Online Complaint Database Administration 0 i i i RECEIVED ff ce f0 VII U-s- Department at Education JAN 2 4 2014 Discrimination Complaint Form Details ?m??'?'C?V?m9hls San Francisco omce 1. Enter inf0rmation about yourself. First Name: Last Name: Address: City: State: Zip Code: Best Time to Call You: Pnrrary Phone Number: Alternative Phone Number: Your Errail Address: 2. Who else can we call if we cannot reach you? Contact's Name: Daytime Phone Nun?ber: Relationship to you: Father 3. Who was discriminated against? Myself If someone other than yourself please include: Injured Person's Narre: Daytime Phone Number: Evening Phone Number: Relationship to You (eg. son 0r daughter) Injured Person's Address: City: State: Zip Code: 4. What institution discriminated? Institution Name: Sarruel Merritt University Address: 3100 Telegraph Ave City: Oakland State: CA Zip Code: 94609 School or department I involved: 5. Have you tried to resolve the complaint through the institution's grievance process, due process hearing, or with another agency? Yes Agency Nan?e: San?uel Merritt University HR Date Filed: 12 013 vance unresolved. The Title IX c00rdinator, X61090) 6): as involved(who wrote the decision I am Current status of the grieving) in the grievance process a way that rrakes it impossible complaint: to for her to render an impartial verdict. Additionally she has demonstrated prejudice and engaged in "witch hunting", expanding her review beyond the original complaint without cause. 6. Describe the discrimination On what basis were you discriminated against? sex; retaliation; Description of each discriminatory action: On 122013, the Asst VP of Student Servrces, found n?e in violation of the sexual violence and misconduct policy of the university without evidence. When asked, he stated his seculations had been the basis of his ruling. On 12013, I grieved his decision and on 014, filed an appeal outlining the flaws in his ruling in addition to numerous procedural errors in vi la i the university's policy and my rights under Title IX. The Executive HR Director, Iaix?la?X-I) who is the Title IX coordinator for the university has involved in the appeal process in such a way that it is impossible for her to render an impartial vericton IS case. Additionally, review of the matter expanded drastically beyond the original complaint and ruling in a way that can only be descnbed as "witch hunting". I believe the harassment I have received from the universit administration has been the result of a complaint which I filed against a faculty rremberwho care to class in an altered state and behaved I inappropriately - a exual abuse of n?inors. Do you have written inforn'ation that you think will help us understand your complaint? Yes 7. When did the last act of discrimination occur? Enter the date: 01/15/2014 Are you requesting a waiver of the 180-day filing time limit for discrimination that occurred more than 180 days before the filing of this complaint? No Reason for not filing cerrplaint before 180 days. Reason: 8. What would you like the institution to do as a remit of your complaint? I wish to have any and all rrention of wrongdoing rerroved from my academic record, in addition to compensatory damages f0r the disturbance of my acaderric performance and delay in career progress due to the mishandling of this matter. Bagk ?9 Vigw Page Department of Education's. Olfice for CNN Rights home page Lee, Helen From: Sent To: Subject: Attachments: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:53 AM Documents regarding complaint against Samuel Merritt University Withdrawal Letterpdf; NewAppealDocument.docx; acebook Facebook Group Photo.jpg (bx? uling Letterpdf; SMU Title IX Policy.pdf; Grievancepdf Attached are additional documents relevant to the complaint I have filed against Samuel Merritt University regarding a mishandled sexual harassment investigation. I will hand deliver a signed consent form to your office this afternoon. Summary of attachments: NewAppealDocument.docx - Fully described grievance against the actions of the university up to January 3rd, 2014 7 MC) Ruling Letter. ev1dence, December SMU Title IX Policy.paI - Relevant excerpt from SMU catalog governing Title IX complaints. Grievancepdf - request for review submitted to Executive HR director/Title IX coordinator on Dec Withdrawal Letter.pdf - letter to the registrar of SMU withdrawing from the university stating reason 0 profound emotional distress due to harassment by the administration of the university, delivered January 2014 (13 I .Facebook - Evidence referenced in NewAppealDocument.docx IF acebook Evidence referenced in NewAppealDocument.docx Group Photo.jpg - Evidence referenced in NewAppealDocument.docx adf - Finding of wrongdoing and placement of me on disciplinary probation without 2013 2013 (6H Cb) To: Of?ce of the Registrar, Samuel Merritt University Effective Jan 014, I, (?6?me ?nding myself unable to effectively continue my studies due to reasons cescribed below, anc in order to best protect my academic and financial position, withdraw from enrollment at Samuel Merritt University. I take this action unwillingly. The ongoing improper sexual harassment investigation (which has substantively deviated from the complaint procedure contained in the sexual harassment policy of the university) and unsubstantiated ruling of Dem have caused me great emotional distress. I have been unable to attend or participate fully in classes as a result of this investigation. have asked me to comment on my activities over the last 6 months without informing me of the nature of the allegations at hand. This investigatory tactic can only be characterized as a "witch hunt." I have nothing to hide, but I can't possibly comment on every interaction I've had in six months without understanding the nature of the 5. My repeated requests for a written record of these proceedings have been denied. 6 . 7 . ?bx now claims he does not remember making statements he made to me during our meetings of Dec and Decas documented in the memorandum submitted to on Jan This inconsistency, and others, have left me in constant fear of arbitrary rulings from the administration and feel ostracized by the unwarranted imposition of disciplinary probation. in her review of my grievance against ruling. has involved him in such a manner that it is im oossible for her to deliver an impartial verdict on the matter. I believe the actions of nd subsequent review bonstitute ation for a still unresolved complaint brouc ht bv mvself (and separately by the 201% lass as a whole) against the faculty member for inappropriate behavior in the .. feel ersecuted and harassed in spite of my good faith efforts to cooperate fully with Because of these and other errors made by the administration, I feel I am unable to continue at Samuel Merritt University. Notwithstandin my withdrawal from the university, lam continuing my grievance against the Deculing (?6100(7) in order to exonerate myself from (C) these, and any additional, unsubstantiated allegations. a Additionally, I am retaining counsel in order to seek a legal remedy, both as student of the university, as guaranteed by the US Department of Education, California labor board policy, California state law and Federal law. January?ff; 2014 . . . MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Director of Human Resources and Title IX Coordinator, Samuel Merritt University . . . . 6. x7 (C) . . SUBJECT: Revrew of ?ammo ullng re: complaint by against gm?) December 2013 This memorandum hereby fully descri es the arievarce filed in the request for review submitted to the office of the Title IX on 013. On the matter of the sexual harassment complaint filed has found was in violation of the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy of Samuel Merritt University (SMU), specifically the clauses of (1) un anth fr uching, (2) lack of consent and (3) creation of a hostile environment. To the extent that did not refer to any factual basis supporting his conclusion, his finding does not demonstrate that WC) proved her complaint a reponderance of the evidence as required by Title IX investigations. Moreoverinvestigation failed to follow the complaint procedure outlined in the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy constituting a failure of due process and therefore deprivingf a fair ruling under the policy. I. Standard of Review The Samuel Merritt University sexual harassment policy follows the requirements of Title IX. As such, the analysis offered in this document relies on definitions of concepts from Title IX (and the US Department of Education Of?ce of Civil Rights Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance, 2001, hereafter OCR Revised Guidance), which are used, but not defined, in the Sexual Harassment and Misconduct Policy of SMU. Also the terms ?Sexual Harassment and Misconduct Policy" and Title IX policy" are used interchangeably to refer to the substance of pages 137-140 of the 2013-2014 University Catalog Student Handbook and this relevant text is attached for convenience. In a Title IX sexual harassment investigation, a complaint must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (consistent with item 8 of the complaint procedure of the sexual harassment and misconduct policy of SMU). This standard is met when the evidence indicates that the action was more likely than not in violation of the policy. Specific items referenced mm} findings are defined as follows. An unwanted touch occurs when a person who was touched is made to feel uncomfortable and has made a verbal or nonverbal sign that the touch is unwanted, or when a reasonable person should have been able to foresee that the touch is unwanted (from the OCR Revised Guidance referencing relevant case law that ?The correct inquiry is whether [the subject of the harassment] by her conduct indicated that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome." Meritor Savings Bank. FSB v. Vinson, 477 US. 57, 60-61 (1986)) To constitute lack of consent, the acts must be committed either by threat, force, and intimidation, or through the use of the victim's mental or physical inability, such as when the . 7 . . Revnew of lullng re: complaint by against December 2013 victim is physically or mentally incapacitated by alcohol or other drugs (from the definition of sexual misconduct contained in the sexual harassment and misconduct policy of SMU). A hostile environment is created when a person: a) ignores signs that another person is uncomfortable; b) that the harassment is severe or pervasive, as to limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the education program; and that c) the same actions would have a detrimental effect on a reasonable person of the same sex as the complainant (from the OCR Revised Guidance, consistent with case law from Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 US. 629 (1999)) ll. Facts following facts are undisputed, and were presented tc a meeting on Dec dates efer to the Fall 2013 Semester. 6. 7 . .7 ?bx first met on August program orientcuon. i-rom men on, their interactions were infrequent, as I or Sonia] aim? prior to Septembe impropriety has been alleged. On Septemberliwgwaxc) made a joke towlabout a photo she had previouslv posted of herself on Face She responded mat sne had found the comment apologized to 83250? for making her feel uncomfortable, and thanked her for making clear her boundaries, stating know it can be hard to talk about these things and people have different boundaries. Thank you for being clear with me about where you are. I want to be respectful of vnur hmmdarigc M6) inimal interactions from then on and no complaint is alleged from IS perioa. on October mm} Iattended a social event organized . . 7 7 . . by the class? socral chair, (mm)be XC) at in Oakland. Conversation at this event included topics Mg, love, and sex, and mishaps thereof. Both I ully participated in conversation of these topics in a manner which was open, engaged, respectful and friendly. Throughout this event, both parties gave every indication that that they were enjoying the interactionthe evening (MC) and her housemate, (bx mm asked (C) to them ?th/P walk with them to their car for safety. alked with eaan to crank mam (?6?me iresponded that he felt uncomfortable continuing the topic because of the prior conversation Iabout boundarieshen redefined her 2 2013 Review of December Cb) iuiing re: complaint by boundaries, stating ?Oh, that was before we knew you, it would be fine now.? against (C) did not engage in the sexually explicit conversation and bought the interaction to a easant conclusion. From October on, interactions between were infrequent, and all interactions during this period of time were engaging, friendly, pleasant, and professional. No complaint is alleged during this time periodhosted itsm dinner party. . . . . . (C) onversed Wl on the topics of holidays, traveling, and the party itself. Th= mood of all parties was fesitiv . - - ctionately touch - 6 7 @(mmaxon the arm as he described (bx This interaction ended pleasantlv as all Darties moved on thmi inh ?rmware) Alcohol was available at the party, making the party at the hall a social environment rather than a work/academic environment. Alcohol was available from both a supervised bar and a student who provided dr' jurisdiction of the bar. did not directly Witnes (EXEW) alcohol himself. However, bathroom as a result of he ll?lIOchatlon. from a gallon bottle of whiskey. The student was outside the rinking alcohol, nor did he drink witnessed vomiting in the I the next few days, a Facebook message conversation ensued which was professional, polite and clear (the full text of all Facebook messages exchanged between is . Revnew of ruling re: complaint by against Decembeg?] 2013 attached to aid in this review). This included two invitations from (?ammo to see each other socially.eclined both invitations, but did not refer to the nteraction and gave no indication the invitations were unwelcome; rather, she declined to accept the invitations becaus= she was st dgirgboafor exam and had travel plans. Also during this conversation, 7 . gm? expressed tog); that she had performed better than expected on at least one coursework assignment, receiving a 95% on an assignment she had previously expressed concern about failing I . Between Novnd Nov had a number of In-person interactions. During two of these louchedon the shoulder for the Duroos =s of gaining her attention. The touch lasted no longer than one second. At no point did gig?) give any verbal or non-verbal indication that she was offended, uncomfortable or harassed by these actions. 6 (7) On November entlg?); Mb) lthe following message: After this communication, interactions between the parties ceased entirely exccept one . . . . . . .7 instance 0 saying ?good afternoon and inqumng in which room the (W6) exam . . 7 ReVIew of ruiing re: complaint by against Decembertm 2013 was to administered, in the hallway outside the classroom. Both parties agree has been above reproach in all of his actions after Novemberla?; On Dec. 3 instructed by to schedule a meeting with him regarding a comlaint. requested information about the complaint both in writing and in person but eclined to state the na . - of the complaint until a meeting on Dec.At which time, was inf byhat a sexual harassment complaint had been filed against him No written documentation of this complaint was offered to failed to make clear any specific allegations before askin that teii nis ver3ion ot the events. In good koo erateg fullv with investiation. After relating the events outlined above to asked him what version of events had been. gym?) stated that the two stories were subst' ntively similar and consistent with each other and did not offer any further details of report. Eursuant to mplaint procedure of the sexual harassment and misconduct policy, both were interviewed Following the interviews and upon . . 7 7 . . . conSideration of the facts prese tedw?xm?bx') ruled was in Violation of the sexual . . . 6, .) . . . Violence and misconduct policy 33; found that (C) Violated the policy by committing (1) un ?(baggaggm .hing, (2) lack of consent and (3) creation of a hostile environment. . (C) was informed of this ruling in a meetin with Ion Dec When . . . 6 7 r. questioned as to how he reached this verdict, ?bx stated I fee ed some 5i - . . which thUIde as to should have interreted to back down." When what those signs might have been tated don?t know l6 Whig/=3 't also some discrepancy between his version of events and had been discovered. stated that the rec rd remained undisputed saying, ?you both are basical telling the same story.? When game) asked for further clarification of the policies, tated that the policy is deliberately vague, not requiring a specific evidentiary standard (later discovered to be an inaccurate statement, Following this ruling, (C) has been placed on disciplinary probation and is at risk of summary dismissal from the program. Ill. Argument A. Unwanted Touching An unwanted touching occurs when a person who is made to feel uncomfortable by touch makes a verbal or nonverbal sign that the touch is unwanted, or when a reasonable person should have been able to foresee that tniirh it: iinuunnhanl . Revrew of (b December (6m, 2013 . . . ruling re: complaint by against My a preponderance of the evidence the (bx?mm did not vrotate the unwanted touch clause of the sexual harassment policy. As such,uling does not meet the preponderance of evidence standard required of Title IX investigations. 8. Lack of Consent To constitute lack of consent, the acts must be committed either by threat, force, and intimidation, or through the use of the victim's mental or physical inability, such as when the victim is physically or mentally incapacitated by alcohol or other druas Neither the evidence . . . . . "b 6. 7 by either party nor 'on show that .235 ?bx used any force, threat force, or Intimidation when he touche Rather, findn was (C) . . 6 . 7 incapaCItated by alcohol use, and she was therefore unable tn ?bx 4mm?- To the contrarv I The evaluation depends on the events at the time ot the Interaction. To allow regret after the fact any bearing in the outcome would be akin to saying a woman who breaks up with her boyfriend was de facto raped by him in all of their sexual interactions. Consent can not be withdrawn Decemb . 7 7 Revrew (b ruling re: complaint by gains-t er 2013 . 6 . . 6 . 7) Neither the evrdence provrded by nor the subsequent ?ndings of 5% have shown by a preponderance of evidence that she was mentally or physically incapacitated by alcohol when touched gf?tmm and she was therefore able to consent to his touch. Furthermore, the threat, force and intimidation aspects were not met when, as previously stated, as able to freely leave the kitchen as access to the door was not blocked. Because she did not indicate how much she had drunk prior to ouch, and because she reciprocated the touch prior to deliberately and explicitly withdrawing consent, the evidence demonstrates beyond a preponderance of evidence that Imxmf?? as not incapacitated, threatened, forced or intimidated when touched by gm?ma) and therefore the alleged lack of consent has no basis in fact. As a result, the kiss was consensual, which amounts to neither sexual misconduct nor sexual harassment. C. Creation of a Hostile Environment A hostile environment is created when a person: a) ignores signs that another person is uncomfortable; b) that the harassment is severe or pervasive, as to limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the education program; and that c) the same actions would have a detrimental effect on a reasonable person of the same sex as the comlainant. The evidence shows that scrupulously respectedfeelings, and immediately and appropriately responded to any statements or signals of hers that indicated his conduct made her uncomfortable. Likewise, gawm alleged harassment was not ?severe or pervasive.? that she was considering withdrawing from the program, no evidence indicates that $68503) ability to participate in or benefit from he educational program was limited by her interactions with did not interact substantively in an academic context as they never sat near each other in class, and did not shar groups. The only lever shared with about her Academic performance was to tell him that she ha one better than expected on an assignment (stating she received a grade of 95% on an assignment she had previously exressed concern about failing). This demonstra es bevo a preponderance of evidence that . . . . nteractlons had no negative Impact on academic performance. Finally, there is no evidence ?ha6t reg; nable woman would be affected deminentany' )7 . 7 either academically or personally, by actions @09be As such, neither the evidence provided lfindings have shown by a preponderance of the evidence thafbmm?? treated a hostile environment. Instead the Review of ruling re: complaint by against December facts demonstrate beyond a preponderance of evidence that hostile environment. 2013 (C) actions did not create a D. Absence of Ambiguous Signals justice. E. Analysis of Facebook Conversations betweer During the meeting in asked for his version of events, conversations wit These facts demonstr'te by a preponderance of evrdence tha?GXC) the events of Novembem ruling that this constitutes a violation of the sexual violence gave consent for . and later regretted her actions, changing her position. policy is a grave miscarriage or Icomplaint and offered to Ithe full text Facebook as relevant read the last three paragraphs of the document on ablet, but refused the offer of the'rest of the document. stating he felt it unnecessary. This investigation against . . . 7 as cr a procedural problem leading to prejudice Mm(bx ?bx problem rs discussed In full In section IV of this document. . . ruling re: complaint by against What follows is presentation of new evidence (the full text of the Facebook conversations is attached) exonerating lin this matter bv more than a (C) a U) clear boundary line on Sept . (0) Burma the Facebook conversation mental state rovides evidence of her sical and . 7 . . Revuew of ruling re: complaint by agauu.st Decembe 2013 talked onenlv about numemm qtressops Ehe exeerienced while at . I ?6 WC) (GM-WC) admitted a blatant dlsreqard for the effects of her actions v' Ex lanation of two com that require context. In a proposal to 10 Decembe (6), uuling re: complaint by agamst F. Evidence of Facebook Cnnversationq 11 ruling re: complaint by agan (bx (C) a result of the initial meeting with bout an unknown issue. A was forced to cancel plans he had felt uncomfortable shan conversations, the ability 0 defended (C) - (C) right to to render ar impartial verdict. validity Icomplaint, expressing her conce inv . . . wade to somalize With on Dec had told he had to meet with 1 er the Iinquired, ?so howd everything go?? (Dec after obtaining her confidence and assurances she would tell him if ed with her Ihad filed a com a disagree (6): as she plaint about him. In subsequent stigation but expressed concern at withbout the (C) testimony was unreliable, 12 . 6: ReVIew ruling re: complaint by 2013 December (6): (b age" .31 is a material witness in this matter and presented her as such) invalidates any ruling of hi r?nnunrcg?n had no further Facebook messages about The evidence of this Faceboo As to the substance of this evidence evidence. This failure of due process is discuss a. 7 demonstrated in earlier sections of this doc ument. Absence of ambiguous roxoirbx?) (b (C) Wistent and erratic. demonstrates primarily that failure to interview her I which requires a preponderance of full in section lV(d) statements reinforce points already of this document. {hm San FranCIsco ay Area. described cultural norms for women in 13 . Revnew of ruling re: complaint by against Decembe (6). 2013 Taken in conjunction with the abo ammo rated absence of sins that 532??) was uncomfortable, and that no part of nduct limited ability to participate in or bene?t from the education program, finding of creation of a hostile environment has not been demonstrated by a re rance of the evidencewor noting vas circumspect and acted with qreat care in discussmg this matter with Their pre-eXIs Ing close friendship and request for her discretion in discussing this matter demonstrate that at no point can his ctions be reasonably interpreted as an act of retaliation. Throughout, has held 88:03) to be within her rights to request an investigation, defended her in the face 0 occasional inflammatory remarks and at no point has he spoken ill of her. lV. Procedural Issues g?f?wn has acted in good faith and cooperated completely wi both th investigation . . . . . 7 and re edies sought by gab)? In the continued spirit of good faith g6)? also requests review of the investigatoy process surrounding this matter and files the following grievancesThe complaint filed aqainst (C) was not fled in wrtinq. And (C) did not enumerate specific allegations before king that (C) tell his version of events in the initial meeting of Dec as offered no opportunity to seek councel before responding to this unexpected complaint. Moreover, the findings 86?? made after his investigation were not documented. This fails to meet the procedure outlined in item 2 of the complaint procedure and also fails the standards of impartialness and thoroughness required by item 6 of the complaint procedure of SMU Title IX policy. No meeting of relevant parties took place. Item 7 of the SMU Title IX policy complaint procedure states that ?both parties will have the opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence. The meeting shall be closed to the public and only the complainant(s), the lnvestigator(s), the accused student(s) and other individuals approved by the Investigator, shall be present." 'nvestigation did not meet this standard as he interviewed parties separately, wuth neither consistent reporting nor documentation of these interviews offered to either party. No reason has been offered for this deviation from policy. This also constitutes a violation of Item 6 of the same policy which requires thoroughness and impartiality. . 7 EVIdence resented (C) was not accepted by Na? offered to email the full text of Facebook conversations wn Ihe declined to read the 18 page document other than the last paragraphs which he read onablet. This constitutes a violation of item 7 of complaint procedure of the sexual harassment and misconduct policy. As failed to accept relevant evidence (which is presented above) his ruling can not be said to be based on a preponderance of evidence as required by item 8 of the SMU Title IX policy. Therefore his ruling should be rescinded. 14 . ReVIew of uling re: complaint by against December. 2013 6 MC) were never interviewed. In both meetings with listed material witnesses whose testimony would be relevant evidence 'nuncfing?nn Tm- i: indudesAdditionally. at the meeting @f?bm received ruling, stated that investigation was incomplete without this testimony. stated ?we could do that", but declined to interview these witnesses. This constitutes deliberate indifference on the part of the university and a violation of item 7 of the SMU Title IX complaint procedure. Furthermore. as the unheard testimony of these witnesses constitute unaccepted evidence by any ruling is based on incomplete evidence and therefore it is impossible that the ruling was based upon a preponderance of evidence as required by item 8 of the SMU Title IX complaint procedure. Accordingly, ruling should be rescinded. lnvestiqation failures demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part of the university. As stated above, presented was not accepted, and witnesses listed were not nterwewced bv (Exmbx the course of his Investigation. At the meeting informing ted his opinion that the investigation was flawed by virtue of being incomplete (bwaxmm responded by saying he felt he had enough information on which to base his ruling. This demonstrates deliberate indifference by the university to a sexual harassment complaint compromising the rights of both students afforded under the sexual harassment and misconduct policy of SMU and Title IX, and potentially exposing the university to liability for damages (under v. Monroe Countv Board of Education, 526 US. 629 (1999)). 6mm(3X7 hislead 95933)?) into believmq that no ev dentiary standard was reqwred. statements in both meetings wit were inconsistent with item 8 of the int procedure of the sexual harassment and misconduct polic of SMU. vas not fully informed of his rights and was discouraged byrom seeking further investigation to exonerate himself from this claim. This constitutes a mishandling of a Title IX complaint, depriving a student of his rights under the law. The manner in which was informed of this complaint negatively impacted his abilitv to perform academicallyla?x?) as informed on the Monday of finals week that an incident had occurred and that he would be required to ive testimony to i but was uninformed as to the nature of the complaint. as unwilling to give any information tountil after had taken his final exams. In addition to being a violation of the promptness component of Item 6 of the SMU Title IX complaint procedure, this added stress causedreat emotional distress and negatively impacted his ability to perform academically on his final exams. mam) These procedural defects prejudiced investigation agains (C) 15 Review of iuling re: complaint by against December 0? 2013 V. Concern Regarding lmpartiality and Institutional Liability It is understood that it is difficult for the universitv to re in entirely impartial while it has a vested interest in limiting its own liability. Because ruling and subsequent elaboration lacked any factual basis for its conclusions, there is concern that his ruling was rendered to protect SMU from potential liability rather than to obtain a fair judgment based on the facts. This constitutes a violation of item 6 of the complaint procedure of the sexual harassm :onduct policy of SMU, leading to possible compromise of the rights of both afforded under Title IX. A school can be liable for monetary damages in cases of student-on-student harassment if all of the following conditions are met: the harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school; the harasser is under the school's disciplinary authority; a school official with authority to address the discrimination has actual knowledge of the sexual harassment; and the school is deliberately indifferent to the sexual harassment. (Davis v. Monroe Countv Board of Education, 526 US. 629 (1999)) Because these events took place on SMU campus and both parties are students, the school had control over the context and had disciplinary control over both parties. However, the facts do not support a conclusion of severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment such that it can be said to deprive the victim of access to educational opportunities or benefits provided by the sr?hm?l. These points limit the school?s liability without need for further action imposed on A well-documented record of this review will demonstrate the exact opposite of deliberate indifference bv th= university, will exonerate SMU from future liability and . . . 6. 7 Will undo the Injustice done to ?bx In good faith, is willing to work with the University to limit its potential liability while reaching a just conclusion to this matter. Any potential liability to the university is limited by aking advantage of all preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the university and to avoid harm otherwise, in concert with the university?s effective sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure (Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775 (1998), Burlington ln-dustries, "10- V. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742 (19C8ll gly, notwithstanding the lack of evidentiary basis . . . . and procedural flaws surrounding investigation and run ,ng?smm has responded . . . . . . . 6. 7 C) in good faith by complying (b (6mm medles outlined in ?bx ruling. . i . . It must be noted the rofessmnal out,? nas received extenswe training on the topics of sexual abuse and domestic violenc Havinn orked with a patient population which frequently included cases of sexual assault gm?) is hypersensitive to these issues. In addition, has among his close friends iumero victims of sexua, 7 exual battery and rape. As such, this is not a topic which gawk) takes Alsofbgiwlwx?) [has participated in numerous volunteer counseling activit es With Victims of sexual abuse and actively promotes breaking the cycle of sexual violence throughout his personal and professional life. 16 . Revrew of iullng re: complaint by against December 2013 Vl. Remedies has completed the on-line ?Prevention of Sexual Harassment? and ?Title IX AwareneSS" completion have been delivered to the offices of the Title IX coordinator an (bm?maxc) is willing to take or attend any further training or education made available to him. Prior to the no contact order of ruling,ad voluntarily refrained from contact within accordance with her wishes, and is willing to continue to refrain from interacting with her, with or without a formal no contact order. The future progression of the academic program further makes it possible to maintain space between the two students with minimal intervention by the academic anc clinical coordinators and other faculty. During the remainder of the didactic phase @6le? will neither sit next to in lectures, nor share in group projects or with her. During the clinical phase, the students will be assigned to different sites at different times. Furthermore, in the spirit of the remedies outlin Iis willing to write a letter of understanding toxpressing compassion for her discomfort and stating his continued intention to respect her wishes and refrain from contact with her, other than that requir I ademic program. finding of wrongdoing and his imposition of disciplinary probation is inappropriate given the absence of evidentiary basis for his ruling and procedural defects in the investigation. Therefore, requests that letter be rescinded. 6. 7 ed 17 ruling re: complaint by against Review of Wmm?m?c) December $201 3 VII. Conclusion It is the purpose of the complaint procedure to provide a student with the resources of a third party investigation to provide protection from harassment and to maintain the safe learning environment of the university. As such,as held throughout thatehaved appropriately in availing herself of her right to an investigation to clarify a sequence of events which she was unable to clearly assess by herself while under the stress of the academic program. Likewise, the policies of the university are well founded on the principles of Title IX and associated case law. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this erroneous ruling was found by substantively deviating from policy, procedure and law. It is the purpose of this grievance to seek a remedy in the form of a fair review of the facts and a just application of relevant policies and laws. As it is in the best interests of all concerned that this matter be settled respectfully requests that this be handled prior to the end of the add/drop period of the coming semester, January 17, 2014 without sacrificing thoroughness so as not to remain at issue. If there is anything else you require that has not been provided, please request such and will endeavor to get it to you expeditiously. Woramum is at Encl 16) . 1. Grievance filed - - .. .- . . 13 2. Ruling Letter by Decembemrb 2013 3. SMU Sexual Ha assment and sconduct Policy 4. Text of Facebook conversations between (bx?lmaxc) 5. Text of Facebook conversations between (excerpted) 6 18 Page 023 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 024 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 025 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 026 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 027 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 028 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 029 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 030 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 031 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 032 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 033 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 034 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 035 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 036 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 037 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 038 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 039 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 040 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 041 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 042 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 043 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 044 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 045 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 046 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 047 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 048 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 049 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 050 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad Page 051 of 985 Withheld pursuant to exemption of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Ad SAMUEL December 24, 2013 (bxmb) 083' axe) Thank you for meeting with me on Decembe 2013 regarding allegations that you behaved in ways that violated the University?s Sexual Violence and Misconduct policy. After my investigation, including our conversation, conclude that your behavior violated the sexual violence and misconduct policy, specifically unwanted touching, a lack of consent, and creation of a hostile environment. As a result, the following sanctions are given as means to hold you accountable for your behavior and to provide you an opportunity to learn from this experience: 1) You must take and complete both the "Title lX Awareness" training and "Preventing Sexual Harassment? training at . You must complete both of these trainings by Friday, January 3, 2014. 2) You must write a letter of apology to Making responsibility for your actions and the impact that they have had. You must submit your letter for approval to me by Monday, January 6, 2014. If approved, i will ass your letter on. 3) You are not to have any contact witxcept for what is required academically (thus limited to a professional contex - mainder of your enrollment at the University. You also cannot sit next to her in class, lectures, presentations, etc., nor partner with her for academic work. 4) You are placed on Disciplinary Probation. Probation is a formal reminder that your behavior is unacceptable and that any further violations or inappropriate behavior may Jeopardize your ability to remain a student at Samuel Merritt University. You will remain on Disciplinary Probation through January 5, 2015. At that time we will re- evaluate your status. Any failure to complete any of the above sanctions will subject you to further disciplinary action and could jeopardize your ability to continue as a student. Further, any behavior on your part that could be perceived as retaliation will not be tolerated. i trust that you understand the severity of the situation. enactment AND stuoem senvrces 3'00 Telegraph Ave. Suno 1000 - Oakland. CA 94609 . imam 67l5 Hi7. 510 ace ism SEXUAL MISCONDUCT POLICY Samuel Merritt University believes that sexual harassment/misconduct has no place in the academic environment, and the University will not tolerate it. Additionally, under state and federal laws, sexual harassment of employees or students is illegal. Samuel Merritt University community seeks to eliminate sexual harassment/sexual misconduct through education and by encouraging faculty, staff, and students to report concerns or complaints. The University takes the matter of sexual harassment and misconduct very seriously; indeed, the University and individual employees and/or students may be legally liable for acts of harassment. Therefore, any acts of sexual harassment or misconduct by students should be reported immediately to the Executive Director of Human Resources (Title IX Coordinator). After a thorough investigation, anyone found to have violated this policy will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal/discharge from the University. De?nition of Sexual Misconduct Sexual misconduct includes a range of behaviors used to obtain sexual contact against a person's will. Sexual misconduct is de?ned as sexual contact without consent by someone you know or a stranger and includes: intentional touching without consent, either of the victim or when the victim is forced to touch, directly or through clothing, another person's genitals, breast, groin, thighs or buttocks; rape (sexual intercourse without consent whether by someone you know or stranger; attempted rape; sodomy (oral or anal intercourse) without consent; or sexual penetration with an object without consent. To constitute lack of consent, the acts must be committed either by threat, force, and intimidation or through the use of the victim's mental or physical inability such as when the victim is physically or mentally incapacitated by alcohol or other drugs. De?nition of Sexual Harassment l. The prohibition applies to all employees/faculty/students, and in particular to supervisors (including direct supervisory and other management staff). A sexual advance violates this policy regardless of whether the advance is expressly related to the affected employee?s/student?s employment/academic status. It is improper to make sexual advances, ask for, demand or seek by subtle pressure sexual favors or activity from an employee/student, or to subject another employee/student to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature where: a. The submission to such behavior is a condition of any employment/academic opportunity, benefit, job retention, grade; or b. The submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for employment/academic decisions; or c. Such conduct has the purpose or the effect of unreasonably interfering with the individual ?5 work/academic performance; or d. Such conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work/academic environment. It is improper for an employee/student to make sexual advances or to offer or suggest sexual favors or activity in exchange or in consideration for any personnel/academic action. It is improper to retaliate against an employee/student for refusing a sexual advance or for refusing a request, demand or pressure for sexual favors or activity or to retaliate against an employee/student who has reported an incident of possible sexual harassment to the University or to any government agency. It is not possible to identify each and every act which constitutes or may constitute sexual harassment. However, certain conduct is clearly improper and is strictly prohibited. Persons engaging in this conduct, or other similar acts, will be subject to discipline up to and including dismissal from the University. Such acts might include: Any unwanted, intentional touching of an employee/student by another may be sexual harassment and is prohibited. Due to the possibility of misinterpretation of acts by other employees/students, the University discourages all roughhousing or physical contact, except that contact necessary and incidental to an employee?s job/student?s academic status. Further, certain kinds of physical conduct in the work/academic environment are particularly inappropriate and may be grounds for immediate discipline, including dismissal from the University. That conduct includes, but is not limited to: Kissing or attempting to kiss an employee/student; (ii) Touching or attempting to touch or pretending to touch the breasts, buttocks or genitals of an employee/student; Physically restraining by force or blocking the path of an employee/student when accompanied by other conduct of a sexual nature; (iv) Any other touching or attempted touching reasonably interpreted to be of a sexual nature. Sexual advances, unwelcome requests, demands, or subtle pressure for sexual favors or activity, lewd comments and sexual innuendoes are also prohibited. This conduct includes, but is not limited to: Comments to an employee/student or others about the body of an employee/student which are intended to draw attention to the sex of the employee/student or can reasonably be interpreted to draw attention to the sex of the employee/student; (ii) Comments to the employee/student or others about the sexual conduct, capability, or desirability of an employee/student; Cat calls, whistles, or other conduct reasonably interpreted to be of a sexual nature. Sexually suggestive gestures are also prohibited. It is improper to subject employees/students to photographs, cartoons, articles, or other written or pictorial materials of a sexual nature a?er the employee/student has expressed his or her displeasure with such activity. These materials may be offensive to the public as well and should not be on display in of?ces or public areas in any event. c. This policy is not intended to prohibit employees/students from asking other employees/students for social engagements. However, repeated requests where prior social invitations have been refused can be interpreted as sexual harassment. Employees/students should refrain from persistent invitations a?er an employee/student has indicated that such invitations are unwelcome. l. The conduct described in this policy is strictly prohibited. If anyone, including non- employees/non-students, engages in such conduct, it is important that the conduct be reported to the Executive Director of Human Resources. It is not possible for the University to enforce this policy if incidents of harassment are not reported. The procedure to follow if the student feels that he/she has been subjected to sexual harassment/sexual misconduct is set forth in this Catalog/Handbook. Complaint Procedure The University has a compelling obligation to address allegations and suspected instances of discrimination, harassment, and misconduct. The following procedures are designed to allow for prompt and equitable resolution of sexual harassment/sexual misconduct complaints. The Title IX Coordinator (Executive Director of Human Resources) is responsible for investigating all complaints of sexual harassment/sexual misconduct involving students. The University will take steps to prevent reoccurrence of any harassment/misconduct and to correct its discriminatory effects on the complainant and others, if appropriate. 1. In simple situations, the student should let the offending person know immediately and firmly that he/she is rejecting the advance or invitation and/or finds the conduct offensive. 2. The student should report the matter to the Title IX Coordinator (Executive Director of Human Resources), who will make a complete investigation. It is important that the student report everything to the investigator so a thorough investigation can be made, including providing witnesses and/or documentation from individuals who have ?rst- hand knowledge of the situation. 3. The student has the right to file a criminal complaint with the appropriate local police department. 4. To the extent possible, the complaint and investigation will remain confidential. a complainant insists that his/her name or other identi?able information not be disclosed to the accused student, the University?s ability to respond to the complaint may be limited. 5. Retaliation is prohibited. The University will take steps to prevent retaliation and also strong responsive action if it occurs. If the student feels that a retaliatory action has been taken because he/she has ?led a complaint, that action should be reported as well. 6. The Title IX investigator will investigate the matter thoroughly, and impartially. The University will not delay conducting its own investigation because of a pending criminal complaint as the University has a responsibility to protect the student in its educational setting. 7. During the investigation, both parties will have the opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence. The meeting shall be closed to the public and only the complainant(s), the Investigator(s), the accused student(s), and other individuals approved by the Investigator, shall be present. No attorney, who represents any of the involved parties, shall attend or take part in the meeting. The standard of proof to be used shall be the preponderance of evidence standard. 9. Appropriate sanctions/discipline up to and including dismissal from the University will be imposed if warranted. Any incidents of further harassment or retaliation should be reported immediately to the Title IX Coordinator (Executive Director of Human Resources). 10. Both parties will be informed of the outcome of the complaint in writing. Both parties can grieve the ?nal decision of the Title IX Investigator by requesting a review in writing to the Title IX Coordinator (Executive Director of Human Resources) by the student within five (5) working days of the decision. I I. This meeting shall be closed to the public and only the grievant(s), the person whose decision is being grieved, and other individuals approved by the Title IX Coordinator (Executive Director of Human Resources), shall be present. No attorney, who represents any of the involved parties, shall attend or take part in the meeting I2. The decision of the Title IX Coordinator (Executive Director of Human Resources) is final. 9? Samuel Merritt University Title IX Coordinator Elaine Lemay Executive Director of Human Resources Samuel Merritt University 3100 Telegraph Avenue Oakland, CA 94609 (510) 869-6739 elemav@samuelmerritt.edu CAMPUS SEX OFFENSES Students, faculty, and staff are required to report sex offenses to the Assistant Vice President of Enrollment and Student Services and to Security. As required by the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, the University provides an annual report of campus crime statistics, including all sex offenses. See Campus Security Act of I990 in the Federal and State Regulatory Policies section. Policy on Sex Offenses and Offenders The University does not regularly provide educational programs to promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape and other forcible and non-forcible sex offences. Such educational programs may be done at the request of students, by security in an ad hoc program, or because of a campus concern. If you are a victim of sexual assault, your ?rst priority should be to get to a place of safety. You should then obtain necessary medical treatment. The University strongly advocates that a victim of sexual assault report the incident in a timely manner to the Assistant Vice President of Enrollment and Student Services or other person listed above. The report to a University of?cial does not obligate the victim to prosecute nor will it subject the victim to scrutiny or judgmental opinions from employees and of?cers; but it ensures the victim can receive services offered by the University. The Assistant Vice President of Enrollment and Student Services and others will assist the student in notifying these authorities if the student requests. A report to police will ensure the victim receives the necessary medical treatment and tests, at no expense to the victim; provide the opportunity for the collection of evidence which will be helpful in prosecution which cannot be obtained later; and assure the victim has access to free con?dential counseling from counselors speci?cally trained in the area of sexual assault crisis intervention. The University offers counseling services through the Health and Counseling Center and through a contracted arrangement with Sutter EAP. Counseling and support services outside the University system are available through the San Francisco Women against Rape crisis center. University disciplinary proceedings, as well as special guidelines for handling cases of sexual misconduct, are detailed in the Catalog and Student Handbook. The handbook provides, in part, that the accused and the victim will each be allowed to choose one person who has had no formal legal training to accompany them throughout the hearing. Both the victim and the accused will be informed of the outcome of the hearing. A student found guilty of violating the University?s sexual misconduct policy could be criminally prosecuted and/or may be suspended or expelled from the University for the ?rst offense. Students have the option to change their academic situations a?er an alleged sexual assault if such changes are reasonably available. Executive Director of Human Resources Samuel Merritt University 3100 Telegraph Avenue Oakland, CA 94609 Cc: To With this letter, I hereby ?le a grievance against the ruling of (his ruling is attached) and request a review of the sexual harassment complaint ?led against me. This ruling, and subsequent elaboration with fails to meet the standard of preponderance of evidence required by item 8 of the complaint procedure outlined in the policy governing sexual harassment and Title IX disputes (this policy is attached for your convenience). As a demonstration of good faith, I have also enclosed the certi?cates of completion for the ?Title IX Awareness? and ?Preventing Sexual Harassment? training. With this additional education, remain con?dent that my behavior met the acceptable standard described by the policies of the university. At your convenience, 1 will be glad to meet with you to aid in your review of this matter. Sincerely, me'n'm me: Sent: nay. anuary 4, 2014 4:49 PM To: OCR San Subjen: Re ddmonal Documems regavdmg (ompbim agarnsr samuev Mem nrversny machmems: New >Marmaxion regarding this mauer The internal gnevance process has been exhausted, Anached rs the of Khe Execunve Director a! HR oithe University, respectfully me grievance against her decision with your office. Thank you foryour attention zo mi; matter, January 23. 2014 have reviewed all of the documents you have supplied to me regarding the sanctions imposed have also had conversations with you and 6 . 7 C- - regarding her comp am . ave concluded that ?bx anctions were approprlate and warranted. Sincerely, HUMAN RESOURCES ?monittxdu 3100 Telegraph Avenue - Oakland. CA 94609 - wow 510 86?! ?25? i 535? "ww'umu Generated by CamScanner from intsig.com UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS {syn- 3&Li?s, .- c" REGION IX CALIFORNIA 50 BEALE ST., SUITE 7200 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 FEB 1 02014 (in reply, please refer to case no. 09-14-2202.) 6, Dear(b)( On January 24, 2014, the US. Department of Education, Of?ce for Civil Rights (OCR), received your complaint against Samuel Merritt University (Recipient). OCR understands your allegation to be that the Recipient denied you due process rights when it found you responsible for sexual assault in December of 2013. You further" state that the Recipient may have initiated sexual misconduct proceedings against you because you raised concerns about the behavior of a faculty member. For the reasons explained below, OCR is not accepting your complaint for resolution. OCR enforces Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in programs and activities operated by recipients of Federal ?nancial assistance. The Recipient receives funds from the Department and is a public education entity. Therefore, the Recipient is subject to laws and regulations enforced by OCR. OCR carefully reviewed the information in your complaint. Because you were identi?ed as a respondent in a sexual assault complaint, your facts, even if true, do not raise an allegation under OCR jurisdiction. OCR enforces provisions under Title IX that require institutions to provide complainants who allege sexual harassment/sexual assault with a prompt and equitable process. Based on the information you provided, the Recipient responded to notice of possible sexual misconduct by conducting an investigation and making a determination. This information indicates the Recipient was following the requirements of Title IX. The fact you believe you, as a respondent were denied due process rights, does not state a claim under Title IX absent facts that the Recipient failed to respond to notice of sexual misconduct, or failed to provide the complainant a prompt and equitable process. Further, you state that you believe that the Recipient may have responded to the complaint that was ?led against you to retaliate against you for ?ling an unrelated complaint against a faculty member. You ?led this complaint because you observed The Department of Education?s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. gov Page 2 (09-14-2202) inappropriate behavior as a result of the faculty member was in an ?altered state." In order to state a retaliation claim for OCR to investigate, the complainant must ?rst be able to describe an activity protected by a law enforced by OCR. Upon review, OCR has determined that the basis of your internal complaint was reporting inappropriate behavior and not discrimination; therefore, OCR will not investigate this allegation as a discriminatory retaliation claim. This concludes OCR's consideration of your complaint. We are closing the complaint as of the date of this letter. This letter sets forth determination in an individual OCR case. This letter is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR of?cial and made available to the public. The complainant may have the right to ?le a private suit in federal court whether or not OCR ?nds a violation. Federal regulations prohibit the Recipient from retaliating against you or from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or harassing you or anyone else because you ?led a complaint with OCR or because you or anyone else take part in the complaint resolution process. Contact OCR if you believe such actions occur. Under the Freedom of lnfonnation Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personal information that, if released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If you have any questions about this letter, please call our of?ce at 415-486-5555. Sincerely, Charles R. Love Program Manager United States Department of Education Of?ce for Civil Rights 50 Beale Street, Suite 7200 San Francisco, CA 94105 CONSENT ORM- FOR USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION Com lainant?s Name (print or Institution Against Which Complaint Filed13? Please sign and date section A, section or section and return to the above address: have read the section, "lnvestigatory Uses of Personal Information" in the OCR document "Information about OCR's Complaint Processing Procedures," which explains OCR's use of personal information. I understand that the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, govern the use of personal information submitted to all Federal agencies and their individual components, including OCR. I will cooperate with OCR's investigation and complaint resolution activities undertaken on my behalf. I understand that my failure to cooperate with investigation may result in the closure of my complaint. A. I give OCR my consent to reveal my identity (and/or that of my minor child/ward on whose behalf the complaint is ?led) to the institution alleged to have discriminated, as well as other persons and entities outside if OCR, in the Wement activities, ?nds it necessary to do so. 5/ p.21 Tug-Intru- Date OR B. I do not give OCR my consent to reveal my identity (and/or that of my minor child/ward on whose behalf the complaint is ?led). I understand that OCR may have to close this complaint if OCR is unable to proceed with an investigation without releasing my identity (and/or that of my minor child/ward on whose behalf the complaint is filed). Signature Date C. Alternatively, if you are not ?ling this complaint on your own behalf or on behalf of your own minor child/ ward, you are responsible for obtaining written consent from the person on whose behalf the complaint is ?led orminor, that person?s parent/ guardian. have read this document, and agree with the person who filed this complaint. I wish you to proceed with OCR's investigation and resolution process. I give my consent for OCR to reveal my identity (and/or that of my minor child/ward on whose behalf the complaint is ?led) to other persons to the extent necessary for the purpose of resolution or investigation of this complaint. Name (print or type): Signature Date January 20/ 0 0,7,0 2 UNITED DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS REGION Ix 50 BEALE ST., some 7200 CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 January 27, 2014 (In reply, please refer to 09-14-2202.) Dear This is to acknowledge that the U.S. Department of Education, San Francisco Office for Civil Rights (OCR), received your complaint on January 24, 2014. We are evaluating your complaint to determine whether OCR will accept your allegationls) for investigation. Our target date for completion of this process is 30 days from the date of this letter. We will send you a letter notifying you of our determination. We require a signed Privacy Act Consent Form when identification of the complainant is necessary. Please sign and return the enclosed form by mail or you may wish to fax it to us at (415) 486-5570. If OCR does not receive the signed consent form within 20 calendar days of the date of this letter, your complaint will be administratively closed. If you are filing on behalf of another person, you are responsible for securing written consent from that individual. If you are filing on behalf of a minor (under the age of 18) or a legally incompetent adult, the consent form must be signed by that person's parent or legal guardian. As noted above, OCR must receive such necessary signed forms within 20 days of the date of this letter or the complaint will be closed. If you require an additional copy of the Consent Form, you can obtain it at The enclosed information provides an overview of OCR's complaint evaluation and resolution procedures. If you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please call our office at (415) 486-5555 and refer your case number listed above. erely, Dorothy W. Brady Enclosures The Department of Education?s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. .gov