UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
1350 EUCLID A VENUE. SUITE 325
CLEVELAND . 01144115

IH:GIONXV
\IICIIIGA N
()1110

.:UN 89 2017

Gregory P. Crawford , Ph.D.
President
Miami University
501 E. High Street
Oxford, Ohio 45056
Re: OCR Docket No. 15-17-2066
Dear Dr. Crawford:
On December 22, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) , Office for Civil Rights
(OCR), received a complaint against Miami University - Oxford (the University), alleging
discrimination against a fonner student (the Student) on the basis of sex. The complaint further
alleges that the University retaliated against the Student. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the University discriminated against the Student on the basis of sex by failing to promptly and
equitably respond to the Student's !(b)(!)(A) , ~omplaint of sexual assault, and as a result , the
Student was subjected to a sexually hostile environment. The com laint also alleges that the
University retaliated against the Student after the Student's (b)( )(A), report of alleged sexual
assault, when the University initiated an investi ation into the possible illicit drug and alcohol
use of students who attended (b)(7)(A),(b)(6); (b)(7(C) on the night of the alleged sexual assault.

*

OCR 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 any education program or activity operated by a recipient of Federal financial
assi stance from the Department. Persons who seek to enforce their rights under this law are also
protected from retaliation by this law. As a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the
Department. the University is subject to Title IX.
Because OCR detcnnined that it has jurisdiction and that the complaint was filed timely, it is
opening the complaint for investigation . Based on the complaint allegations. OCR will
investigate the following issue(s):
I.

Whether the University provided a prompt and equitable response to a student
complaint of sex discrimination . as required by the Tille IX implementing
regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 106.S(b).

/71('/)(·partm em of f:d11cntion ·., mi.uit111
i.<to l'rnnw tc .muJcm nchic \•em,•111a11dfll'Cpara11n11
for glo lml com1•cti tfre11ess
by (os/ering ed11ca1io11nlcxce/Jcncc and c11
s 11ring equal acc('.u.
\\'WW
.Cd.go,•

 Page 2 - Gregory P. Crawford. Ph .D.
2.

Whether the University, on the basis of sex. subjected a student to a sexually
hostile environment , i.e., sexual harassment that was sufficiently severe,
pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a student from participation
in, deny a student the benefit of, or otherwise subject a student to discrimination
under any program or service of the University in violation of the Title lX
implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § I 06.31.

3.

Whether the University intimidated, threatened , coerced, or discriminated against
an individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured
under Title IX, in violation of the Title IX implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R.
§ 106.71.

Please note that opening an allegation for investigation in no way implies that OCR has made a
determination with regard to its merits. During the investigation, OCR is a neutral fact-finder.
co llecting and analyzing relevant evidence from the complainant, the recipient, and other
sources. as appropriate. OCR will ensure that its investigation is legally sufficient and is
dispositive of the allegation(s) , in accordance with the provisions of Article Ill of OCR 's Case
Processing Manual.
Please read the enclosed document entitled "OCR Complaint Processing Procedures, " which
includes information about:
•

OCR 's complaint evaluation and resolution procedures. including the availability of
Early Complaint Resolution (ECR):

•

regulatory prohibitions against retaliation, intimidation . and harassment of persons who
file complaints with OCR or participate in an OCR investigation ; and

•

application of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act to OCR
investigations.

Additional information about the laws OCR enforces is available on OCR 's website at
http: //www .ed.gov /ocr.
OCR intends to conduct a prompt investigation of this complaint. The regulation implementing
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. at 34 C.F.R. § 100.6, which is incorporated by reference
in the Title IX regulation at 34 C.F .R. § 106.71, requires that a recipient of Federal financial
assistance make available to OCR information that may be pertinent to reach a compliance
determination .
In addition , in accordance with the regulation implementing the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA). 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, at 34 C.F .R. § 99 .3 l(a)(3)(iii) , and the Title VI
regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 100.6(c), OCR may review personally identifiable records without
regard to considerations of privacy or confidentiality .

 Page 3 - Gregory P. Crawford, Ph.D.
Please note that the University docs not need to duplicate the documents and infonnation it has
already provided during OCR 's investigation of OCR Docket # 15-16-2200. However , to the
extent that the information the University has provided for the investigation of OCR Docket
# 15-16-2200 is no longer accurate, please provide updated information. Further , as relevant,
please identify which documents the University has already provided to OCR it believes are
responsive to each request listed below .
Accordingly , OCR is requesting that you forward the following infonnation to OCR within
fifteen ( 15) calendar days of the date at the top of this letter. Wherever possible, please provide
the requested information via e-mail (and Bates-labeled, if you have that capability): otherwise
please provide the information via hard copy:
(b)(7)(A).(b)(6); (b)(7(C)

 Page 4 - Gregory P. Crawfor d, Ph.D.
(b)(7)(A) ,(b)(6); (b)(7(C)

7.

any other documentation or narrative explanati on the University would like OCR
to consider in its investigation, including the identification of relevant witnesses.
For each individual identified, please provide a name , title , and current contact
informati on .

Thank you for your coope ration in this matter. OCR also may need to interview individuals at
the University with knowledge of the facts of this case. If OCR determines that an onsitc visit is
nece ssary. OCR will contact you to schedule a mutually convenient time for its visit.
The University is also hereby noti fied that it should retain all electronically stored information
and other records, in their originally created format, containing information related to the subject
matter of this complaint , includin g emails, word processing documents, spreadsheets, databases ,
calendars, telephone logs, internet files, network access informa tion, and other med ia-base d
inform ation (such as personal digital assistants and digit al voice mail) , eve n atler it has provided
OCR with paper copies and whether or not OCR has included the informati on in this initial data

 Page 5 - Gregory P. Crawfor d, Ph.D.
request. Please also retain all non-electronic documents and evidence in whatever form,
including personal or desk files, calendars. notes , correspondence, drafts, policies , manuals, or
other things relevant to the case.
Upon receipt of this letter, please notify OCR of the name, address, and telephone number of the
person who will serve as the University's contact person during OCR's investiga tion of this
comp laint. If you have any questions, please contact Ms . Chenelle Love and Ms. Suwan Park,
the OCR attorneys assigned to investigate this complaint. Ms. Love can be reached by telephone
at (216) 522-7626 or by e-mail at Chenelle.Love@ed.gov, and Ms. Park can be reached by
telephone at (216) 522-4972 or by e-mail at Suwan .Park@cd.gov.
Sincerely,
(b)(6) ; (b)(7(C)

ona
. arab
Supervisory Attorney /Team Leader
Enclosure

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
1350 EUCLID AVE NUE. SUITE 325
CL EVE LAND. 0 1144115

REG ION X\'
MICI IIG AN
( )1110

JUN 09 2017

(b )(7)(A) ,(b )(6) ; (b )(7(C)

Re: OCR Docket No. I 5-17-2066
Dear !~~p)(A),(b)(6); (b)(7 !:
On December 22. 2016. the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) , Office for Ci vil
Rights (OCR), received the complaint you filed against Miami University - Oxford (the
University). The complaint alleges that the University discriminated against !(b)(7)(A ),(b)(6) !on
the basis of disability and sex , and retaliated against her.
OCR enforces Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and
its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 104, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of
disability by recipients of Federal financial assistance . OCR also enforces Title II o f the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and its
implementing regulation at 28 C.F .R. Part 35, which prohibit discrimination on the basi s of
disability by public entities. 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 any education program or activity operated
by a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the Department. Persons who seek to enforce
their right s under these laws are also protected from retaliation by the se laws . Because the
University receive s Federal financial assistance from the Department and is a publi c entity , the
Univer sity is subject to these laws .
Upon receipt, OCR evaluates a complaint to determine whether there is suffici ent information to
proceed with an investigation. A t'ler reviewing your compl aint form , OCR found it needed
additional information in order to understand your allegations. Therefore. OCR sent you an email on February 9. 2017 , advising you of the information OCR needed in order to clarify your
complaint. On February 27 , 2017 , you provided information responsiv e to OCR' s request.
Following a review of your complaint and clarifying information , OCR understood yo ur
allegations to be as follows :

n ,c Dcp<trtmem of Ed11cntion ·s mi.u w,r is to pr omote s11u
lem t1cl1ic1·cmc111t111d
pr <'pnrntw 11for xtoht1/ c,1mp<'tit frc111:s
.<
by f oslen ng L'tl1tcation11/cxccllc11cc n,rd 1:11.wrinxeq11t1
/ t1cccs.<.
www.cd .R""

 Page 2 -l(b)(7)(A) ,(b)(6); (b)(7(C)

l.

the University discriminated against ( )( )( ),(b)( ) on the basis of sex by failing
to promptly and equitably respond to her (b)( )(A),
omplaint of sexual assault,
and, as a result , l(b)(7)(A),(b)(6) lwas subjected to a sexually hostile environment ;

2.

the University retaliated against
complaint of sexual assault, the
possible illicit drug and alcohol
~n
the night of the alleged

l

!(b)(7)(A),(b)(6)!when in l(b)(7)(A).( l following her
University initiated an investigation into the
use of students who attended l~~~~)(A),{b)(6); (b)
sexual assault;

l

l

I

3.

in !(6)(6); (b)(7( the University retaliated againstj(b)(6); (b)(7(C) for hed (b)(6); (b)(
complaint of sexual assault when it refused to provide her with full amnesty for
her participation in its investi ation into the ossible illicit drug and alcohol use
of students who attended (b)( )( ),(b ); (b) on the night of the alleged sexual
assault:

4.

in !(b)(6);(b)( the Universit discriminated against (b)(6); (b)(7(C) on the basis of
disability (b)(6); (b)(7(C)
by failing to of er her academic
accommodations during finals week;

5.

on!(b)(6); (b)(7(C)
the University discriminated against ( )( ); (b)(
on the
basis of disabilit when it denied he r
or (b)(6); (b)(7(C)
(b )(6); (b)(7(C)
egL:.a~r
:.,;.1;.:.n:...g:.,;.1
t.:.:s_m:..v~c-s'""tt-•""'at
....
1o-n......,....m...,...to--.th-e
........
poss1 e 1 1c1ta coho! and drug use of students who attended (b)(6); (b)(7(C)
on the night of the alleged sexual assault; and

6.

the University failed to issue a Campus Crime Alert regarding the alleged sexual
assault incident that!(b)(6); (b)(7(C) k!xperienced, and failed to document the
alleged assault in the University's daily crime log as required by the Clery Act.

l

l

OCR is opening allegations ## 1-2 and dismi ssing allegations ##3-6 for the reasons set forth
below.

Allegations OCR is Dismissing
Pur suant to OCR 's Case Processing Manual (CPM), OCR will dismiss a complaint that, on its
face or as clarified in the evaluation process, fails to state a violation of one of the laws OCR
enforces , or that lacks sufticient detail (i.e. , who, what , where, when how) for OCR to infer that
discrimination or retaliation may have occurred or is occurring. OCR also must have jurisdiction
. over the subject matt er of the complaint.
Regarding allegation #3, you asserted that the University retaliated againstj(b)(6) ; (b)(7(C) ~vhen it
refused to provide full amnesty for her participation in its investigation into pos sible illicit drug
!on the night of the alleged sexual
and alcohol use of student s who attended!(b)(6) ; (b)(7(C)
assault. In order to state a potential claim of retaliation , a complaint must allege, or OCR must
be able to infer from the facts given, that: (I) an individual experienced an adverse action caused
by a recipient ; and (2) the recipient knew that the individu al engaged in a prote cted activi ty or

 Page 3 -l(b)(7)(A),(b)(6); (b)(?(C)
believed the individual might engage in a protected activity in the future; and (3) there is some
evidence of a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected activity. Although
all three elements must exist to establish a prima facie case, OCR need not address all three
elements if it detennines one is missing.
In your complaint, you stated that in a~(b)(6); (b)(?(C)

l e-mail to University staff[(fil!filJ

!(6)(6)
; (b) ~equested the University to provide her with a letter of immunity for her participation in
the University's proceedin s re arding the possible illicit alcohol and drug use of other students.
In a responsive e-mail on (b) 6); (b)( the University notified her that it did not provide letters of
immunity, but that she should consider the e-mail correspondence from the University as
confinnation that she would not be charged by the University for any violations that may have
occurred. As stated above, OCR will dismiss a complaint that, on its face or as clari tied in the
evaluation process. fails to state a violation of one of the laws OCR enforces. OCR has
detennined that the University's action of not providing the information in the fonn of a letter ,
without more. does not constitute an adverse action for purposes of a retaliation claim.
Therefore, allegation #3 fails to state a violation ofone of the laws OCR enforces, and OCR is
dismissing this allegation as of the date of this letter.
Regarding allegation #4, you stated that the University failed to offer b 6 ; b 7 C any
academic accommodations for her disability during finals week in
(b)(6); (b)(
,...J,"""'!"""'al!'lalll'!
..... ----...::..;
__
27 response to OCR 's request for information, you stated that in b 6 ; b 7 C
met
with the University's Director of Student Disabilities and received accommodations related to
her disability, includingilb)l6}· lb}(7(C}
l
According to the inform ation you provided,[(b}(6);(b}(?jC)!received the agreed-upon
accommodations each semester, including!(b)(6); (b)(7( You stated that these accommodations
were to helpl(b)(6); (b)(?(C) !function under the "normal life" circumstances of a college student.
You asserted that the University failed to offer any academic accommodations to!(b)(6); (b)(?(C) I
after her report of alleged sex ual assault to the University in!(b)(6); (b)( I In your February 27
response to OCR's request for information, you stated generally that the University shou ld know
that life rets turned u side down for sexual assault survivors , that for people alread y living with
(b)(6);(b)(?(C)
the effects of the assault can be more devastating and severe , and the
University shou ld do everyt hin g in its power to ensure that further stress that can exacerbate
anxiety is eliminated and/or minimized. You did not specify any disability-related academic
accommodat ions !(b)(6); (b)(7(C)!needed but was not provided .

r

Section 504 and Title II require a postsecondary student with a disability who is in need of
auxiliary aids or services to provide adequate notice of his or her need to the university and to
ass ist it in identifying appropriate and effective aids or services. You did not provide any
information indicating that !(b)(6)j (b)(?(C) ~ave notice of a need for additional services, or
assisted the University in identifying such services after she reported the alleged sexua l assault
incident. Accordingly, allegation #4 did not include sufficie nt detail for OCR to infer that
disabi lity discrimination may have occurred. Therefore, OCR is dismissing this allegation as of
the date of this letter.

 Page 4 -!(b)(7)(A),(b)(6);(b)(7(C)

Regarding allegation #5, you stated that the Universit
(b)(6); (b)(7(C)
mvest1gatton mto the possible illicit alcohol and drug
~on
the night of the alleged sexual assault. Your
contacted Un iversit staff on b 6 ; b 7 C
and
(b)(6); (b)(7(C)

denied (b)(6); (b) 7(C) s request for an
regarding its
..,.,..;.;.,,.,...,,..,..,.,,,.,="'
use of students who attended (b)(6); (b)(7(C)
complaint indicated that
· b
re uested an

b 6· b 7C
but the University declined her request. OCR reviewed your
information and found thatj(b)(6); (6}(7(Crs extension request was not related to her disability
when it was made to the University. As such, allegation #5 fails to state a violation of one of the
laws OCR enforces. Therefore , OCR is dismissing this allegation as of the date of this letter.
Regarding allegation #6, you stated that the University violated the Clery Act by failing to issue
a Campus Crime Alert regarding the alleged sexual assault incident that!(b)(6); (b)(7(C)
experienced , and failed to document the alleged assault in the University's daily crime log. OCR
does not have jurisdiction over the Clery Act, and is therefore dismissing allegation #6 as of the
date of"this letter. If you wish to further pursue this allegation, you may file a complaint with the
. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Federal Student Aid (FSA), Clery Act Compliance
Team, which is responsible for enforcing the Clery Act. FSA may be contacted at
1-800-433-3243. Complaints alleging violations of the Clery Act may be submitted to
CleryComplaints@ed.gov.
Additional information about the Clery Act and FSA is ava ilable at:
https:/ /studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-center/school/clery-act-reports.

l

Allegations OCR is Opening for Investi~ation
As to allegations ## 1-2, because OCR has detennined that it has jurisdiction and that the
complaint allegations were filed timely , it is opening these allegations for investigation. Based
on the complaint allegations. OCR will investigate the following issue(s):
I.

Whether the University provided a prompt and equitable response to a student
complaint of sex discrimination , as required by the Title IX impleme nting
regul ation at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b).

2.

Whether the Uni versity , on the basis of sex, subjected a student to a sex ually
hostile environment, i.e., sexual harassment that was sufficiently severe,
pervasive , or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a student from participation
in, deny a student the benefit of, or otherwise subject a student to dis crimination
under any program or service of the University, in violation of the Title IX
implementing re!,rulation at 34 C.F.R. § I 06 .31.

3.

Whether the University intimidated, threatened. coerced, or disc riminated against
an indi vidu al for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege sec ured
under Title IX, in violation of the Title IX implementing regulati on at 34 C.F.R.
§ 106.7 1.

 Page 5 - j(b)(7)(A) ,(b)(6); (b)(7(C)
Please note that opening an allegation for investigation in no way implies that OCR has made a
detennination with regard to the allegation's merits. During the investigation. OCR is a neutral
fact-finder. collecting and analyzing relevant evidence from the complainant , the recipient. and
other sources, as appropriate. OCR will ensure that its investigation is legally sut1icient and is
dispositive of the allegation(s), in accordance with the provisions of Article Ill of OCR 's CPM .
OCR works to resolve allegatio ns of discrimination promptly and appropriately. OCR will
commu nicate with you periodically during its investigation . When contacting the office about
your case, please refer to OCR Docket Number 15-17-2066.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Chenellc Love and Ms. Suwan Park, the OCR
attorneys assigned to investiga te this complaint. Ms. Love can be reached by telephone at
(2 16) 522-7626 or by e-mail at Chenelle.Lovc@ed.gov, and Ms. Park can be reached by
telephone at (216) 522-4972 or by e-mail at Suwan .Park@ed.gov.
Sincerely ,
(b)(6); (b)(7(C)

Donald S. Yarab
Supervisory Attorney /Team Leader