l'~ITEI>

ST A TES DEPART:\1 ENT OF E Dl'CA TIO~
OFl·ICL !'OR Cl\'IL

RIGII

;2 OLD SI.IP. 16n FLOOR
~f \\ YOIU:.. ~I\\

rs

YORK 1111105

TI\JOTll'l
DIRf:CTPR

('..I.HI

..\ \C'H \IW

:-.:EW YORK OHIU

September 30, 2011
David E. Van Zandt
President
The New School
66 West 121hStreet
New York, New York 10011
Re:

Case No. 02-11-2094
The New School

Dear President Van Zandt:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the determination made ~y the U.S. Department of
Education, New York Office for Civil Rights (OCR}, regarding the above-referenced complaint
filed against the New School (the University). The complainant alleged that the University
failed to respond appropriately to her complaint of sexual assault that she made on or about
February 17, 2011 (Allegation 1). The complainant also alleged that in retaliation for her sexual
assault complaint, University staff delayed delivery of her mail from approximately February
2011 through May 2011 (Allegation 2). In addition, the complainant alleged that the
University's policy for responding to complaints of sexual assault was not equitable, as it
afforded the accused individual, but not the complainant, the right to appeal the outcome of a
hearing in a sexual assault case (Allegation 3). She also aITeged that the University failed to
adequately publish its procedure for responding to complaints of sexual assault (Allegation 4).
Finally, the complainant alleged that the University generally failed to respond appropriately to
complaints of sexual assault (Allegation 5}.
OCR is responsible for enforcing Title lX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), as
amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, which
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in programs and activities receiving financial
assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). The University is a
recipient of financial assistance from the Department. Therefore, OCR has jurisdictional
authority to investigate this complaint under Title lX.

The Departmentof Education'smission is to promote student achievementand preparationfor global competitivenessby
fostering educationalexcellenceand ensuring equal access.

 Page 2 of IO - President David E. Van Zandt
The regulation implementing Title IX, at. 34 C.F.R. § 106.71, incorporates by reference 34
C.F.R. § 100.7(e) ofthe regulation implementing Title-VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., which provides that:
No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate
against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege
secured by regulations enforced by OCR or because one has made a complaint,
testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding
or hearing held in connection ·with a complaint.
In its investigation, OCR interviewed the complainant, University staff members, and a student
witness. OCR also reviewed documentation the complainant and the University submitted.
OCR made the following determinations.
Allegation 1

With regard to Allegation l 1 the complainant alleged that the University failed to respond
appropriately to her complaint of sexual assault that she filed on or about February 17, 2011.
Specifically, the complainant alleged that University staff(a) traumatized her by requiring her to
repeat the story of the sexual assault numerous times during the complaint process; (b) failed to
make arrangements for her new permanent housing; (c) did not address her ''emotional needs''
after she reported the incident; (d) failed to notify her professors that she was experiencing a
crisis until after she made a request; (e) failed to ban the student (Student 2) whom she accused
of assaulting her from her new dormitory in a timely manner; and, (f) failed to ban Student 2
from a campus cafeteria. Further, the complainant alleged that the University (g) made an
inappropriate decision regarding her complaint of sexual assault by not finding the accused pmty
guilty.
Title IX and its implementing regulation prohibit discrimination based on sex, including sexual
harassment. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and can include sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct. 1 Hostile
environment sexual harassment is sexually harassing conduct that is sufficiently severe,
persistent, or pervasive to limit a student's ability to participate in or receive benefits, services, or
opportunities in the recipient's program_ If OCR establishes that conduct of a sexual nature
occurred, OCR will examine additional factors to determine whether a sexually hostile
environment exists. If OCR determines that a sexually hostile environment exists, it will then
determine whether the recipient had actual or constructive notice of the hostile environment and
whether the recipient took immediate and effective corrective action reasonably calculated to
stop the harassment, prevent its recurrence and, as appropriate, remedy its effects.
OCR determined that on February 17, 201 L the complainant and her friend (Student 3) went to
the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (Student Rights) to file a complaint alleging
that Student 2 subjected her to unwanted sexual contact in her dormitory room on the night of
January 30, 2011. OCR determined that the complainant spoke with the Director of Student
1

Sexual harassment includes conduct that is criminal in nature, such as rape, sexual assault, dating violence, and
sexually motivated stalking.

 Page 3 of 10- President David E. Van Zandt
Rights and the Director of the Office of St'l,ldentCrisis and Support (Student Crisis), who asked
her to r~count the alleged assault with specificity. The complainant also provided a transcript of
text messages from Student 2 that she believed confirmed the alleged assault. OCR determined
that during this meeting, Student 3 also recounted an incident she had with Student 2 several
months earlier, in which he made sexual advances towards her.
With respect to Allegation l(a), the complainant alleged that University staff traumatized her by
requiring her to repeat the story of the sexual assault numerous times during the complaint
process. OCR confirmed that the Director of Student Rights asked the complainant to repeat her
description of the events at least twice, in order to ensure that she had all the details correct.
OCR determined that it was not wrreasonable for the Director of Student Rights to do so. OCR
determined that during the course of the investigation of her complaint. on March 11, 2011, the
complainant met with the fact-finder in her case, the Assistant Vice President for Student and
Campus Life (the Assistant Vice President), to review her sexual assault complaint and to
provide any additional information she might have. OCR determined that it was not
unreasonable for the fact-finder to ask the complainant to repeat her story during the course of
the investigation.
With respect to Allegation 1(b ), the complainant alleged that the University failed to make
arrangements for her new permanent housing. OCR determined that immediately after taking the
complainant's initial statement, the Director of Student Crisis initiated the process of moving
Student 2 to a different dormitory, and offered the complainant the option of moving
immediately, if she so desired. The University made arrangements for both students to move
into separate dormitories that night. Shortly thereafter, the complainant requested to liye with
her roommate; and once a_double room became available the complainant and her roommate
moved to another dormitory approximately a week later (on or around February 25, 2011), where
they remained for the duration of the semester. Student 2 was permanently placed in a donnitory
several blocks away from the complainant's and was advised in a letter dated February 24, 2011,
that he was not permitted to enter any residence halls other than his O'Wn. The complainant
reported to OCR that she and Student 2 had no further interaction after they both were assigned
to different dom1itories.
With respect to Allegation l(c), the complainant alleged that the University did not address her
"emotional needs" after she reported the incident. OCR determined that the Director of Student
Crisis provided the complainant with the number of the Student Counseling Services on campus,
and encouraged her to make an appointment there. The complainant informed OCR that she
went to counseling for' one month, and stopped going after becoming dissatisfied with her
counseling experience.
With respect to Allegation l(d), the complainant alleged that the University failed to notify her
professors that she was experiencing a crisis until after she made a request. The University
acknowledged that it did not inform the complainant's professors that the complainant was
experiencing a crisis until after the complainant made such a request. The University informed
OCR that it is not its usual practice to inform a student's professors regarding a crisis; however,
such a notification will be made if a student so requests and provides permission. OCR
determined that after the complainant made such a request, approximately one week after the

 Page 4 of 10 - President David E. Van Zandt
corpplainant made h~r sexual assault complaint to the University, the Director of Student Crisis
immediately advised the complainant's professors that the complainant had experienced a crisis.
and requested that they contact her if the complainant began to struggle academically. OCR
determined that the University's practice in this regard is not unreasonable, and the University
acted promptly upon the complainant's request.
With respect to Allegation I (e), the complainant alleged that the University failed to ban the
Student 2 from her new dormitory in a timely manner. As stated above, OCR determined that
Student 2 was permanently placed in a dormitory several blocks away from the complainant· s
and was advised in a letter dated February 24, 2011, that he was not permitted to enter any
residence halls other than his own. Additionally, OCR determined that the Director of Student
Rights sent Student 2 a letter on February 18, 2011, stating that he was banned from entering his
old residence and any of the other residence halls until further notice. OCR determined that the
complainant reported to the University that as of March 15, 2011, Student 2's name was not on
the ''Persona non Grata" (PNG) list banning him from the complainant's new dormitory. OCR
determined that University staff added Student 2's name to the PNG list that same day, and the
Director of Student Rights informed the complainant that the matter had been addressed. There
was no indication that Student 2 ever attempted to enter the complainant's dormitory before that
date, even though his name was not on the PNG list at the time.
With respect to Allegation l(f), the complainant alleged that the Unive~sity failed to ban Student
2 from a campus cafeteria. OCR determined that the complainant reported to Student Rights that
she saw Student 2 in the cafeteria she used on March I, 2011; and as a result, she requested that
the University refund her meal plan for the rest of the year. Although the University refused to
issue the complainant a refund, OCR determined that Student 2 was banned from that cafeteria
for the rest of the semester.
With respect to Allegation 1(g), the complainant alleged that the University made an
inappropriate decision regarding her complaint of sexual assault by not finding the accused party
guilty. OCR determined that the University followed its Sexual Harassment-Assault Policy in
effect at that time in investigating the complainant's allegations. 2 According to its then effective
policy, complaints of sexual assault against a student would be reviewed and adjudicated using
the Universitis Non-Academic Disciplinary Procedures of the University's Code of Conduct.
OCR determined that the Director of Student Rights met with Student 2 on February I 8, 201 I,
and according to her contemporaneous notes, Student 2's version of events differed from the
complainant's; and he "was adamant that he did not do anything against her will.': On March 11,
2011, the complainant met with the Assistant Vice President for Student and ~ampus Life (the
Assistant Vice President) to review her sexual assault complaint and was permitted to provide
any additional infonnation she might have. The Assistant Vice President also met with Student 2
who gave a statement and waived his right to the Panel, allowing the Assistant Vice President to
render a determination. 3
2

As discussed below in connection with Allegations 3 and 4, during the spring 20 I I semester, the University
revised its Sexual Assault Policy.
3
Under Sections III(b)(3)(d) and (e) of the Disciplinary Procedures. except in cases where an emergency or interim
suspension is warranted, complaints are to be reviewed by a Disciplinary Review Panel (the Panel); however, the

 Page 5 of 10 - President David E. Van Zandt

The Assistant ·Vice President stated that in making his determination, he considered the
testimony of both parties; the statement from the complainant's witness; and text messages the
complainant submitted. In a letter, dated March 28, 2011, the Assistant Vice President informed
the complainant that "his finding [with respect to her complaint] was inconclusive and [he] was
unable to detem1ine with any reasonable certainty that the alleged violation did or did not
occur."4
OCR determined that in making a determination regarding the complainant's sexual assault
complaint, the University did not apply the appropriate standard of proof. OCR detennined that
neither the then effective Sexual Assault Policy nor the Disciplinary Procedures defined the
standard of proof to be used in establishing whether a complaint of sexual assault was
substantiated; however, the University informed OCR that it used the legal standard of
"reasonable certainty." Notwithstanding the University's use of the reasonable certainty
standard to evaluate the complainant's sexual assault complaint, OCR determined that the
University's detennination as to whether or not the complainant's sexual assault complaint
against Student 2 should have been sustained would not have been different had the University
applied the preponderance of the evidence standard. Specifically, considering the testimony of
both parties, the fact finder found both parties equally credible. 5 The fact finder went on to state
that he could not determine that the conduct did or did not occur. The statement from the
complainant's witness and the text messages the complainant submitted in support of her
allegations of sexual assault were not persuasive and did not establish· by a preponderance of the
evidence that. a sexual assault occurred. 6 Further, OCR determined that the resolution of the
complainant's sexual assault complaint otherwise met OCR's legal standards, except for the
issue discussed below in Allegation 3.
Based on the foregoing, OCR determined that upon receiving notice of the alleged incident on or
about February 17, 2011, University staff promptly interviewed the complainant and the accused,
Student 2. OCR determined that University staff was reasonable in the manner with Which they
interviewed the complainant, including the number of times that she was asked to repeat her
account of what occurred. The University promptly took interim measures pending investigation
of the complaint, including moving Student 2 to a different dormitory; giving the complainant
the option of moving out of her dormitory room immediately; and advising the complainant that
counseling services were available. In addition, pending the outcome of her complaint, the
University banned Student 2 from entering all other residence halls. Although the complainant
indicated that she saw Student 2 in the cafeteria she used on March 1, 20 I I, and learned that
alleged violator of any University rule "may waive the disciplinary review by the Panel and the Senior Vice
President or his/her designee will review the complaint and make a determination of responsibility, if appropriate."
4
The Assistant Vice President also sent Student 2 a determination letter, which included his account of what
occurred during the alleged incident.
5
The complainant alleged that during the incident, Student 2 repeatedly attempted to escalate the level of sexual
activity and subjected to her unwanted sexual touching. In his statement, Student 2 denied that the complainant told
him to stop during their interaction and asserted that nothing occurred against the complainant's will.
6
The text messages that the complainant submitted in support of her complaint consisted of an exchange with
Student 2 in which she recounts that she said no and told him to stop during the incident but he persisted touching
her. Student 2 did not admit to the conduct during the exchange, but rather, disagreed with the complainant's
assertions.

 Page 6 of 10 - President David E. Van Zandt
Student 2 was not on the PNG list of her ne:w dormitory for approximately one month after filing
her sexqal assault cmnplaint, OCR determined that Student 2 had been advised by letter within a
week after the complaint was filed that he was banned from all residence halls except his own,
and that he should never approach the complainant or attempt to enter her dormitory building.
The complainant acknowledged that there was no further contact between her and Student 2.
OCR determined that the University conducted a prompt, adequate, thorough, and impartial
investigation; and took appropriate interim steps while investigating the complainant's
allegation. Further, OCR found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a sexually
hostile enviromnent was created as the underlying conduct could not be substantiated and no
similar incidents were reported. Therefore 1 OCR determined that there was insufficient evidence
to substantiate the complainant's allegation that the University failed to respond appropriately to
her complaint of sexual assault that she made on or about February 17, 2011. Accordingly. QCR
will take no further action regarding Allegation l .
Allegation 2

With regard to Allegation 2, the complainant alleged that in retaliation for her sexual assault
complaint, University staff delayed delivery of her mail from approximately February 2011
through May 2011. Specifically, the complainant stated that on February 17, 2011, the same day
that she reported her sexual assault complaint, she moved out of her dorm and after temporarily
relocating elsewhere, moved to a new dorm on February 25, 2011. The complainant asserted
that despite completing a forwarding address form with the U.S. Postal Service and being
advised that it would take approximately two weeks for the change to be effective, her mail was
delayed for approximately a month. The complainant informed OCR that after she sent an email
on March 18, 2011, to the. Director of Student Housing and Residence Life (the Director of
Housing) in which she stated that she would contact the local U.S. Postal Inspector regarding the
matter, approximately "a month's worth of mail" suddenly appeared in her mailbox th~
following day. 7
In analyzing whether retaliation occurred, OCR must first determine: (I) whether the
complainant engaged in a protected activity; (2) whether the recipient was aware of the
complainant's protected activity; (3) whether the complainant was subjected to an adverse action
contemporaneous with, or subsequent to, the recipient's learning of the complainant's
involvement in the protected activity; and (4) whether there is a causal connection between the
protected activity and the adverse action from which a retaliatory motivation reasonably may be
inferred. When there is evidence of all four elements, OCR then determines whether the
recipient has legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged action or whether the reason
adduced by the recipient is a pretext to hide its retaliatory motivation.
OCR determined that the complainant engaged in a protected activity when she filed a complaint
of sexual assault with the University. Further, OCR determined that the University was aware of
the complainant's protected activity.

7

The complainant stated that after receiving the package of mail on March 18, 2011. she thereafter received most of
her mail, with the exception of "some letters" and a package. The complainant later learned that her magazines
stopped coming to her after her mailbox became full.

 Page 7 of 10 - President David E. Van Zandt
According to the University's Residence Hall Handbook, when a student moves to a new dorm
room on campus, that student is responsible for providing the United States Postal Service with
an updated mailing address. The Director of Housing advised OCR that when a student who has
moved receives mail at his or her old dorm, the mailroom staff at the old dorm will collect the
mail and save it for the student to pick up; and either the residence hall director or one of the
student mail room workers will notify the student.
The Director of Student Housing advised OCR that he worked along with the Residence Hall
Directors of the complainant's current and previous dorms to resolve the difficulties the
complainant experienced with receiving her mail. OCR reviewed email correspondence from
March 2, 2011, through April 22, 2011, between the complainant and the Residence Hall
Director from her previous dorm, in which the Residence Hall Director informed the
complainant that after she moved her mail continued to be delivered to her previous dorm by the
United States Postal Service. The Residence Hall Director advised the complainant, in ru1 email
sent on March 4, 2011, that she was permitted to access to her old mailbox in her previous dorm
to retrieve any mail. In an email, sent on March 8, 2011, the Hall Director informed the
complainant that all mail that was delivered to her previous dorm to date would be delivered to
her current dorm the following day. OCR also determined in an email, sent on March 22, 2011,
the complainant acknowledged receipt of a package that was originally delivered to her previous
dorm and was forwarded to her current dorm. In an email sent on April 20, 2011, the Hall
Director informed the complainant that mail continued to arrive for her at her previous dorm, and
reminded her that she had access to her mailbox. Further, OCR determined that in response to
the complainant's inquiry regarding whether any additional magazines had come to her mailbox
at her previous dorm, the Residence Hall Director advised the complainant in an email sent on
April 22, 2011, that they had no more mail for her and that if her mailbox had been previously
too full to receive magazines, there would have been a package slip left for her.
Based on the foregoing, OCR determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the
complainant's allegation that in retaliation for her sexual assault complaint, University staff
delayed delivery of her mail from approximately February 2011 through May 2011. OCR
determined that although the United States Postal Service informed complainant that her address
change would become effective in two weeks, it appears that it took longer than the anticipated
timeframe; in the interim, the United States Postal Service continued to deliver mail to her
previous address. The complainant did not provide and OCR did not find any evidence to
indicate that the delayed delivery of her mail was caused by the University staff. As a result,
OCR found no causal connection between the complainant filing a sexual assault complaint and
the difficulties she experienced receiving her mail. In addition, OCR determined .that the
University took reasonable steps to address the complainant's concerns regarding her mail;
including forwarding mail to her current address and providing her with access to her mailbox in
her previous dorm for the remainder of the 2011 spring semester. Therefore, OCR determined
that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegation that University
staff retaliated against her for filing a sexual assault complaint by delaying her mail delivery.
Accordingly, OCR will take no further action regarding Allegation 2.

 Page 8 of IO - President David E. Van Zandt

Allegation 3
With regard to Allegation 3, the complainant alleged that the University's policy for responding
to complaints of sexual assault was not equitable. In support of her allegation, the complainant
alleged that the policy afforded the accused individual, but not the complainant, the right to
appeal the outcome of a hearing in a sexual assault case.
The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b), requires a recipient to adopt and
publish grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints
alleging any action prohibited by Title IX. The University acknowledged to OCR that after
receiving concerns from other students and staff regarding its procedures for addressing
complaints of sexual assault, the University revised its Sexual Assault Policy in spring 2011.
OCR reviewed the University's revised Sexual Assault Policy, which is currently in effect, and it
specifically states that "(t]he accuser and the accused have the right to appeal the decision of the
hearing panel." Therefore, OCR detennined that this inequity in the procedure has been
resolved; however, OCR determined that the complainant filed her complaint of sexual assault
with the University under the previous policy for handling such complaints and was not afforded
the opportunity to appeal the decision. Accordingly, OCR will negotiate a resolution agreement
with the University to address this compliance concern.

Allegation 4
With regard to Allegation 4, the complainant alleged that the University failed to adequately
publish its procedure for responding to complaints of sexual assault.
Specifically, the
complainant asserted that on January 30, 2011, the morning after she was sexually assaulted, she
attempted to find the University's policy on its website; however, there was no policy available
on the website. The complainant informed OCR that she later learned from a women·s rights
group on campus that the policy cannot be found on the University's website; rather, it can only
be found by using the Google search engine.
The University advised OCR that its policy and procedures to address complaints of sexual
assault consist of its "Sexual Assault Policy," which is available in the "Student Services Rights and Responsibilities" section of its website. 8 OCR further detennined that this webpage
is also referenced in the University's 2010-2011 Student Handbook, which is given to each new
student as part of an orientation packet, and is also available on the University's website. The
Campus Security Guide found on the University's website and which the University states is
distributed annually to ·the campus community, also includes a description of how to file a
complaint of sexual harassment (which is defined to include sexual assault.)
Based on the foregoing, OCR determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the
complainant's allegation that the University failed to adequately publish its procedure for
responding to complaints of sexual assault. Accordingly. OCR will take no further action
regarding Allegation 4.

8

The University also stated that the "Student Services" section of its website can be accessed by students and staff

by logging into the University's portal.

 Page 9 of 10 - President David E. Van Zandt
All~gation 5

With regard to Allegation 5, the complainant alleged that the University generally failed to
respond appropriately to complaints of sexual assault. In support of her allegation, the
complainant cited a University newspaper article which noted a discrepancy between the crime
statistics reported to the U.S. Department of Education and an internal crime log maintained by
the University, thereby implying that incidents of sexual assault were underreported on the
campus. Other than her O'Wll complaint, the complainant did not provide any specific examples
of the University's failure to respond to complaints of sexual assault.
OCR determined that the University has policies and procedures for handling complaints of
sexual assault and has University personnel responsible for their implementation. OCR also
determined that the University has several methods for publicizing its procedure for handling
complaints of sexual assault. Further, OCR reviewed the University's records and determined
that in 2009, the University received two sexual assault complaints (Case I and Case 2); in 2010,
the University did not receive any sexual assault complaints; and in 2011, the University
received one sexual assault complaint; the complainant's.
With respect to Cases 1 and 2, OCR reviewed various· documents and memoranda generated
throughout each investigation, including but not limited to incident summary reports; statements
from the involved parties and witnesses; interview notes; and the outcome determination letters.
OCR determined that in the course ·of each investigation, the fact-finder interviewed witnesses
knowledgeable about the events at issue and reviewed relevant documentation in order to reach a
determination. OCR determined that the University provided a prompt, adequate. reliable, and
impartial investigation, including an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence.
During the course of its investigation, OCR learned that when evaluating complaints of sexual
assault, including Cases 1 and 2 as well as the complainant's complaint, the University used the
"reasonable certainty'· standard of proof to determine whether the conduct alleged· occurred.
According to OCR policy, "in order for a school's grievance procedures to be consistent with
Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more
likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred). " 9 OCR policy further provides that,
"[t]he 'clear and convincing' standard (i.e., it is highly probable or reasonably certain that the
sexual harassment or violence occurred) ... is a higher standard of proof' and that "(g]rievance
procedures that use this higher standard are inconsistent with the standard of proof established
for violations of the civil rights laws, and are thus not equitable under Title IX." Therefore, OCR
determined that with respect to Cases I and 2, and in the complainant's case. the University did
not apply the appropriate standard of proof.
Notwithstanding the failure to apply the appropriate legal standard, OCR concluded that the
University's determination in each case would not have been different had the University applied
the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Specifically, in each case, the complainant and
the accused presented conflicting accounts regarding the events and circumstances that
constituted the basis of the alleged sexual assault; and there were no eyewitnesses, or physical or
circumstantial evidence that would result in the fact finder concluding that more likely than not a
9

See Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Violence (April 4, 2011 ).

 Page IO of 10 - President David E. Van Zandt
Se?(.ual assault had occurred. ·Moreover, the University's revised Sexual Assault Policy
references the "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof.
Based on the above, OCR determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the
complainant's allegation that the University generally failed to respond appropriately to
complaints of sexual assault. Accordingly, OCR will take no further action with respect to
Allegation 5.

As stated above, the University agreed to implement the enclosed resolution agreement with
respect to Allegation 3. OCR will monitor implementation of the resolution agreement. If the
University fails to implement the terms of the resolution agreement, OCR will resume its
investigation.
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.
It is unlawful to harass or intimidate an individual who has filed a complaint or participated in
actions to preserve protected rights.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, it may be necessary to release this letter
and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a
request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information
that if released, could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

If you have any questions regarding OCR's determination, please contact Miriam Nunberg,
Compliance Team Attorney, at (646) 428-3830 or Miriam.Nunberg@ed.gov; or Ronald L. Scott,
Compliance Team Attorney, at (646) 428-3820 or Ronald.Scott@ed.gov; or Felice Bowen,
Compliance Team Leader, at (646) 428-3806 or Felice.Bowen@ed.gov.

Very truly yours,

Timothy C. J. Blanchard
Enc.