UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

THE WANAMAKER BUILDING, SUITE 515
100 PENN SQUARE EAST
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107-3323

REGION III
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
MARYLAND
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA

September 9, 2016
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE REFER TO: 03-13-2328 & 03-15-2032
Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
President
Office of the President
Frostburg State University
101 Braddock Rd.
Frostburg, MD 21532-2303
Dear Dr. Nowaczyk:
This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education (the Department), Office for
Civil Rights (OCR), has completed its investigation of the above-referenced complaints filed
against Frostburg State University (University). OCR investigated whether the University failed
to promptly and equitably respond to complaints, reports, and/or incidents of sexual harassment
and sexual violence of which it had notice, including Complainant 1’s and Complainant 2’s
report of sexual assault, and whether as a result, students, including Complainant 1 and
Complainant 2, were subjected to a sexually hostile environment.
OCR investigated this case under the authority of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
(Title IX). Title IX and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. §106, prohibit discrimination on
the basis of sex in education programs and activities operated by recipients of Federal financial
assistance from the Department. The University receives such Federal funds and, therefore, is a
recipient subject to the requirements of Title IX.
In her July 29, 2013 complaint filed with OCR, Complainant 1 alleged that the University failed
to provide a prompt and equitable response to a report in March 2013 that the Accused Student
allegedly raped her at an off-campus party in February 2013. During OCR’s investigation of
Complainant 1’s complaint, on December 2, 2014, OCR received a complaint from Complainant
2 (Case #03-15-2032). Complainant 2 alleged that the University did not provide a prompt and
equitable response to her May 2014 University complaint that she was sexually assaulted by a
campus police officer during the Fall 2009 semester. OCR consolidated the investigation of
Complainant 2’s complaint with the existing investigation of Complainant 1’s complaint.
During the investigation, OCR reviewed documentation provided by Complainant 1,
Complainant 2, and the University, including relevant University policies and procedures, case
files related to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault from January 2010 through
November 2014; conducted an on-site visit to the University in April 2014; and interviewed

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
www.ed.gov

 Page 2 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
Complainant 1 in January and July 2014, Complainant 2 in January 2015, and University
students and University staff in 2014 and 2015.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
OCR found that the University failed to respond promptly and equitably to Complainant 1’s
report of sexual violence, and failed to take steps to prevent the recurrence of harassment and
correct its discriminatory effects on Complainant 1. With regard to Complainant 2, OCR also
found that the University failed to conduct an adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of
Complainant 2’s report of sexual assault, and failed to take steps to prevent the recurrence of
harassment and correct its discriminatory effects. OCR also found that the University’s handling
of the majority of other sexual harassment and sexual assault complaints brought by other
students from January 2010 through November 2014 were not prompt and/or equitable, as
required by Title IX.
OCR found that the University’s policies and procedures and Notice of Non-Discrimination that
were in effect at the time of Complainant 1’s and Complainant 2’s report of sexual assault were
not compliant with Title IX. When OCR opened this investigation in 2013, the University had
five (5) policies to address complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence. OCR’s
investigation found that none of these policies met Title IX’s procedural requirements. In 2016,
the University consolidated all of its previous policies into a single policy that addresses all
complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence that are brought by or against students,
employees, and third parties. OCR’s investigation found that, while the 2016 Title IX policy and
procedure made strides towards compliance with Title IX’s procedural requirements, several
compliance concerns remain.
More specifically, OCR found violations in the areas of the University’s Notice of NonDiscrimination; former and revised grievance procedures; Title IX Coordinator’s duties,
responsibilities, and training; record keeping practices, and handling of Complainant 1’s and
Complainant 2’s sexual violence complaints, as well as the majority of Title IX complaints
reported to the University between January 2010 and November 2014. In addition, OCR’s
investigation identified concerns regarding the University’s handling of criminal complaints;
training provided to the campus community; student climate information; and campus climate
assessment and response. OCR also notes that although our investigation identified concerns
regarding the University’s designation of responsible employees and complainant confidentiality,
those concerns were remedied by the 2016 Title IX policies and procedures.
On September 6, 2016, the University voluntarily entered into a resolution agreement
(Agreement), which requires that the University take specific steps to address the identified
violations.
This letter summarizes the applicable legal standards, the evidence gathered during the
investigation, OCR’s determinations and the remedies the University has agreed to implement to
resolve its non-compliance with Title IX.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9, requires a recipient to implement
specific and continuing steps to notify all applicants for admission and employment, students and

 Page 3 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
parents, employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission and employment, and all
unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements
with the recipient that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in its education programs or
activities, and that it is required by Title IX not to discriminate in such a manner. The Notice of
Non-Discrimination must also state that questions regarding Title IX may be referred to the
recipient’s Title IX coordinator or to OCR.
The Title IX implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a), requires that a recipient designate
at least one employee to coordinate its responsibilities to comply with and carry out its
responsibilities under that law. The recipient is further required, by the Title IX implementing
regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a), to notify all students and employees of the name (or title),
office address, and telephone number of the designated employee(s).
The Title IX regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 106.31 provides generally that, except as provided
elsewhere in the regulation, no person shall on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in,
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in education programs or activities
operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance. Sexual harassment that creates a hostile
environment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX. Sexual harassment is
unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment can include unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual
nature, such as sexual assault or acts of sexual violence. Sexual harassment of a student creates a
hostile environment if the conduct is sufficiently serious that it interferes with or limits a
student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient’s program or activity.
OCR considers a variety of related factors to determine if a sexually hostile environment has
been created and considers the conduct in question from both an objective and a subjective
perspective. Factors examined include the degree to which the misconduct affected one or more
students’ education; the type, frequency, and duration of the misconduct; 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; and other incidents at the school. 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, if sufficiently severe, create a hostile
environment. For example, a single instance of rape is sufficiently severe to create a hostile
environment.
Once a recipient knows or reasonably should know of possible sexual harassment, it must take
immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred; and if the
conduct occurred, whether a hostile environment existed for the complainant(s) and for others. If
an investigation reveals that sexual harassment created a hostile environment, a recipient must
take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment, eliminate any
hostile environment, prevent the harassment from recurring and, as appropriate, remedy its
effects. These duties are a recipient’s responsibility, regardless of whether a student has
complained, asked the recipient to take action, or identified the harassment as a form of
discrimination. A recipient has notice of harassment if a responsible employee actually knew or,
in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about the harassment. If a recipient delays
responding to allegations of sexual harassment or responds inappropriately, the recipient’s own
action may subject the student to a hostile environment. If it does, the recipient will be required

 Page 4 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
to remedy the effects of both the initial sexual harassment and the effects of the recipient’s
failure to respond promptly and appropriately. A recipient’s obligation to respond appropriately
to sexual harassment complaints is the same irrespective of the sex or sexes of the parties
involved.
A recipient is responsible under the Title IX regulations for the nondiscriminatory provision of
aid, benefits, and services to students. Recipients generally provide aid, benefits, and services to
students through the responsibilities they give to employees. If an employee who is acting (or
who reasonably appears to be acting) in the context of carrying out the employee’s
responsibilities either conditions an educational decision or benefit on a student’s submission to
unwelcome sexual conduct, or engages in sexual harassment that is sufficiently serious to deny
or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the program on the basis of sex, the
recipient is responsible for the discriminatory conduct and for remedying any effects of the
harassment on the complainant, as well as for ending the harassment and preventing its
recurrence. This is true whether or not the recipient has notice of the harassment.
The Title IX regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b), requires recipients to adopt and publish
grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging
any action that would be prohibited by Title IX, including sexual harassment and sexual
violence. Title IX does not require a recipient to provide separate grievance procedures for
sexual harassment complaints, including sexual violence complaints. A recipient may use
student disciplinary or other separate procedures for these complaints; however, any procedures
used to adjudicate complaints of sexual harassment or sexual assault, including disciplinary
proceedings, must afford the complainant and the accused a prompt and equitable resolution.
BACKGROUND
The University is a public university that is part of the University System of Maryland (USM).
The USM is comprised of 12 postsecondary institutions, including the University. Although the
Board of Regents’ duties include, among other things, formulating policies that govern the
member institutions, the University is responsible for adopting and implementing its own
policies and procedures.
When OCR initiated this investigation in academic year 2013-2014, the University had 4,703
undergraduate students, of whom 2,303 (49%) were female and 2,400 (51%) were male, and 770
graduate students, of whom 466 (60%) were female and 304 (40%) were male. During the 201516 academic year, the University had 4,961 undergraduate students, of whom 2,544 (51%) were
female and 2,417 (49%) were male, and 786 graduate students, of whom 450 (57%) were female
and 336 (43%) were male.
Pursuant to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics
Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092 (Clery Act), for the past four reporting years (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014),
the University reported a total of 18 sex offenses.
As of the date of the agreement in this matter, the University has not reported crime data for
2015.

FACTS AND ANALYSIS

 Page 5 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk

1. Notice of Non-Discrimination
The University’s Notice of Non-Discrimination was published during the 2013-14, 2014-15, and
the 2015-16 school years on the University’s Diversity and Equal Opportunity webpage. The
Notice of Non-Discrimination does not state that “sex” is a protected basis or that inquiries
concerning the application of Title IX may be referred to the Title IX Coordinator or to OCR. In
addition, the Notice of Non-Discrimination is not published in each announcement, bulletin,
catalog or application form which is used in connection with the recruitment of students or
employees, or unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional
agreements with the University. In the few publications in which the Notice of NonDiscrimination is referenced, the publication refers to the Policy on Non-Discrimination/Equal
Opportunity and states where it may be located.
OCR therefore concludes that the University’s Notice of Non-Discrimination does not comply
with the requirements of Title IX.
2. Grievance Procedures
OCR’s investigation found that at the time the incidents involving Complainant 1 and
Complainant 2 were reported, the University had five (5) policies and procedures that addressed
sexual harassment and sexual violence:
(1) University System of Maryland Policy and Procedures on Sexual Assault (USM Sexual
Assault Policy);
(2) Frostburg’s Procedures for Implementing the USM Policy (University’s Sexual Assault
Procedures);
(3) Sexual Harassment Policy;
(4) FSU Procedures for Pursuing Complaints of Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
(Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Procedures); and
(5) Code of Student Conduct.
The USM Sexual Assault Policy was an interim policy and in June 2014, the USM Board of
Regents approved the Policy on Sexual Misconduct for the University System of Maryland
(Revised USM Sexual Misconduct Policy). The Revised USM Sexual Misconduct Policy
superseded the USM Sexual Assault Policy. Collectively these policies and procedures (including
the Revised USM policy) will be referred to herein as the “former Title IX policies and
procedures.”
In January 2016, the University adopted the Gender-Based Harassment and Violence Policy
(2016 Harassment and Violence Policy) and the Procedures for Investigating and Resolving
Reports of Prohibited Conduct Under the University’s Gender-Based Harassment and Violence
Policy (2016 Harassment and Violence Procedures) (collectively referred to as the 2016
Harassment and Violence Policy and Procedures). The 2016 Harassment and Violence Policy
and Procedures replaced all of the University’s previous Title IX policies and procedures.

 Page 6 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk

OCR’s investigation found that the University’s former Title IX policies and procedures did not
satisfy the University’s obligation to provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of
complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual violence. In particular, the former Title IX
policies and procedures were at times confusing and contradictory to complainants, accused
students, members of the University community, and third parties. Although the University has
made progress in correcting the deficiencies in the University’s former Title IX policies and
procedures through the adoption of the Harassment and Violence Policy and Procedures in
January 2016, OCR concludes that the revised policy and procedures are not fully compliant
with the requirements of Title IX.
Former Title IX Policies and Procedures 1
USM Sexual Assault Policy, Revised USM Sexual Assault Policy, and the University’s
Sexual Assault Procedures
The USM Sexual Assault Policy and the Revised Sexual Assault Policy (collectively USM Sexual
Assault Policies) were issued by the USM as a directive and guidance to all USM institutions,
including the University, about the required contents of their sexual assault policies. 2
The USM Sexual Assault Procedures set forth information required by the USM Sexual Assault
Policies and were specific to the University. While they were published and readily available to
the University community, the USM Sexual Assault Procedures did not provide adequate notice
to students and employees of the procedures and did not provide for an adequate, reliable, and
impartial investigation, including an equal opportunity to present witnesses and relevant
evidence. Specifically, the USM Sexual Assault Procedures:
•

•

•

1

Provided multiple, and at times conflicting, options for who may initiate a complaint of
sexual assault and to whom it should be made. In one instance, it referred complainants
to the Director of Public Safety, and at another point it identified the University Code of
Conduct System reporting system without providing any contact information or details
about the process. It also referred complainants to the University Judicial Administrator
in the Office for Student and Educational Services (SES).
Directed victims who wished to file a complaint against an employee to file a complaint
with “the vice president of the division in which the accused is employed,” but no contact
information or procedures were provided. OCR further notes that the Former Title IX
Coordinator and the Dean of Students disputed the University policies and procedures,
stating that complaints against employees were to be filed with the Title IX Coordinator.
Failed to provide a process for an adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation,
including an equal opportunity to present witnesses and relevant evidence. Although the
Sexual Assault Procedures stated hearings for sexual assault would be conducted through

All of the University’s former Title IX policies and procedures, except the Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
Procedures, were published in the University’s Policy Statements Booklet, which is an annual University publication
available on the University’s website provided to students, faculty, and staff by the Division of Student Affairs that
contains policies regarding substance abuse, safety, and standards of conduct for students, faculty, and staff. The
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Procedures were published on the Office of Human Resource’s webpage
and the Office of ADA/EEO and Title IX Compliance’s webpage.
2
The University included the USM Sexual Assault Policies in the University’s Policy Statement Booklet which was
distributed to its students, employees, and third parties.

 Page 7 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk

•
•

the hearing procedures established in the Code of Student Conduct, OCR’s investigation
concluded the Code of Student Conduct also did not provide for an adequate, reliable, and
impartial investigation as required by Title IX.
Noted that inquiries concerning Title IX may be referred to OCR but did not provide
OCR’s contact information.
Did not provide for the following: designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for
major stages of the grievance process, as well as the process for extending timeframes;
written notice to the parties of the outcome of the complaint; an assurance that the
institution will take steps to prevent recurrence of harassment and correct its
discriminatory effects on the complainant and others, if appropriate; interim measures; a
statement that the standard of review is the preponderance of the evidence; a prohibition
against retaliatory harassment; an adequate definition of sexual harassment; or the right to
proceed with a criminal investigation and a Title IX complaint simultaneously.

OCR therefore concludes that the University’s USM Sexual Assault Policies and the USM Sexual
Assault Policies Procedures did not comply with the requirements of Title IX.
Sexual Harassment Policy
The Sexual Harassment Policy provided minimal guidance regarding resources available to a
victim of sexual harassment, such as how and where to file a complaint or how such a complaint
would be investigated. Although the Sexual Harassment Policy defined sexual harassment and
provided numerous examples of conduct that could rise to the level of sexual harassment, neither
the definition nor the examples mentioned sexual violence or sexual assault as a form of sexual
harassment. In addition, the Sexual Harassment Policy did not state whether it applied to
students, employees, and/or third parties. In addition, the Sexual Harassment Policy did not
provide adequate notice to students and employees of the procedures, including where
complaints may be filed, that was easily understood.
OCR also determined that the Sexual Harassment Policy did not provide for an adequate,
reliable, and impartial investigation, including an equal opportunity to present witnesses and
relevant evidence. While the Sexual Harassment Policy stated that the rights of both the
offender and the offended would be protected, including protection from retaliation, it directed
the reader to the Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Procedures, which as set forth more
fully below, did not provide for an adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation. Additionally,
the Sexual Harassment Policy inappropriately stated that “in assessing whether a particular act
constitutes sexual harassment forbidden under this policy, the rules of common sense and reason
shall prevail. The standard shall be the perspective of a reasonable person within the campus
community.” This standard falls short of the preponderance of the evidence standard required to
satisfy Title IX.
In addition, the Sexual Harassment Policy did not provide for the following: designated and
reasonably prompt timeframes for major stages of the grievance process, as well as the process
for extending timeframes; written notice to the parties of the outcome of the complaint; an
assurance that the institution will take steps to prevent recurrence of harassment and correct its
discriminatory effects on the complainant and others, if appropriate; interim measures; a
prohibition against retaliatory harassment; or the right to proceed with a criminal investigation
and a Title IX complaint simultaneously.

 Page 8 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
OCR therefore concludes that the University’s Sexual Harassment Policy did not comply with
the requirements of Title IX.
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Procedures 3
The University’s Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Procedures are grievance procedures
for filing complaints of discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex,
age, disability, veteran status, and sexual orientation. While the Discrimination and Sexual
Harassment Procedures adequately provided for written notice to the parties of the outcome of
the complaint and prohibited retaliation, they did not provide for: adequate notice to students and
employees of the procedures, including where complaints may be filed, that was easily
understood; the application of the procedures to complaints alleging discrimination or
harassment carried out by employees, other students, and third parties; an adequate, reliable, and
impartial investigation, including an equal opportunity to present witnesses and other relevant
evidence; timeframes for all major stages of the grievance process, and/or a process for
extending timelines. Specifically, the Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Procedures:
•
•

•

•
•

•
•

•

3

Did not provide that the parties had an equal opportunity to provide evidence and
witnesses during the investigation.
Did not provide any timeline with respect to the informal complaint process, and with
respect to formal complaints, the procedures did not provide a timeframe, but instead
stated that the Title IX Coordinator would conclude the investigation of the facts as
promptly as possible.
Required complaints to be filed within 60 calendar days of the complainant having
reasonable knowledge of the act and complaints against a faculty member were directed
to be brought within 60 calendar days after the last day of the semester in which the
incident occurred.
Stated that the Title IX Coordinator would make the determination as to whether an
investigation of the dispute would be undertaken or if the matter would proceed to a
hearing, but did not state how this determination would be made.
Did not define University community member and it was unclear who could make a
complaint of discrimination or sexual harassment pursuant to these procedures. We note,
however, that the Former Title IX Coordinator explained that “member of the University
community,” as stated in the procedures, could include a third party, such as a vendor.
Stated that complainants could file with OCR and other agencies, but did not provide
contact information for OCR or any other agency.
Included an informal process that did not state that the informal process was voluntary
and that mediation may not be used in a complaint of sexual assault or sexual violence.
In addition, the Former Title IX Coordinator stated that mediation was an available
option for cases alleging sexual assault.
Did not provide the following: an assurance that the University would take steps to
prevent the recurrence of harassment and correct its discriminatory effects on the
complainant and others, if appropriate; interim measures; or a statement that the
preponderance of the evidence was the appropriate evidentiary standard to be utilized.

While the University’s Sexual Assault Procedures were clearly intended to set forth the information required by
the USM Sexual Assault Policies, several key administrators insisted that the Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
Procedures were developed by the University to meet the requirements set forth in the USM Sexual Assault
Policies.

 Page 9 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
•
•

Prohibited retaliation, but did not contain policies and procedures to protect against
retaliatory harassment.
Did not specify that sexual violence is a form of sexual harassment.

OCR therefore concludes that the University’s Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
Procedures did not comply with the requirements of Title IX.
Code of Student Conduct
The Code of Student Conduct set forth conduct that was prohibited by the University and subject
to student conduct proceedings, including sexual harassment and sexual offenses labeled as
“sexual misconduct I” and “sexual misconduct II.”
The Code of Student Conduct appropriately identified the preponderance of the evidence as the
evidentiary standard of review for the hearing. In addition, it provided to both parties an equal
opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence at the hearing and access to information used
at the hearing; the opportunity to hear, question, and challenge adverse testimony or witnesses
through the hearing panel; advisors to provide support at the hearing; and the right to appeal the
hearing determination. However, it did not provide adequate notice to students and employees of
the procedures, including where complaints may be filed; an adequate, reliable, and impartial
investigation, including an equal opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence during the
investigation of the complaint; designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for all major stages
of the grievance process or a process for extending timeframes; adequate written notice to the
parties of the outcome of the complaint; interim measures for the victim; an assurance that the
University would take steps to prevent recurrence of harassment and to correct its discriminatory
effects on the complainant and others, if appropriate; policies and procedures to protect against
retaliatory harassment; or notice to the complainant of the right to proceed with a criminal
investigation and a Title IX investigation simultaneously. Specifically, the Code of Student
Conduct:
•
•

•
•

Defined sexual harassment, but the definition did not include sexual assault or sexual
violence.
Stated that any faculty, staff, or student may refer to a University Code Administrator a
student or student organization suspected of violating the Code of Student Conduct, but it
did not provide direction regarding the identity or contact information of the University
Code Administrator(s) or the process for making such a referral. In addition, OCR’s
investigation found that there was contradictory evidence regarding whether all
complaints against students must be filed under the Code of Student Conduct procedures.
Specifically, the Former Title IX Coordinator told OCR that if a complaint alleged sexual
harassment or assault by a student against an employee, the Discrimination and
Harassment Procedures would apply. That distinction, however, was not evident from
the Code of Student Conduct.
Did not provide that third parties may bring a complaint against a student by invoking the
Code of Student Conduct.
Permitted an accused student to have an attorney present at the hearing if criminal
charges were also likely, but the complainant was not similarly entitled to have an
attorney present.

 Page 10 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
•
•
•

•

•

Provided that, during the sanctioning phase, the referred student may present character
references or statements to testify on his or her behalf, but the complainant was not
provided an equal opportunity for character witnesses.
Raised a concern regarding the impartiality under the Code of Student Conduct because
Key Administrator 2, who served as an advocate for victims to help guide them through
the Code of Student Conduct process, also served as a hearing panel member.
Contained general timeframes, including that referrals should be made in a “timely
manner,” witness statements will be provided to the parties “in a reasonable time prior to
the hearing to allow both parties to review and challenge them,” and a written decision
shall be sent to the referred student “within a reasonable period of time.”
Provided that a written decision would be sent to the referred student at his/her address or
by email within a reasonable period of time, but it did not provide that the complainant
would also receive a copy of the outcome in writing. Moreover, if a victim of a crime of
violence or non-forcible sex offense wished to receive the results of any disciplinary
hearing conducted by the University against a student who was the alleged perpetrator of
the crime or offense, he or she was required to submit a request in writing. In addition,
although the Code of Student Conduct permitted appeals, it did not provide for written
notice to the parties of the outcome of the appeal.
Included the option for mediation but did not state that mediation is not appropriate for
cases of sexual assault.

OCR also has concerns that the Dean of Students informed OCR that the University conducted
only a limited investigation to determine if there was enough information to indicate that there
was a likelihood that a violation of policy occurred, and that the subsequent judicial panel
hearing constituted the University’s investigation.
OCR therefore concludes that the University’s Code of Student Conduct did not comply with the
requirements of Title IX.
Title IX Website and 2016 Revisions to Title IX Policies and Procedures
The University currently has a Title IX webpage that serves as a comprehensive Title IX
resource. The webpage identifies the University’s Title IX and University Compliance
Coordinator (Current Title IX Coordinator) and the Deputy Title IX Coordinator and provides
the telephone number and email address for each. We note that Key Administrator 2 is now
designated as a Deputy Title IX Coordinator. The webpage contains links entitled “reporting
options,” “sources of support,” “definitions,” “reporting form,” and “policies and procedures.”
The reporting options page provides a comprehensive list of the different ways a victim may
report sexual harassment or sexual violence, as well as contact information for the University
individuals and offices who may provide assistance in doing so. The sources of support page
provides detailed information regarding various on and off campus resources available to provide
assistance to victims, with accompanying contact information and a short description of each
resource. The definitions page includes a definition for confidential employee, gender based
violence, relationship violence, sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, sexual intimidation,
sexual misconduct, sexual violence, retaliation, stalking, interim measures, and responsible
employee. OCR notes that the Title IX webpage states that all employees, except those of the
health center and counseling center, are responsible employees obligated to report incidents of

 Page 11 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
prohibited conduct. The reporting form page is an online reporting form, and the cover page also
provides instructions for anonymous reporting. The form also states that all reports are directed
to the Title IX Coordinator and provides her name and contact information, along with the
contact information for on and off campus resources. The form allows the individual to
designate the specific type of misconduct that took place, the location of the misconduct, the
complainant’s identification, the respondent’s identification and the details of the incident.
Lastly, the policies and procedures page includes a link to the 2016 Harassment and Violence
Policy and Procedures.
2016 Harassment and Violence Policy and Procedures
OCR concluded that 2016 Harassment and Violence Policies and Procedures are compliant with
Title IX in a number of areas. The following summary describes the provisions of the 2016
Harassment and Violence Policies and Procedures that are not compliant:
Although the 2016 Harassment and Violence Policy and Procedures provide for timeframes for
many of the major stages of the grievance process, it does not provide timeframes for all of the
major stages. Specifically, timeframes are not provided for when the Title IX Coordinator or
designee will issue a Notice of Investigation to the parties, for when the University will
determine appropriate sanctions when the respondent is an employee, or a timeframe for when
the Title IX Coordinator or designee will issue a Notice of Investigative Finding to the parties.
The 2016 Harassment and Violence Policy and Procedures provide that each party will receive
written notice of the outcome of a voluntary resolution, the final investigative report, and the
appeal. However, the policy does not explicitly state that written notice will be provided to the
complainant when the Title IX Coordinator determines that no further action should be taken
after the initial review.
OCR therefore concludes that the University’s 2016 Harassment and Violence Policy and
Procedures do not comply with the requirements of Title IX.
3. Responsible Employees
The former Title IX policies and procedures were largely silent with respect to the responsibility
of employees to report sexual harassment or sexual assault. Only the Sexual Harassment Policy
addressed responsible employees, stating that “members of the University community with
personal knowledge of incidents of harassment are encouraged, and University employees are
required, to report such knowledge to the Title IX Coordinator.”
By contrast, the current Title IX website and the 2016 Harassment and Violence Policy and
Procedures inform the campus community of which employees are considered responsible
employees and which are considered confidential employees, and define each of those terms.
Specifically, it states that responsible employees who learn of or witness prohibited conduct are
required to report it to the Title IX Coordinator, and except for confidential employees, all
University employees have been designated as responsible employees by the University.
Confidential employees are defined as employees who are not required to report incidents, and
are limited to employees of the health and counseling centers. In addition, the 2016 Harassment
and Violence Policy and Procedures advises that the University police can assist individuals in
making a report to law enforcement and explains that reporting an incident to the University

 Page 12 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
police will trigger the University police’s obligation as responsible employees to report the
conduct to the University as well.
OCR’s has concerns that the previous Title IX policies and procedures did not adequately
designate and categorize University employees as either responsible employees or confidential
resources. OCR notes, however, that the University’s current Title IX policies and procedures
do include appropriate designations and categories.
4. Confidentiality
Prior to 2016, confidentiality was addressed only in the Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
Procedures, which provided that “confidentiality will be maintained to the extent permitted by
law, except insofar as information needs to be disclosed so that the University may effectively
investigate the matter and take corrective action.” The policy did not specifically address
factors such as when a request for confidentiality would be honored, the conditions under which
such a request would not be honored, or the individual(s) responsible for deciding whether a
complainant’s request for confidentiality would be honored. In addition, the former Title IX
policies and procedures did not address how student requests to not pursue campus judicial
action would be addressed.
The 2016 Harassment and Violence Policies and Procedures provide definitions for privacy and
confidentiality, explain the differences between each, and state that when a complainant requests
that their name or other identifiable information not be shared or that no formal action be taken,
the Title IX Coordinator, in consultation with the Title IX team, will balance this request with the
University’s obligation to provide a safe and non-discriminatory environment to the victim and
the rest of the community. If the University is unable to honor the request, the Title IX
Coordinator will inform the victim prior to starting a formal investigation.
OCR’s has concerns that the previous Title IX policies and procedures did not adequately
address the University’s obligations when a victim requests confidentiality and/or elects not to
proceed with a complaint. OCR notes, however, that the University’s current Title IX policies
and procedures appropriately address the University’s obligations regarding confidentiality.
5. Title IX Coordinator
The Former Title IX Coordinator was also the University’s Director of the Americans with
Disabilities Act/Equal Employment Opportunity (ADA/EEO). According to the Former Title IX
Coordinator, her Title IX Coordinator duties included overseeing all Title IX policies and
procedures, working with the athletic department to ensure equity, working with SES on its
grievance procedures, keeping abreast of Title IX complaints that were filed, as well as their
conclusions and outcomes, and investigating Title IX complaints that were made by or against
faculty or staff.
The Former Title IX Coordinator did not oversee all of the University’s efforts to comply with
and carry out its Title IX responsibilities and programs. Although the Former Title IX
Coordinator was notified of some of the incidents brought against employees and students, the
evidence showed that the Dean of Students bore the primary responsibility for the handling of
such complaints, with little to no oversight by the Former Title IX Coordinator. Key
Administrator 2 also held significant Title IX responsibilities, including serving as a case

 Page 13 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
manager for student victims of sexual assault and assisting students with obtaining services, and
with the University’s judicial process, again with little to no oversight by the Former Title IX
Coordinator. In addition, based on the information provided by the University and its
administrators, OCR found that the Former Title IX Coordinator did not receive sufficient
training and did not sufficiently implement the University’s Title IX requirements. Information
provided by the University also showed, as discussed below, that the Former Title IX
Coordinator only received notice of five of 43 reports of sexual violence and assault that
occurred from January 2010 through November 2014 and, thus, was not in a position to identify
problematic individuals, groups, or locations or to assess whether patterns of conduct or serial
perpetration occurred that the University should address.
OCR also found that, although the Former Title IX Coordinator’s name, title, office address, and
phone number appeared in some of the University’s Title IX policies and procedures, and the
University’s sexual assault pamphlet and brochure, it did not appear in widely disseminated
publications such as the course catalog. As already noted, it also did not appear in the
University’s Notice of Non-Discrimination, USM Sexual Assault Policy, or the University’s
Sexual Assault Procedures.
In January 2015, the University named the new Title IX and University Compliance Coordinator
(Current Title IX Coordinator). The Current Title IX Coordinator reported to OCR that since she
was hired, the University has revised and enhanced the role of the Title IX Coordinator.
OCR therefore concludes that the University did not comply with Title IX with respect to the
training of the Former Title IX Coordinator and assigning her sufficient responsibilities and
duties. OCR will review and analyze the role of the University’s Current Title IX Coordinator
during its monitoring of the Agreement.
6. Handling of Criminal Complaints
The University’s former Title IX policies and procedures did not address how the University
handled criminal complaints that were brought against students, whether a criminal complaint
could trigger a University investigation, or the effect of a criminal complaint on the University’s
Title IX investigative process. Notwithstanding, OCR’s investigation did not reveal any
compliance concerns regarding the University’s practices regarding the handling of criminal
complaints.
The University’s Chief of University police stated that the University did not have a
memorandum of understanding with the local police or state police, but that the University police
shared a reporting system with the local police, and had a verbal agreement with the state police
that the state police would notify the University police if a University student was involved in a
sexual assault. Subsequently, the University provided a copy of a 2012 Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between various agencies, including local law enforcement and the
University, stipulating that the purpose of the agreement is to coordinate multiple agency law
enforcement units to investigate violations of Maryland law. The University explained that,
under the MOU, University police report major crimes (including sexual assault) to local law
enforcement; local law enforcement then provides a trained investigator to conduct the
investigation.

 Page 14 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
OCR has concerns that the University’s MOU does not specifically address the coordination of
investigations of sexual harassment and sexual assault. OCR will review and analyze the
University’s handling of criminal complaints and the MOU during its monitoring of the
Agreement.
7. Training
OCR found that at the time of the underlying incidents in this complaint, there were multiple
deficiencies in the University’s Title IX training, including the quality of the training that was
provided to those charged with implementing Title IX and the University’s Title IX grievance
procedures, as well as the training that was provided to the campus community. Documentation
provided by the University, as well as interviews with the Former Title IX Coordinator revealed
that the Former Title IX Coordinator and Key Administrator 2, who served as a liaison for
victims in the University’s Title IX process, were not adequately trained regarding their Title IX
responsibilities.
In addition, the University informed OCR that all employees are required to take an online
training regarding sexual harassment. OCR reviewed the online sexual harassment training
materials and found that, while it addressed sexual harassment in the employment context, it did
not address sexual harassment/sexual violence as it relates to students or Title IX, and it did not
provide any information specific to the University, such as the University’s procedures for
reporting sexual harassment/violence or responsible employees. Additionally, while the Former
Title IX Coordinator told OCR that responsible employees were informed of their reporting
obligations during workshops and training, the University did not provide any specific
information regarding those workshops or trainings.
OCR also notes deficiencies with the training of former panel hearing members. While the Code
of Student Conduct stated that all new hearing panel members would participate in an orientation
session, it did not provide for specialized training for panel members who sat on panels where
the alleged violation was sexual harassment or sexual assault. The University advised OCR, and
Key Administrator 2 confirmed, that the Dean of Students provided hearing panel members with
training specific to sexual harassment and sexual assault. Panel members also received periodic
additional training related to sexual harassment and sexual assault, such as training by
community organizations and the local police. However, one hearing panel member told OCR
that specialized training was not mandatory for hearing panel members. According to the
Current Title IX Coordinator, the University has revised and enhanced the training it provides to
the campus community.
OCR therefore concludes that the University’s training of relevant staff and students did not
comply with the requirements of Title IX. OCR will review and analyze the training the
University currently provides to the campus community during its monitoring of the Agreement.
8. Outreach
OCR found that the University provided the campus community with outreach regarding issues
surrounding sexual harassment and sexual violence in a variety of ways. For example, the
President’s Advisory Council Against Gender Based Violence (Advisory Council) was
comprised of administrators, faculty, and staff and was charged with coordinating programs and
distributing information and literature to the campus community, such as a campaign regarding

 Page 15 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
consent. One of the members of the Advisory Council explained to OCR that the Advisory
Council was started in 2011 to bring together staff, faculty, students, and administrators for a
coordinated University response for education programming, policy, and training regarding
sexual harassment and assault. At the time of OCR’s visit in April 2014, there were at least two
campus-wide programs each semester regarding sexual violence, as well as additional
programming for students during the first several weeks of the academic year where incidents are
more likely to occur. Additionally, Title IX policy statements, including the student conduct
process, are emailed to students every year. Moreover, the Current Title IX Coordinator advised
OCR that the University has revised and enhanced its outreach to the campus community.
OCR does not have concerns regarding the University’s outreach efforts.
9. Student Climate Information and Climate Assessment/Response
Key Administrator 2 and Key Administrator 1 told OCR that the University assesses student
climate through the National College Health Assessment II (the Assessment). The Assessment is
a survey that is issued every two years to gauge a number of health-related topics, including
sexual health. Key Administrator 2 used the survey results to inform the University’s practices
and to address trends regarding sexual harassment and assault. The University provided the
results of the 2009, 2011, and 2013 surveys that were completed by undergraduates. OCR has
concerns regarding the low response rate to the surveys: 21% in 2009, 15.8% in 2011, and 11.6%
in 2013. In addition, 70% of the students who responded to the 2013 survey reported they did
not believe they received information regarding sexual assault from the University, which also
gave rise to concerns. In addition, although there are media reports of a 2015 climate survey, the
University did not provide the results to OCR.
OCR has concerns regarding the University’s assessment of student climate given the low
response rate of prior surveys. OCR will analyze the University’s assessment of student climate
during its monitoring of the Agreement.
10. Record Keeping Practices
In reviewing the data for the 43 other incidents that occurred from January 2010 through
November 2014, OCR observed that the University did not provide complete documentation for
thirty-one incidents, including witness interviews, investigative reports, communications with
parties, written notice of the outcome to the victim, or documentation confirming that the victim
was advised of on-campus and off-campus resources, including interim measures. Despite the
statements of the Dean of Students and Key Administrator 2, the data revealed that the Former
Title IX Coordinator was only notified of five of the incidents and, thus, was not in a position to
identify problematic individuals, groups, or locations.
OCR therefore concludes that the University did not have record keeping practices that comply
with the requirements of Title IX.
11. Handling of Complaints and Incidents of Sexual Assault and Sexual Violence
OCR investigated whether the University provided prompt and equitable responses to sexual
violence complaints, reports and/or other incidents of which it had notice (knew or should have
known about), including those filed by the Complainant 1, Complainant 2, and other students’

 Page 16 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
complaints/reports. OCR also investigated whether any failure by the University to promptly
and equitably respond to complaints of sexual assault/violence of which it had notice, resulted in
individuals, including Complainant 1 and Complainant 2, continuing to be subjected to a
sexually hostile environment.
Complainant 1 Incident
Complainant 1 was a senior at the University during the Spring 2013 semester. She resided in an
on campus residence hall and was involved in student government. The Complainant alleges
that, on February 27, 2013, she was raped by a fellow student (Accused Student) at an off
campus party. Soon after the incident, Complainant 1 left campus to stay at her parents’ home.
It is undisputed that, on or about March 3, 2013, Complainant 1’s father called Key
Administrator 1 and an employee to inform them that Complainant 1 would be out of school for
a few days as a result of the trauma from the rape. On March 4, 2013, Key Administrator 1
notified Complainant 1’s professors that she missed or would be missing some classes due to
medical reasons.
Key Administrator 1 oversees various University functions, including but not limited to, student
conduct. It is undisputed that he did not report the alleged rape to SES or anyone else at the
University. Key Administrator 1 told OCR he did not report the incident because Complainant
1’s father asked him to keep it in confidence and that, although he realized he had to report it at
some point, he wanted to have a conversation with Complainant 1 before doing so in order to
make her aware of his obligations. Key Administrator 1 also told OCR that a conversation with
Complainant 1 became unnecessary because within a week of his conversation with Complainant
1’s father, the Dean of Students informed him that Complainant 1 had reported the incident to
the police.
On March 3, 2013, Complainant 1 reported the incident to the state police. The Chief of
University police told OCR that one of her officers notified her of Complainant 1’s report to the
state police, and that it is her office’s practice to immediately notify the Dean of Students or the
Title IX Coordinator of any such reports. However, OCR’s investigation did not find evidence
showing that the campus police informed SES or the Title IX Coordinator of Complainant 1’s
report to the state police. In addition, the Dean of Students told OCR that SES did not learn of
the incident until March 14, 2013, when Complainant 1 returned to campus and discussed the
situation with him.
Complainant 1 told OCR that, during her March 14, 2013 meeting with the Dean of Students she
told him that she did not feel safe on campus because, following the incident, the Accused
Student tried making contact with her several times, and started following her on campus. In
response, by email dated March 14, 2013, and in person on that date, the Dean of Students
advised Complainant 1 and the Accused Student to avoid any contact with the other either in
person, written, verbal or electronic form. In addition, Complainant 1 told OCR that the Dean of
Students informed her that she could receive counseling from the University’s counseling center
or a community counseling center, but that he did not discuss any other interim measures with
her. The Dean of Students, however, told OCR that he provided Complainant 1 with a pamphlet
that described all available interim measures. OCR reviewed the pamphlet and found that, with
respect to interim measures, it stated only that “a survivor may request alternative academic,
living, or employment situations if such alternatives are available, feasible, and appropriate to the
facts of the sexual assault.” After the incident, Complainant 1 moved back home with her

 Page 17 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
parents who lived about one hour away because she did not feel safe and she continued to see the
Accused Student on campus.
Complainant 1 informed OCR that, as a result of the incident, she experienced some difficulty in
her classes. The only interim measures offered by the University were an offer for counseling, as
well as to allow her a late withdrawal from her classes and an offer to contact her professors to
explain that the she was having difficulties because of the incident. Complainant 1 chose to
finish her classes and made arrangements with all of her teachers on her own in order to
complete her coursework. Last, Complainant 1 told OCR that she was initially told that she
would face disciplinary action for engaging in underage drinking the night of the incident. There
is no dispute that Complainant was not disciplined for engaging in underage drinking the night of
the incident. However, the Dean of Students acknowledged to OCR that he counseled
Complainant 1 about her consumption of alcohol the evening of the incident.
On March 14, 2013, the Accused Student was criminally charged with rape and other offenses as
a result of Complainant 1’s report to the state police. The state police notified the campus police
of the charges, and on March 15, 2013, the Chief of University police called SES and advised the
Assistant Dean that the Accused Student had been charged with rape. Upon review of the
statement of charges, the University learned that there was information to indicate a possible
violation of University policy. The Dean of Students proceeded with setting up a judicial board
hearing panel.
The judicial board hearing was originally scheduled for April 2, 2013; however, at the request of
the Accused Student’s attorney, the hearing was delayed until April 12, 2013. Complainant 1
told OCR that she was not aware that she could have retained an attorney to represent her or
requested to reschedule the hearing. In addition, Complainant 1 told OCR that she provided the
Dean of Students with a list of several witnesses to be interviewed; however only a few of them
were contacted. Moreover, a few days before the judicial board hearing, at the request of the
Accused Student’s attorney, two of the Accused’s character witnesses were added to the hearing
list and the record was supplemented with reference letters. OCR’s investigation found that
Complainant 1 was not provided with the opportunity to provide character witnesses or reference
letters.
There is no dispute that, prior to the judicial board hearing, the Accused Student violated the nocontact directive. As a result, the University developed a schedule for the Accused Student and
Complainant 1. It is also undisputed that subsequent to the development of the schedule, the
Accused Student violated the agreement on two separate occasions. A “show cause” hearing
was scheduled for the Accused on April 11, 2013 to determine if any additional action was
necessary in accordance with the Policy Statement Booklet. Complainant 1 was not made aware
that this hearing was taking place and she was not a participant in the University’s proceedings
regarding the Accused Student’s violation of the restricted hours. As a result of the April 11,
2013 hearing, it was agreed that, except to attend class, the Accused Student would be restricted
to an area of campus close to his residence hall. Key Administrator 2 informed Complainant 1 of
these restrictions after the hearing. The Dean of Students told OCR that the University did not
consider the Accused Student’s violations of the no contact order to be a form of sexual
harassment.
The hearing to address Complainant 1’s allegation of rape was held on April 12, 2013. The
Dean of Students explained that the Accused Student was permitted to have an attorney present

 Page 18 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
at the hearing in accordance with the Code of Student Conduct, and that Complainant 1 was also
permitted to have an attorney present. When asked how Complainant 1 would have been aware
that she had this opportunity, the Dean of Students stated that he told her that she could have a
support person present. However, the Complainant indicates that she was never notified that her
support person could be an attorney. The evidence reflects that Complainant 1 was able to
secure a friend of the family who is an attorney to be her support person during the hearing.
Complainant 1 told OCR that none of the Accused Student’s evidence was shared with her
before the hearing, which the Dean of Students denies. In addition, she told OCR that she was
not aware that she could bring physical evidence to the hearing, and was upset when she learned
that the Accused Student brought such evidence. As noted, while the Accused Student was
permitted to submit character witnesses, Complainant 1’s request to submit similar witness
statements was denied
As a result of the hearing, the Accused Student was found responsible for Sexual Misconduct I,
Sexual Misconduct II, and Endangering the Health and Safety of Self/Others. On April 16,
2013, the University issued the following sanctions: suspension through the end of the Fall 2013
semester; requirement to reapply for readmission; designated as persona non grata on the
University’s campus throughout the duration of the suspension; and if readmitted, disciplinary
probation through graduation. The Disposition gave the parties five business days to appeal the
outcome, and directed the parties to the Code of Student Conduct for information regarding
appeals. Both parties filed appeals.
Pursuant to University policy, the Accused Student was permitted to remain on campus pending
the outcome of the appeal and the April 11, 2013 restrictions on his movement on campus
remained in place. After the judicial board hearing, Complainant 1 informed University officials
that the Accused Student again violated the no contact agreement. In response, the Dean of
Students informed the Accused Student in writing that he was required to leave campus
immediately due to reports from the University police indicating that he had violated the no
contact order.
The Dean of Students held another “show cause hearing” on April 22, 2013 by phone. There is
no transcript or written record of this hearing, and OCR confirmed that Complainant 1 did not
attend the hearing. The Dean of Students told OCR that Complainant 1 was asked to provide a
statement for the hearing. As a result of April 22, 2013 show cause hearing, the Accused Student
was charged with “Refusing a Reasonable Request and Harassment,” and an administrative
hearing was scheduled to adjudicate these charges on May 14, 2013.
On April 26, 2013, Key Administrator 1 sent written notice to the Accused Student and
Complainant 1 denying their appeals and notifying them that the outcome of the hearing on April
12, 2013, took effect immediately.
As a result of the May 14, 2013 administrative hearing to adjudicate the charges of Refusing a
Reasonable Request and Harassment, the Accused Student pled responsible for Refusing a
Reasonable Request and agreed that he would not reapply or otherwise be readmitted to the
University following the one year suspension. OCR notes, however, that no disposition was
made with respect to the harassment charge. The University described the outcome as a
“permanent suspension from the University.” Complainant 1 promptly received notice of the
outcome of the administrative hearing via email from the Dean of Students, including that the

 Page 19 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
Accused Student would no longer be eligible to return to the University. However, OCR notes
that the University did not provide Complainant 1 a copy of the disposition of the hearing,
despite her request. OCR further notes that the University did not consider the hearing regarding
the Accused Student’s failure to abide by the no contact order to be a hearing governed by the
requirements of Title IX.
ANALYSIS of Complainant 1 Incident:
Based on the investigation, OCR concludes that the University failed to respond promptly and
equitably to Complainant 1’s report of sexual violence. Additionally, OCR concludes that
Complainant 1 was subjected to a sexually hostile environment, and continued to be subjected to
a hostile environment due to the University’s failure to provide adequate interim measures and to
take steps to stop the harassment and prevent its recurrence.
First, the University did not promptly respond after two mandatory reporters had notice of the
incident. Although Key Administrator 1, another employee, and the campus police learned of
the incident on or about March 3, 2013, OCR’s investigation found that the University did not
initiate any action until Complainant 1 herself reported the incident to the Dean of Students on
March 14, 2013. Although Key Administrator 1 told OCR he did not initiate any action
regarding the incident because Complainant 1’s father asked him to keep it in confidence, OCR
notes that while a complainant’s request for confidentiality is a factor a recipient should
consider, a university must take action to address incidents upon receiving notice of them,
including but not limited to whether honoring a request for confidentiality is appropriate under
the circumstances presented. OCR’s investigation did conclude, however, that once Complainant
1 reported the incident to the Dean of Students, the University did promptly move forward to
hold a hearing and address the subsequent appeal.
In addition, the University did not adequately provide Complainant 1 with interim measures.
Although the Dean of Students put a no contact order in place, it was not effective in keeping the
Accused Student away from Complainant 1, as evidenced by the Accused Student’s multiple
violations of the no contact order. In addition, although Key Administrator 2 was assigned as
Complainant 1’s support person and information was provided to Complainant 1 about available
counseling services, the evidence did not show that the University provided her with guidance
regarding the full range of available interim measures. Further, OCR found that in some
instances, Complainant 1 arranged for interim measures, such as alternative coursework, on her
own.
The University’s investigation of the incident involving Complainant 1 was not adequate,
reliable or impartial. The University conducted only a cursory investigation that consisted of
speaking to several student witnesses and reviewing the police report prior to holding a hearing
regarding the incident. However, the University did not interview or invite all of the relevant
witnesses identified by Complainant 1 to the hearing, even though it considered the hearing to be
its investigation. In addition, both parties did not have equitable access to an attorney because
Complainant 1 was not informed that she could have counsel present until the day of the hearing.
Although Complainant 1 was able to find an attorney to accompany her to the hearing, unlike the
Accused Student, she did not have the benefit of being represented by counsel throughout the
University’s process. Furthermore, Complainant 1 was not afforded the same opportunity to
provide character witnesses as the Accused Student. OCR also has concerns that Key
Administrator 2, who served as a victim’s advocate, also served as a member of the hearing

 Page 20 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
panel, which may have posed a potential conflict of interest at the time. OCR’s investigation
was not able to resolve the factual dispute regarding whether Complainant 1 was denied access
to the Accused Student’s evidence prior to the hearing. Despite its written policies, the
University employed the correct standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence), informed the
parties of the status of the investigation, and provided both parties with an equal opportunity to
appeal the outcome of the hearing.
The University provided the parties with written notice of the outcome of the hearing and appeal
pertaining to the incident. In addition, the evidence reflects that Complainant 1 received email
notification of the outcome of the May 14, 2013 administrative hearing that addressed the
Accused Student’s failure to abide by the no contact order. However, the University erroneously
did not treat the Accused Student’s failure to abide by the no contact order as a violation of Title
IX, and as such, it did not provide Complainant 1 with all of the information regarding that
proceeding as required by Title IX, such as the hearing disposition form. The evidence also
reflects that the University took actions that could have a chilling effect on students reporting
incidents of sexual assault. Specifically, Complainant 1 perceived the Dean of Students as
having suggested she could receive discipline for having engaged in underage drinking the night
of the offense and the Dean of Students confirmed that he counseled Complainant 1 regarding
her consumption of alcohol on the evening of the incident.
Complainant 2 Incident
On May 20, 2014, just prior to her graduation from the University, Complainant 2 reported to the
Former Title IX Coordinator that a campus police officer sexually assaulted her in his police
vehicle during the fall 2009 semester.
OCR’s investigation found that after meeting with Complainant 2, the Former Title IX
Coordinator immediately contacted the campus police, and the campus police turned the case
over to the county authorities. The Chief of University police and the Former Title IX
Coordinator told OCR that they informed Complainant 2 of available University and community
resources. Complainant 2 told OCR that the Former Title IX Coordinator did not provide her
with any information regarding her reporting options, but rather, only took her information and
then about 20 minutes later the Chief of University police called her and asked her to come in for
an interview with investigators from the county, which she did. Complainant 2 also told OCR
that she had received counseling from the University counseling center immediately following
the incident and that she received an email from Key Administrator 2 detailing outside resources
after she reported the incident to the Former Title IX Coordinator. The Chief of University
police told OCR that she kept in touch with Complainant 2 throughout the summer and provided
OCR with copies of text message exchanges between July and September 2014 in which she
checked-in on Complainant 2 and provided her with updates on her criminal case. The
University asserts that no additional remedial measures or accommodations were deemed
necessary for Complainant 2, as she graduated from the University and left the area shortly after
making her report. Complainant 2 confirmed that she graduated the day after she made her
report and left campus shortly thereafter to begin a job in another jurisdiction.
The University suspended the police officer on May 23, 2014. As a result of the criminal
investigation, on May 29, 2014, the officer was criminally charged. On September 9, 2014, the
police officer pled guilty and the plea required that he, among other things, not have any contact

 Page 21 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
with Complainant 2, resign from the campus police department, and provide information to the
county police as to similar activities known to him that occurred within the campus police.
In addition, the Chief of University police informed OCR that during the course of the criminal
investigation of the police officer, she received an anonymous letter regarding possible
misconduct by another University police officer (Officer 2). In addition, a witness who was
interviewed during the investigation of Complainant 2’s incident, provided information that
coincided with the allegation in the anonymous letter. The Chief of University police explained
that in response to the anonymous letter, she requested a law enforcement investigation of
Officer 2, and that the police explored the allegations but they were not able to substantiate the
allegations. The Former Title IX Coordinator told OCR that, while she received an
administrative internal summary of the investigation of the incident from the Maryland State
Police, she never reviewed the summary because it was sealed, and she had no reason to believe
that other officers engaged in misconduct, or that there were other student victims.
The Chief of University police and the Former Title IX Coordinator told OCR that the University
referred the matter to the police and did not conduct a separate Title IX investigation
independent of the police investigation. They also explained to OCR that investigations of
police conduct are conducted pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights, which, in
this instance, was conducted by the Maryland State Police Internal Affairs unit. While
Complainant 2 did not receive a copy of the summary of findings from the Maryland State
Police, the Chief of University police stated that Complainant 2 was advised of the plea bargain.
ANALYSIS of Complainant 2 Incident:
The University failed to conduct an adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of the incident
involving Complainant 2, and failed to take steps to prevent the recurrence of harassment and
correct its discriminatory effects with respect to Complainant 2. Specifically, the evidence
reflects that the University failed to promptly respond to Complainant 2’s report of sexual assault
by conducting a simultaneous Title IX investigation. In addition, because the campus police
officer committed the sexual assault in the context of carrying out his responsibilities as an
employee, the University was responsible for the discriminatory conduct and for remedying any
effects of the harassment on Complainant 2, as well as for ending the harassment and preventing
its recurrence. Moreover, the University erroneously determined that it did not have any
obligations to Complainant 2 under Title IX because she had graduated from the University soon
after making her report. Although the University provided some limited information regarding
counseling services, it determined that additional services were not necessary because
Complainant 2 graduated from the University the day after making her report, and thus,
Complainant 2 was not offered the full range of remedial services. Thus, OCR concludes that
Complainant 2 was subjected to a sexually hostile environment due to the University’s failure to
respond to her complaint.
Incidents Involving Other Students
OCR also reviewed documentation for all student complaints or reports of sexual harassment or
sexual violence from January 2010 through November 2014. In total there were forty-three
formal and informal complaints or reports made during that time period. As set forth below,
OCR identified several general deficiencies in the way in which the University processed
complaints of sexual harassment and assault from January 2010 through November 2014, which

 Page 22 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
further support OCR’s findings that the University failed to provide for adequate, reliable, and
impartial investigations 4:
In one of the incidents, the University had not yet completed its investigation at the time it
provided responsive data to OCR. OCR notes, however, that the University never provided
subsequent documentation demonstrating that the incident had been fully investigated and/or
resolved.
In five incidents, the University did not conduct an investigation under its Title IX policies and
procedures, but instead relied upon the local police or the campus police to conduct an
investigation. Additionally, the documentation provided by the University did not show that in
any of these five incidents, University staff, including Dean of Students, the Former Title IX
Coordinator, or Key Administrator 2, were advised of the incident. In one of the incidents, the
University did not complete its investigation at the request of local law enforcement, who
requested that the University delay its investigative process in order to not compromise the
integrity of the criminal investigation. However, the documentation provided by the University
is insufficient to demonstrate that the University completed its investigation once the police
completed gathering evidence. As noted above, a recipient has an independent responsibility
under Title IX to investigate an incident of sexual harassment/sexual assault, apart from any
separate criminal investigation. Similarly, a recipient should not wait for the conclusion of a
criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to begin its own Title IX investigation. Although a
recipient may need to delay temporarily the fact-finding portion of a Title IX investigation while
the police are gathering evidence, it should not permanently cease all investigatory activities.
In nine of the incidents, the University did not proceed with an investigation at the victim’s
request. A school should weigh and consider requests for confidentiality carefully, while at the
same time it must consider its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory
environment for all students, including the student who reported the sexual violence. This
requires a balanced, deliberative approach to each individual request from a victim. However,
the documentation provided by the University does not demonstrate that the University engaged
in a deliberative determination regarding whether, in each instance, it could honor the victim’s
request not to proceed, and whether that decision was balanced against the need to keep the
community safe.
In six of the incidents, the University did not proceed with an investigation because the incident
occurred off campus or involved a non-student victim or perpetrator. Thus, in these six
incidents, the University did not make a determination regarding whether the conduct occurred in
the context of an education program or activity, or had continuing effects on campus, or in an
off-campus education program or activity.
In one of the incidents, the University did not conduct an investigation in accordance with its
policy and procedures, and instead resolved the complaint informally, even though there were at
least two additional complaints filed against the same alleged perpetrator. Because the
University did not conduct a formal investigation, it never determined whether the victim or
other students experienced a hostile environment, and thus, did not provide appropriate remedies.

4

In separate correspondence to the University, OCR provided specific case numbers for each issue area referenced
below.

 Page 23 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
In addition, there were twenty-four cases in which the documentation did not support that the
victim was advised of the available on campus and off campus resources, including counseling.
OCR found that the University conducted an investigation under its Title IX policies and
procedures in thirteen of the forty-three incidents. Of those thirteen investigations, in two of the
cases identified by OCR, the documentation did not support that the victim was provided with
interim measures, and, as noted above, in many cases the documentation did not support that the
victim was advised of the available on campus and off campus resources, including counseling.
Title IX requires a school to take steps to ensure equal access to its education programs and
activities, and to protect the victim, as necessary, including taking interim measures before the
final outcome of the investigation and to take steps to end the harassment and correct its effects,
once a final determination is reached. Imposing sanctions against the perpetrator, without more,
likely will not eliminate the hostile environment, prevent its recurrence, and effectively remedy
its effects.
In addition to the thirteen incidents which were investigated by the University, there was one
case in which the documentation showed that the accused student was advised of his right to
have witnesses at the hearing, while the victim was not, and there were nine cases in which the
documentation did not support that the parties were allowed to provide evidence and witnesses.
As noted above, a school’s grievance procedures should provide for the adequate, reliable and
impartial investigation of complaints in which both parties are provided an equal opportunity to
present witnesses and evidence. While a school has flexibility in how it structures the
investigative process, for Title IX purposes, a school must give both the complainant and the
alleged perpetrator any rights that it gives to one of them. A balanced and fair process that
provides the same opportunities to both parties will lead to sound and supportable decisions.
Similarly, while schools are required to provide a prompt and equitable response to all Title IX
complaints, in one of the thirteen incidents which were investigated by the University, the
University did not provide a prompt and equitable response, as the complaint was not resolved
for nearly 10 months. Last, in eight of the thirteen incidents which were investigated by the
University, the documentation is not sufficient to demonstrate that the victims were notified of
the outcome of the investigation in writing, as required by Title IX.
Moreover, OCR has further concerns because in one of the incidents, the alleged perpetrator
withdrew prior to the matter being addressed by a panel hearing and a judicial hold was placed
on his student account, meaning that the alleged perpetrator could not be readmitted to the
University until after the hearing was held. This is in direct contravention with the University’s
grievance procedures, which state: “Withdrawal from the University after a violation report has
been filed does not excuse the student from the hearing. Students who fail to appear after proper
notice may be deemed to have pleaded responsible to the charges pending against them.”
As set forth above, OCR also notes significant concerns regarding the University’s recordkeeping practices. Specifically, OCR requested that the University provide a copy of all
investigative reports, findings or other documents that describe the outcome and resolution,
including a description of all the remedies and sanctions resulting from the decision. In twenty
three cases, the investigative file provided by the University was incomplete and missing specific
documentation referred to in the cover sheet that the University developed to respond to OCR’s
request for information regarding each incident. In addition, it is unclear from the data whether
the information was monitored by anyone at the University. In fact, the evidence reflects that the

 Page 24 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
Former Title IX Coordinator was only advised of five of the incidents. While the University
asserts that the Former Title IX Coordinator was advised of an additional two incidents, it did not
provide any documentation substantiating this assertion. A Title IX coordinator’s core
responsibilities should include overseeing the school’s response to Title IX reports and
complaints, and identifying and addressing any systemic problems.
These issues are addressed in the Resolution Agreement which requires the University to
reassess the comparative cases where OCR identified deficiencies, using its revised policies and
procedures once they are approved by OCR, and to make improvements in its record keeping
practices.
CONCLUSION
OCR determined that the University’s policies and procedures and its Notice of NonDiscrimination are not compliant with the regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. §§
106.8 and 106.9. In addition, OCR determined that the University failed to provide prompt and
equitable responses to complaints of sexual violence of which it had notice, including the
complaints/reports made by Complainant 1, Complainant 2, and other students, in violation of
the regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.31. OCR also determined that the
University’s failure to provide an equitable response to complaints of sexual harassment/violence
allowed Complainant 1, Complainant 2, and possibly other students to be subjected to a sexually
hostile environment that denied or limited the students’ ability to participate in or benefit from
the school’s program, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 106.31.
RESOLUTION
On September 6, 2016, the University provided OCR with the enclosed signed Resolution
Agreement, which addresses the compliance concerns identified in OCR’s investigation and,
when fully implemented, will resolve the University’s noncompliance with Title IX.
In accordance with the Agreement, the University agrees to:
• Publish an anti-harassment statement, revise its Title IX grievance procedures, and ensure
that the responsibilities of the Title IX Coordinator and any Deputy Coordinators are
consistent with Title IX.
• Provide training to ensure that all members of the University community – including
students, faculty, administrators, and other staff – are trained regularly on issues related
to sexual harassment and on the requirements of Title IX.
• Reinvestigate and/or investigate the comparative incidents in which OCR determined that
the University failed to conduct an adequate investigation, provide written notice of
remedial services for the comparative incidents in which OCR determined that the
University failed to provide such services, and provide written notice of the outcome of
the complaint for the comparative incidents in which OCR determined that the University
failed to provide such notice.
• Review the complaints and reports of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault made from
January 1, 2010, through the date of the Agreement, to determine whether the University
investigated each complaint or report promptly and equitably.
• Enhance its outreach to and feedback from students, including by conducting an annual
climate check or series of climate checks with students on campus to assess the

 Page 25 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk

•
•

effectiveness of steps taken by the University towards providing a campus free of sexual
misconduct. In addition, the University will convene a committee, composed of staff and
students, to develop a plan for educating students and employees about sexual harassment
and assault.
Provide OCR with case files and other information concerning all incidents of alleged
sexual harassment or sexual assault at the University for the next two academic years.
Reimburse
Complainant
1
and
Complainant
2
for
expenses
for
counseling/academic/therapy services for the assessment and/or treatment of lingering
effects of the incidents that are the subject of this complaint.

OCR will monitor implementation of the Agreement. If the University fails to implement the
Agreement, OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to enforce the
specific terms and obligations of the Agreement. Before initiating administrative enforcement
(34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10), or judicial proceedings to enforce the Agreement, OCR shall give
the University written notice of the alleged breach and a minimum of sixty (60) calendar days to
cure the alleged breach.
This concludes OCR’s investigation of the complaint and should not be interpreted to address the
University’s compliance with any other regulatory provision or to address any issues other than
those addressed in this letter. This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCR
case. This letter is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or
construed as such. OCR’s formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR
official and made available to the public. The complainant may have the right to file a private
suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds a violation.
Please be advised that the University may not harass, coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against
any individual because he or she has filed a complaint or participated in the complaint resolution
process. If this happens, the complainant may file another complaint alleging such treatment.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related
correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, we will
seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if
released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
We want to thank the University, including University counsel and the Current Title IX
Coordinator, for their cooperation during the investigation.

 Page 26 – Dr. Ronald Nowaczyk
Should you have any questions, please contact Amy Niedzalkoski, Team Attorney at 215-6568571 or Amy.Niedzalkoski@ed.gov, or myself at 215-656-6935 or Beth.Gellman-Beer@ed.gov.

Sincerely,
/s/
Beth Gellman-Beer
Supervisory Attorney
OCR Philadelphia
Enclosure
Cc:

Karen Treber, University Counsel
Emily Caputo, Title IX Coordinator