UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR OVIL RIGHTS
400 MARYLAND AVENUE, SW
WASHI NGTON, OC 20202-1475

REGION XI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CA ROLINA
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON, D.C

July 26, 2013

(b)(6); (b)(7 (C)

Re:
Dear l<b)(6); (b)(7(C)

OCR Complaint No. 11-13-2066
Letter of Findings

t

This letter is to notify you of the disposition of a complaint that you filed with the U.S.
Department of Education (the Department), District of Columbia Office for Civil Ri hts (OCR)
on February 5, 2013, against Duke University, in particular (bl (5 ); (b)(? (C)
The
Complainant' alleged that she was retaliated against because she raised comp aints o sex and
race discrimination when the University (a) involuntarily placed her on leave from the School in
(b)(5 ); (b)(?(C)
and (b) failed to process her withdrawal request from the !(b)(6); (b)(7 (C)
l
course in late (b)(6); (b)(?(C)
OCR investigated the complaint under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VI), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and its implementin g regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 100, which
prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, or national origin in activities or programs
that receive federal financial assistance from the Department. OCR also enforces Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and its implementing
regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part I 06, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in programs
and activities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department. Title Vl and Title IX
prohibit retaliation against an individual because that person complained about discrimination or
otherwise asserted rights under these laws. The University receives federal financial assistance
from the Department and therefore is subject to the provisions of these laws.
In reaching a determination, OCR reviewed documentation submitted by the Compla inant and
the University and conducted interviews with University personnel and the Complainant. After
carefully considering all the information obtained during the investigation, OCR determined that
there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the University retaliated against the Complainant
as alleged. OCR's findings and conclusions are discussed below.

1

For the purpose of this letter, you will be referred as "the Complainant."
The Depart111
e11tof £d11cntio11's
missionis to promote stude11tachievement and preparation
for globalcompetitiveness
byfosteringeducationalexcellence and ens11ri11g
equalaccess.
WlUW.e
d.gov

 Page 2 -- OCR Complaint No. 11-13-20 66
Legal Standard
To estab lish that retaliation has occurred, OCR must find the fo llowin g: (1) the comp lainant
engaged in a protected activity; (2) the recipient was aware of the complainant's activ ity; (3) the
recip'ient took adverse action against the complainant ; and (4) there was some evidence of a
causa l connection between the adver se action and the protected activi ty. If all of these elements
are established , OCR then inquir es whether the recipient had a legitimate, non -retaliatory reason
for talcing actio n adverse to the comp lainant. T he evidence is then ana lyzed to determine
whether the recipient's reaso n is merely an excuse or pretext for reta liation.
Facts and Analysis

Allegation (a): Involuntary Leave
The Com lainant initially enro lled in the School as a (bl(6); (b)(?(C)
de ee candidate in
;
courses and was
(b)(6); (b)(?(C) . She compl eted that semester, but did not complete her
withdrawn from the Schoo l. She applied for readmission to the program in~
and enrolle d in
five classes that fall. She took " incompletes" in four of her five courses. ln !(b)(6); (b)(7(C)
l, she
enrolled in three classes, and took " incomp letes" fo r two of them .

!,

On j<bl(6);(b)(?(C) the Dean of the School 2 notified the Complainant that the Academic Poli cies
Committee had reviewed her academic record and was concerned about her unresolved
incompletes. The School's Bulletin requir es that any stude nt who has 3 or more unresolved
incompletes may be dismissed, placed on an involuntary leave of absence until the incomp lete
work is resolved, or asked to part icipa te in a limited program. The Dean encourag ed the
Complainant to resolve at least two of her incomplete grades or submit a plan for their
com pletion by !(b)(6);(b)(7(C)

l

!,

In early !<bl(5); (b)(?(C) the Com lainant resolved her incompletes. However, she received a grade
of a D in one class from (b)(6); (b)(?(C) , and Fs in two others. 3 The Complainant enrolled in four
; <bJU includin g !(b)(6);(b)(7(C)
additiona l classes in!~~f6J

I

l

!~~

l

0n!(b)(6)
;(b)(?(C)
L the cmTent Dean , who replaced the former Dean in 1<6);(bl(7 e-mai led
the Complainant, notifying her that with her grades from the resolved incompletes , her
cumulative GPA was 2.0 . She advised the Complainant that the Schoo l's policies require a 2.0
GPA for continuat ion in the program and for 1(b)(6);(b)(7(C)
I. The Dean cautioned , " I
want you to be fully informed and aware that if you drop below a 2.0 GPA, your case will have
to be reviewed by our Aca demi c Policies Committee. "
At the end of the !(b)(6);(b)(7(C) I the Complainant took one "incomp lete" and received two Fs and
that her GP A was now 1.666
one C. The Dean informed th e Compla inant on !(b)(6);(b)(7(C)

l

2

This Dean has since left the University and was replaced by the current dean ini{b){6)
; (bl{t
The Complainant disputes the fairness of those grades on several grounds. Allegations about those grades were
not timely filed with OCR.

3

 Page 3 -- OCR Complain t No. 11-13-2066
and that the Academic Po licies Comm ittee reviewed the Complaina nt's record and decided to
withd raw her from the School. Her status was subsequently changed to a leave of absence. 4
The Complainant engaged in multiple protected activities of which the University was aware.
These include:
• On ,..,l
<b
"""
)<6);
""'..,,
<b
"""'
)<
'7(
""'
C)---.l
....
the Complainant contacted the University's Office of Institutiona l
!due to gender
Equity to comp lain that she had been denied a !<b)(6);(b)(7(C)
discrimination.
• On l<b)(6);(b)(7(C) the Complainant reported to the Student Disabi lity Access Office that
she and 20 other students had been sexually assaulted by !(b)(6);(bl at the !<b)(6)
;(b)(7(C)
the Executive Director of Duke's Disability Management System called a University
police captain to talk to the Complainant and also reported the allegations to the Office of
Institutional Equity .
• On !(b)(6)
;(b)(7(C)
l the Complainant filed a complaint with the Office of Institutional
Equity alleging that the !(b)(6);(b)(7(C)
class is racially discr iminatory.

I

!;

I

The University took adverse action against the Complainant when it placed her on involuntary
leave from the Univers ity in !(b)(6);(b)(7(C)
I Due to the closeness in time between that action
and the Comp lainant's !(b)(6);(b)(7(C) Iprotected activity, OCR finds that there is some evidence of
a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected activ ity.
OCR then considered whether the University had a legitimate, non-re taliatory reason for taking
action adverse to the Co mp lainant. The University explained that the School's Bulletin includes
the following policy re gard ing continuation in the !(b)(6)
;(b)(7(C)
!degree program:
The progress of all students is reviewed at the end of every semester by
the Academ ic Policies Committee. The following are the continuation
requireme nts for students enrolled in the l~
?/~
~l; !degree program:
I. The stude nt must maintain a cumulative grade point average of 2.0. If a
student falls below this level he or she may, at the discretion of the
academic dean for academic formation and programs, be dismissed,
placed on an involuntary leave of absence, or asked to participate in a
lim ited program. This means that the student may enro ll in no more than
three cou rses .5
0

The Dean told OCR that the Academic Policies Committee, comprised of faculty and
administrators, meets to rev iew the records of students whose GP As are less than or hovering at
2.0. The Committee decides the best solution - dismissal, leave of absence, or limited program for each situation. That decision depends in part on how low the student's GP A is and whether

4

After the Complainant filed grade challenges regarding some of her grades, the University Judicial Board
; (b)!on
determined that her grades should stand, but recommended that the Complainant be allowed to return in !(b)(6)
probationary status and subject to certain conditions , including that she not take any additional incompletes without
the consent of her instructo r and the Associate Dean for Academic Programs.
s The Complainant seems to contend that this requirement applies only to first year students. However , on its face,
the continuation requirement app lies to "all students" in the program. The University contends that the requirement
applies to all students in the School.

 Page 4 -- OCR Complaint No. 11-13-2066
the student has sufficient time remaining in the program to "salvage" the GPA. The decision
also depends on whether the student has a larger pattern of poor performance and incompletes.
In the Complainant's case, the Committee considered that the Complainant had a pattern of
withdrawals and incompletes. Her GPA was significantly below 2.0 (i.e., 1.666), and the only
reason her record had not been reviewed by the committee the previous semester was that her
grades from when she first enrolled in the School - l <b)(6);(b)(7(C)
had
been Bs. From the Committee's perspective , the pattern of the GPA, the incompletes, and the
withdrawals were significant. The Dean said that the Committee did not discuss the
Complainant's complaints of sex and race discrimination.

I-

The University's stated explanation - adherence to the policy regarding continuation in the
program - is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the decision to withdraw the Complainant
from the program. OCR then considered whether there is evidence that the explanation is an
excuse or pretext for retaliation. OCR reviewed records regarding all other master 's degree
candidates in the School with GPAs below 2.0 from !~';},<6); (b)(? Ithrough !(b)(6); (b)(7(C) l. Eight other
students were considered by the Committee during that time period due to their GPAs; two of
those students were considered by the committee twice.6 The Committee took different actions
for each student, ranging from warnings to academic withdrawa ls. One student received a
warning the first time she was considered by the Committee, with a GPA of 1.67, and was then
placed on a leave of absence 7 when she was considered by the Committee again the following
semester, with a GPA of 1.850. Another student was placed on a leave of absence the first time
he was considered by the Committee with a GPA of 1.76. After he returned to the program a
year later, he was again considered by the Committee with a GPA of 1.97; at that time the
Committee determined that he had made academic progress with a semester GPA of 2.66 and he
was allowed to remain in the program. Three students were academically withdrawn. Their
cumulative GPAs at the time of the decisions were 1.33, 1.33, and 1.175. Three other students
were given warnings; their GPAs were 1.9, 1.67, and 1.866. The Dean was not aware of any of
those students having engaged in protected activities.
OCR asked the Dean about the circumstances of each of these students, with a particular focus
on the students who had GPAs close to the Complainant's (1.666) and who were not withdrawn.
The Dean explained that the two students who had 1.67 GPAs (similar to the Complainant ' s
1.666) but who received warnings were considered borderline; however, those students were in
their first year in the program and thus had two years during which they could "pull up" their
GPAs. In contrast, the Complainant had only six courses left to complete, which the Committee
did not feel was sufficient time to improve her academic status. The other students who received
warnings had GPAs higher than the Complainant's. OCR recognizes that there is evidence that
two students with the same GP A who apparently had not engaged in protected activities were
treated more favorably than the Complainant , who had engaged in protected activities.
However, the University was able to provide a reasonable explanatio n for the difference in
treatment and the evidence shows that the Committee did not discuss the Complainant's
complaints of sex or racial discrimination in its decision-making. OCR carefully considered all
available evidence and determined that, on balance, the evidence did not suggest that the
6

7

Other students were reviewed by the Committee for other reasons, including excessive incomplete s or withdrawals.
Unlike withdrawals , leaves of absence do not require students to re-apply in order to re-enter the program .

 Page 5 -- OCR Complaint No. 11-13-2066
University's explanation was an excuse for unlawful retaliation. Therefore, OCR concluded that
there is insufficient evidence to find that the University retaliated against the Complainant as
alleged.
Allegation (b): Withdrawal Request

The Complainant discussed her concerns that the (b)(6); (b)(?(C)
class was racially
after which she stopped
discriminatory with the professor after class on (b)(6); (b)(?(C)
attending the class. She filed a complaint with the Office of Institutional Equity about the class
on !(b)(6); (b)(?(C)
l During that same time period , the Complainant initiated the process to
withdraw from the class. According to the University, the Complainant failed to complete the
withdrawal process and received an Fin the course.
OCR inquired whether the University had a legitimate , non-retaliatory reason for taking action
adverse to the complai nant. The University reported to OCR that the Complainant did not fully
complete the withdrawa l form. Specifically , she failed to obtain the professor 's signature on the
form. When the registrar received the incomplete form, he placed it in the Complainant's
student mail folder with a note telling her that she needed to obtain the professor's signature to
complete the process. The Complainant never did so.
The Complainant's failure to follow the process for withdraw ing from the class is a legitimate,
non-retaliatory reason for the University's actions. OCR considered whether there is evidence
that this reason was merely a pretext for retaliation. OCR noted that while the form clearly
requires a professor's signature, it does not indicate that the student is responsible for obtaining
that signature. The registrar told OCR that he has never before had a student fail to get the
required signature. He also explained that student mail folders are like mai lboxes where students
and professors communicate with one another; students are expected to check them with some
Iin
re ularit . Here, after the Complainant objected to her failing grade in !(b)(6);(b)(7(C)
5
(b)( ); (b)(?(C) , the Registrar checked the Complainant ' s mail folder and found the form with his
note still in the folder. The Registrar said that prior to that, noth ing about the process was
unusual. Specifically, he typically uses student mail folders for communication with students.
In addition, it was not notable to him that he did not receive a completed form from the
Complainant after he wrote her the note. He said that students who start the withdrawal process
often work out terms with their professors so that they can finish the class; even if that did not
happen, the Complainant could have completed the form and his assistant might have processed
it.
OCR also considered as possible evidence of pretext the Dean's statement that she had the
author ity to retroactively approve the withdrawal request after the mix-up with the professor 's
signature came to light. The Dean said that her initial inclination was to grant the withdrawal
because the issue was "a technicality ." However, according to the Dean , when the Complai nant
met with the Dean about the situation , she lied about the returned withdrawal request.
Specifically, the Complainant told the Dean that the form with the registrar' s note had not been
in her mail folder, but had been in a folder directly behind hers. 8 The Dean said she had good
evidence from the registrar that the form was in the Complainant's folder. The Dean said that
8

The Complainant also told OCR that the form had been in the file folder directly behind hers.

 Page 6 -- OCR Comp laint No . 11-13-2066
she has never had a sim ilar situat ion with a student's dishonesty; the only other incidents of
dishonesty of which she was aware involved academic issues, such as plagiarism. 9
OCR noted that the Schoo l has a l<b)(6);(b)(7(C)

Ithat addresses honesty:

!of Duke University ,
We, the faculty and students in the !<b)(6);(b)(?(C)
make covenant, individually and corporately, to uphold the highest
standa rds of personal and academic integrity. This includes, but is not
limited to, never lying, cheating , stealing, causing harm to self or others, or
defacing property. Set aside by our calling, we hold ourselves and each
other to the highest standards of conduct

I

committed to forming and educat ing persons for the
As a !<b)(6);(b)(?(C)
l<b)(
6); (b)(7(C)
we covenant together to em body truth in every
aspect of our lives, including our academic work ...

I

(emphasis added). The Dean referenced that covenant when expla ining her reason for not
retroactively granting the wit hdrawal and indicated that students in the program commit not to lie
and know that lying has conse quences. The registrar also referenced this covenant to OCR and
recalled a situation where the School took adverse action against a student for dishonesty (when
the student lied about hav ing cancer). OCR concluded that, particula rly in light of the nature of
the School as a !~~!~
J;<bJ !school, the Dean's response to perceive d dishonesty does not suggest
pretext. OCR recogn izes that the Complainant disagrees with the Univers ity's characterizat ion
of the events but notes that the Dean and the registrar provi ded consistent information when
interviewed by OCR and both cited to University policy to support the University's actions.
There is no other evidence in the record that suggests that the Un iversity's explanation is a
pretext for retaliation. Therefore, OCR concluded that there is insufficie nt evidence to find that
the University retalia ted agai nst the Complainant as alleged.
This concludes OCR's invest igation 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 determinat ion in an individual OCR
case. This letter is not a formal statement of OCR policy and shou ld 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 file a private suit in fede ral court
whether or not OCR finds a violation.
Please be aware that the Unive rsity may not harass , coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against
you because you filed a comp laint or participated in the complaint resolution process. If this
happens , you may file anot her comp laint alleging such treatment. Also, under the Freedom of
Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and
records upon request. If OCR receives such a request, we will seek to protect , to the extent

9

OCR reviewed information about situations involving academic dishonesty. The sanctions varied based on the
sever ity of the action and ranged from having to retake the assignment to course failure.

 Page 7 -- OCR Complaint No. 11-13-2066
provided by law, persona l informat ion that , if released, could constitute an unwarranted invasion
of privacy.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Sebastian Amar at 202-453-6023 or
Sebastian.Amar@ed.gov, Kay Bhagat at 202-453-6598 or via e-mail at Kay.Bhagat @ed.gov, or
Martha Russo at 214-66 1-9622 or Martha.Rus so@ed .gov.

Robin C. Murphy
Team Leader
District of Columbia Office
Office for Civil Rights

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
400 MARYLAND AVENU E, SW
WAS HINGTON, DC 20202-1475

REGION XI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLI NA
VI RGINIA
WASHINGTON, D.C.

July 26, 2013

Dr. Richard H. Brodhead
Office of the President
Duke University
207 Allen Building
Box 9000 1
Durham, NC 27708-0001
Re:

OCR Complaint No. 11-13-2066
Letter of Findings

Dear Dr. Brodhead:
This letter is to notify you of the disposition of a complaint that was filed with the U.S.
Department of Education (the Department ), District of Columbia Office for Civil Ri hts OCR)
The
on February 5, 2013, against Duke Univers ity, in particular (b){6); (b)(7(C)
Complainant alleged that she was retaliated against because she raised complaints of sex and
race discrimination when the University (a) involuntarily placed her on leave from the School in
(b)(6); (b)(?(C)
d (b) failed to process her withdrawal request from the !(b)(6) ; (b)(7(C)
l
course in (b)(6); (b)(7(C)
OCR investigated the complaint under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VI), 42 U.S .C. § 2000d, and its implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 100, which
prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, or national origin in activities or programs
that receive federal financial assistance from the Department. OCR also enforces Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) , 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and its implementing
regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in programs
and activities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department. Tit le VI and Title IX
prohibit retaliation against an individual because that person comp lained about discrimination or
otherwise asserted rights under these laws. The University receives federal financial assistance
from the Department and therefore is subject to the provisions of these laws.
In reaching a determination, OCR reviewed documentation submitted by the Complainant and
the University and conducted interviews with University personnel and the Complainant. After
carefully considering all the information obtained during the investigation, OCR determined that
there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the University retaliated against the Complainant
as alleged. OCR's findings and conclusions are discussed below.
Tiu:Depnrt111
e11Iof Educntio11's
missionis to promotestudent nchieue111
e11tnnd prepnrntionfor globnlco111
petilive11ess
byfosteringed11cnt
ional excellence and ensuring equnlnccess.
unvw.ed.gou

 Page 2 -- OCR Complaint No. 11-13-2066
Legal Standard
To establish that retaliation has occurred, OCR must find the following: (1) the complainant
engaged in a protected activity; (2) the recipient was aware of the complainant's activity; (3) the
recipient took adverse action against the complainant; and (4) there was some evidence of a
causal connection between the adverse action and the protected activity. If all of these elements
are established, OCR then inquires whether the recipient had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason
for taking action adverse to the complainant. The evidence is then analyzed to determine
whether the recipient's reason is merely an excuse or pretext for retaliation.
Facts and Analysis
Allegation (a): Involuntary Leave

The Complainant initially enrolled in the School as a b)(6)
; (b)(
7(C)
.___-:--""'""":"'--il!l!"l'!l!"'"""~ .lf'
!(b)(6)
; (b)(7(C) I She completed that semester, but did not complete her ~ ~===:t.:..
withdrawn from the School. She applied for readmission to the program in
: and enrolled in
she
five classes that fall. She took "incompletes" in four of her five courses. In b)( ; b)(l(C)
enrolled in three classes, and took "incompletes" for two of them.

!

5
On l(b)(
); (b)(7
(C) the Dean of the School I notified the Complainant that the Academic Policies
Committee had reviewed her academic record and was concerned about her unresolved
incompletes. The School's Bulletin requires that any student who has 3 or more unresolved
incompletes may be dismissed, placed on an involuntary leave of absence until the incomplete
work is resolved, or asked to participate in a limited program. The Dean encouraged the
Complainant to resolve at least two of her incomplete grades or submit a plan for their
completion by l<b)(6)
; (b)(7(C)
!.

In early!(b)(6);(b)(7(C)Lthe Com lainant resolved her incompletes. However, she received a grade
of a D in one class from (b)(6)
; (b(7(C) and Fs in two others.2 The Complainant enrolled in four
additional classes in (6);(b)(7 includingi.;.!
(b
.)(
.;.;6)
..;
.;.;.
(..;.
b)..;.
(7..;.
(C_) ___
__,,
On!(b)(
6); (b){7(
C)
lthe current Dean, who replaced the former Dean inl~~~5>; (6)(7 l,e-mailed
the Complainant, notifying her that with her grades from the resolved incompletes, her
cumulative GPA was 2.0. She advised the Complainant that the School's policies require a 2.0
GPA for continuation in the program and for !(b)(6)
; (b)(7(C)
l The Dean cautioned, "I
want you to be fully informed and aware that if you drop below a 2.0 GPA, your case will have
to be reviewed by our Academic Policies Committee."

I

At the end of the !(b)(
6); (b)(7(C) the Complainant took one "incomplete" and received two Fs and
one C. The Dean infonned the Complainant on!<
b)(6)
; (b)(
7(C)
h hat her GPA was now 1.666

This Dean has since left the University and was replaced by the current dean in l(b)(6);(b)(l
The Complainantdisputes the fairness of those grades on several grounds. Allegations about those grades were
not timely filed with OCR.
1

2

 Page 3 -- OCR Complai nt No . 11-13-2066
and that the Academic Polic ies Committee reviewed the Complai nant's record and decided to
withdraw her from the Schoo l. He r status was subsequently changed to a leave of absence. 3
The Complainant engaged in mu ltiple protected activities of which the University was aware.
These include:
• On ,.,,l
<b
"""'
)<
"6"'
)...
; (b
'""
)<
"7"'<,C
.,..
...
) --.I, the Complainant contacted the Unive rsit y' s Office of Institutional
due to gender
Equity to comp lain that she had been denied a l<b)(6), (b)(?(C)
discrimination.
• On !(b)(6)
;(b)(7(C) Ithe Complainant reported to the Student Disability Access Office that
she and 20 other students had been sexually assaulted by !~~l~~L at the l<b)(6)
, (b)(7(C)
l
the Executive Director of Duke 's Disability Management System called a University
police captain to talk to the Complainant and also reported the allegations to the Office of
Institutional Equity.
• On l<b)(6);(b)(?(C)
the Com lainant filed a complaint wi th the Office of Institutional
Equity alleging that the (b)(6)
;(b)(7(C)
class is racia lly discriminatory.

I

I

l

The University took adve rse action a ainst the Complainant whe n it placed her on involuntary
leave from the University in (b)(6);(b)(?(C)
. Due to the closeness in time between that action
and the Complainant's !(b)(6)
;(b)(7(C) !protected activity, OCR finds that there is some evidence of
a causa l connection between the adverse action and the protecte d act ivity .
OCR then considered wheth er the University had a leg itimate, non-re taliatory reason for taking
action adverse to the Compla inant. The University ex lained that the School's Bulletin includes
the followi ng policy rega rding continuation in the (b)(6)
; (b)(?(C)
degree program:
The prog re ss of all students is reviewed at the end of every semester by
the Academic Policies Committee. The following are the continuation
requirements for students enrolled in the l!Mg
&!degree prog ram:
l. The student must maintain a cumulative grade poi nt average of 2.0. If a
student falls below this level he or she may, at the discret ion of the
academ ic dean for academic formation and programs, be dismissed ,
placed on an involuntary leave of absence, or asked to participate in a
limited prog ram. This means that the student may enro ll in no more than
three courses. 4
0

The Dean told OCR that the Academic Policies Committee, comprised of facu lty and
administrators, meets to review the records of students whose GP As are less than or hovering at
2.0. The Committee dec ides the best solut ion - dismissal, leave of absence, or limited program for each situation. That decision depends in part on how low the student's GPA is and whether
3

After the Complainant filed grade challenges regarding some of her grades, the University Judicial Board
detennined that her grades should stand, but recommended that the Complainant be allowed to return in!(b)(6);(b I on
probationary status and subject to certain conditions, including that she not take any additional incompletes without
the consent of her instructor and the Associate Dean for Academic Programs.
4
The Complainant seems to contend that this requirement applies only to first year students. However, on its face,
the continuation requirement applies to "all students" in the program. The University contends that the requirement
applies to all students in the School.

 Page 4 -- OCR Complaint No. 11-13-2066
the student has suffic ient time remaining in the program to "sa lvage" the GP A. The decision
also depends on whether the student has a larger pattern of poor performance and incompletes.
In the Complainant's case, the Committee considered that the Complainant had a pattern of
withdrawals and incompletes. Her GPA was significantly below 2.0 (i.e., 1.666), and the only
reason her record had not been reviewed by the committee the previous semester was that her
had
grades from when she first enrolled in the School - !{b){6); (b)(7(C)
been Bs. From the Committee's perspective, the pattern of the GPA, the incompletes , and the
withdrawals were significant.
The Dean said that the Committee did not discuss the
Complainant's complaints of sex and race discrimination.

I-

The University's stated explanation - adherence to the policy regarding continuation in the
program - is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the decision to withdraw the Complainant
from the program. OCR then considered whether there is evidence that the explanation is an
excuse or pretext for retaliation. OCR reviewed records regarding all other master's degree
candidates in the School with GP As below 2.0 from l~~J.(6); (bl(7 Ithro ugh !(b)(6J; (bJ(7(Cl 1· Eight other
students were considered by the Committee during that time period due to their GPAs; two of
those students were considered by the committee twice. 5 The Committee took different actions
for each student, ranging from warnings to academic withdrawals. One student received a
warning the first time she was considered by the Committee , with a GPA of 1.67, and was then
placed on a leave of absence 6 when she was considered by the Committee again the following
semester, with a GP A of 1.850. Another student was placed on a leave of absence the first time
he was considered by the Committee with a GPA of 1.76. After he returned to the program a
year later, he was again considered by the Committee with a GPA of 1.97; at that time the
Committee determined that he had made academic progress with a semester GPA of 2.66 and he
was allowed to remain in the program. Three students were academically withdrawn. Their
cumulative GP As at the time of the decisions were 1.33, 1.33, and 1.175. Three other students
were given warnings; their GPAs were 1.9, 1.67, and 1.866. The Dean was not aware of any of
those students having engaged in protected activities.
OCR asked the Dean about the circumstances of each of these students, with a particular focus
on the students who had GPAs close to the Complainant's (1.666) and who were not withdrawn.
The Dean explained that the two students who had l .67 GPAs (similar to the Complainant's
1.666) but who received warnings were considered borderline; however, those students were in
their first year in the program and thus had two years during which they could "pull up" their
GP As. In contrast , the Complainant had only six courses left to complete, which the Committee
did not feel was sufficient time to improve her academic status. The other students who received
warnings had GPAs higher than the Complai nant's. OCR recognizes that there is evidence that
two students with the same GPA who apparently had not engaged in protected activities were
treated more favorab ly than the Complainant , who had engaged in protected activities.
However, the University was able to provide a reasonable explanation for the difference in
treatment and the evidence shows that the Committee did not discuss the Complainant's
complaints of sex or racial discrimination in its decision-making. OCR carefully considered all
available evidence and determined that, on balance, the evidence did not suggest that the
s Other students were reviewed by the Committee for other reasons , including excessive incompletes or withdrawals.
Unlike withdrawals, leaves of absence do not require students to re-apply in order to re-enter the program.

6

 Page 5 -- OCR Complaint No. 11-13-2066
University's explanation was an excuse for unlawful retaliation. Therefore , OCR concluded that
there is insufficient evidence to find that the University retaliated against the Complainant as
alleged.
Allegation {b): Withdrawa l Request

The Complainant discussed her concerns that the (b)(6); (b)(7(C)
class was racially
after which she stopped
discriminatory with the professor after class on (b)(6) ; (b)(7(C)
attendin the class. She filed a complaint with the Office of Institutional Equity about the class
on (b)(5); (b)(?(C)
During that same time period, the Compla inant initiated the process to
withdraw from the class. According to the University, the Complainant failed to complete the
withdrawal process and received an F in the course.
OCR inquired whether the University had a legitimate , non-retaliatory reason for taking action
adverse to the complainant. The University reported to OCR that the Complainant did not fully
complete the withdrawa l form. Specifically, she failed to obtain the professor's signature on the
form. When the registrar received the incomplete form, he placed it in the Complainant's
student mail folder with a note telling her that she needed to obtain the professor's signature to
complete the process. The Complainant never did so.
The Complainant's failure to follow the process for withdrawing from the class is a legitimate,
non-retaliatory reason for the University's actions. OCR considered whether there is evidence
that this reason was merely a pretext for retaliation. OCR noted that while the form clearly
requires a professor's signature, it does not indicate that the student is responsible for obtaining
that signature. The registrar told OCR that he has never before had a student fail to get the
required signature. He also explained that student mail folders are like mailboxes where students
and professors communicate with one another; students are expected to check them with some
lin
regulari . Here, after the Complainant objected to her failing grade in l<b)(6); (b)(7(C )
(b)(6) ; (b)(?(C)
the Registrar checked the Complainant 's mail folder and found the form with his
note still in the folder. The Registrar said that prior to that, nothing about the process was
unusual. Specifically, he typically uses student mail folders for communication with students.
In addition, it was not notable to him that he did not receive a completed form from the
Complainant after he wrote her the note. He said that students who start the withdrawal process
often work out terms with their professors so that they can finish the class; even if that did not
happen, the Complainant could have completed the form and his assistant might have processed
it.
OCR also considered as possible evidence of pretext the Dean's statement that she had the
authority to retroactively approve the withdrawal request after the mix-up with the professor's
signature came to light. The Dean said that her initial inclination was to grant the withdrawal
because the issue was "a technicality. " However, according to the Dean, when the Complainant
met with the Dean about the situation, she lied about the returned withdrawal request.
Specifically, the Complainant told the Dean that the form with the registrar's note had not been
in her mail folder, but had been in a folder directly behind hers. 7 The Dean said she had good
evidence from the registrar that the form was in the Complainant's folder. The Dean said that
7

The Complainant also told OCR that the form had been in the file folder directly behind hers.

 Page 6 -- OCR Complain t No. 11-13-2066
she has never had a similar situat ion with a student's dishonesty; the only other incidents of
dishonesty of which she was aware invol ved academic issues, such as plagiarism. 8
OCR noted that the School ha s a Fb)(6);(b)(7(C)

Ithat addresses

honesty:

We, the faculty and students in the !<b)(
6);(b)(7{C)
I of Duke University ,
mak e covenant, individually and corporate ly, to uphold the highest
standards of personal and academic integrity. This includes, but is not
limited to, never lying, cheating, steali ng, causing harm to self or others, or
defacing property. Set aside by our calling, we hold ourselves and each
other to the highe st standa rds of conduct

(emphasi s added). The Dean referen ced that covenant when explaining her reason for not
retroactively granting the withdrawal and indicated that students in the program commit not to lie
and know that lying has consequences. The registrar also referenced this covenant to OCR and
recalled a situation where the School took adverse action against a student for dishonesty (when
the student lied about hav ing cancer). OCR concluded that , particularly in light of the nature of
the School as a
(b) school, the Dean 's response to perceive d dishonesty does not suggest
pretext. OCR recognizes that the Complainant disagrees with the University's characterization
of the events but notes that the Dean and the registrar provided consistent information when
interviewed by OCR and both cited to University policy to support the University's actions.

I

There is no other evide nce in the record that suggests that the University's explanation is a
pretext for retaliation. Therefore , OCR concluded that there is insufficient evidence to find that
the University retaliated against the Complainant as alleged.
We have advised the Comp lainant that the University may not harass , coerce , intimid ate , or
discriminate against her becau se she filed a complaint or participated in the complaint resolution
process. If this happens, she may file another complaint alleging such treatment. Also , under the
Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related
correspondence and records upon request. If OCR receives such a request , we will seek to
protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information that, if released, could
reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This concludes OCR' s inve stigatio n of the comp laint and should not be interpreted to address the
University's compl iance with any other regulatory provision or to address any issues other than
those addressed in this letter. Thi s letter sets forth OCR ' s determination in an individual OCR
case. Thi s letter is not a forma l statement of OCR policy and should not be re lied upon , cited , or
construed as such. OCR's formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR

8

OCR reviewed information about situations involving academic dishonesty. The sanctions varied based on the
severity of the action and ranged from having to retake the assignment to course failure.

 Page 7 -- OCR Complaint No. 11-13-2066
official and made available to the public. The complainant may file a private suit in federal court
whether or not OCR finds a violation.
We appreciate your cooperation during the resolution of this complaint and particularly

appreciate the assistance of Kate Hendricks, Deputy Univers ity Counsel. If you have any
questions, feel free to contact Sebastian Amar at 202-453-6023 or Sebastian.Amar @ed.gov, Kay
Bhagat at 202-453-6598 or via e-mail at Kay.Bbagat@ed.gov, or Martha Russo at 214-661-9622
or Martha.Russo(@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
(b)(6); (b)(7(C)

Rob in C. Murphy l(b)(6); (b)(7(C)
Team Leader
District of Columbia Office
Office for Civil Rights
cc: Kate Hendricks, Esq. (via e-mail)