing of the individual?s complaint. The letter stated that part of the discussion would include whether the University could provide the individual, at the University?s expense, with an appropriate remedy, such as counseling or reimbursement for counseling. 2. Grievance File #2 In response to concerns regarding the University?s handling of Grievance File in July 201 S, the University attempted to locate the current mailing or e- mail addresses for individuals who reported sexual harassment from 2006 through the present by Employee 2. On July 24, 2015, the University issued letters to four of these individuals. The letter stated that the University is revising its Title IX policies and procedures to ensure that complaints of sex discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault are timely and appropriately processed, and that complainants found to have been sexually harassed are timely provided with remedies such as no contact orders, academic or employment assistance, and counseling to ensure their needs are addressed and to prevent further harassment. In addition, the letter invited each individual to contact the University?s Title IX Coordinator to discuss any emotional issues, employment issues (and for those who had been students, academic issues) or other issues each individual faced as a result of the University?s processing of their complaints. The letter stated that part of the discussion would include whether the University could provide the individual, at the University?s expense, with an appropriate remedy, such as counseling or reimbursement for counseling, and for students, academic assistance the ability to retake courses) The University is in the process of attempting to locate other individuals who reported sexual harassment by Employee 2. Reporting Requirements: By August 30, 2015, the University will provide documentation to OCR demonstrating its implementation of Action Item above, including copies of the letters issued to each individual referenced in grievance ?les #1 and other than those previously provided to OCR. By October 30, 2015, the University will submit to OCR copies of any responses it received to the letters issued pursuant to Action Item Q, and documentation of any actions it took as a result. R. Campus Safety By September 15, 2015, the University will evaluate the University's River Trail area to determine if this area has adequate lighting and emergency phones. The University will install additional lighting and emergency phones as needed. Reporting Requirement: By November 15, 2015, the University will provide information or documentation to OCR demonstrating that it has completed the steps referenced in Action Step R, including a list of the areas where lighting "$4.271: Page 21 MSU Resolution Agreement - OCR Docket 5-1 14098 and 15-14?21 13 andior emergency phones were installed, or an explanation as to why the University determined additional lighting and emergency phones were not required. 1 NERA I FNT has any objections to the documents, recommendations or other items required to be submitted for review and approval by OCR under this Agreement, OCR will notify the University of its objections alter receiving the draft documents. The University understands that will not close the monitoring of this Agreement until OCR determines that the University has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with the regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. 106.3, 106.9, and 106.31, which were at issue in this case. The University understands that by signing this Agreement, it agrees to provide data and other information in a timely manner in accordance with the reporting requirements of this Agreement. Further, the University understands that during the monitoring of this Agreement, if necessary, OCR may visit the University, interview staff and students, and request such additional reports or data as are necessary for OCR to determine whether the University has ful?lled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with regulation implementing Title 1X, at 34 C.F.R. 106.3, 106.9, and 106.31, which were at issue in this case. The University understands and acknowledges that OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to enforce the speci?c terms and obligations of this Agreement. Before initiating administrative enforcement (34 GER. 100.9, 100.10), or judicial proceedings to enforce this Agreement, OCR will give the University written notice of the alleged breach and sixty (60) calendar days to cure the alleged breach. Lu, 4 Km 59;. let. is? President or Designee Date Michigan State Universi 1-.1. - - .- - -.-