What Happens When A Report is Made
When the Title IX Coordinator Receives a Report
- Following a report, a Complainant can 1) obtain supportive measures only (no formal complaint required), 2) enter an Informal Resolution, or 3) initiate a Formal Investigation and Adjudication
When the Title IX Coordinator Receives a Formal Complaint: Our Process Simplified
- Assist with safety and medical needs first.
- Understand the requests of the person making the complaint: Informal Resolution or Formal Investigation and Adjudication with live hearing.
- Provide support services (academic and student life) as possible.
- Consider supportive measures such as change of residence, “no contact” orders as appropriate.
- Maintain neutrality and offer equitable process to both parties.
- Discuss, if requested by Complainant, a non-judgmental Informal Resolution and the terms, with the Respondent.
- Investigate, if requested and/or University determines need, to the extent possible, always in a private, compassionate setting. During the investigation, the parties will meet, one-on-one, with investigators.
- Provide, if requested, an Advisor for the purposes of conducting cross-examination at the live hearing.
- Provide access to investigation materials to both parties and when the Investigation Report is complete, provide all materials to the Review Board.
- Plan for a live hearing with parties present in separate spaces if requested.
- Notify both parties of outcomes.
- Provide both parties for the right of appeal on specific criteria.
Supportive Measures
- Can be implemented with or without a Formal Complaint and/or Investigation and Adjudication
- Supportive measures, as required by federal law must be non- disciplinary and non-punitive to the parties.
- Examples of supportive measures may include:
- Extensions on assignment deadlines
- No-contact orders
- Class or dorm changes
Informal Resolution Process
- The Complainant makes their wishes known such as a change of residence, change of schedule, no-contact order, or other requests.
- The University explains the charge to the accused and describes the conditions.
- This is a non-judgmental discussion; there is no determination made about responsibility.
- If the accused agrees to the terms proposed, the conditions are documented and the case is permanently closed.
- If the person does not agree, then the University returns to the person making the complaint and offers these options:
- Investigation, leading to a decision by the Review Board and sanction if the charged person is found Responsible, or no sanction if the evidence is not sufficient to reach Preponderance of the Evidence standard.
- Suspend decision at this time, and decide at a later date whether to request a Formal Investigation and Adjudication or to request the University take no action.
- Request the University take no action and close the case permanently.
Formal Investigation and Adjudication Procedures
There will be Equitable Processes with Dignity and Seriousness
The premises of “agency” and of “equity” are fundamental. “Agency” is given to the person making the complaint to decide the pathways for University response (although there are some reasons the University must investigate an allegation, for the safety of the entire University community). “Equity” means both people involved, the person making the complaint and the person accused, have equal rights as defined by New York State law.
Investigation and Adjudication Procedures
Complaints will be investigated and adjudicated under the procedures in place at the time the investigation begins.
Discipline for discrimination or harassment can include community service, counseling, probation, suspension, or expulsion. If a student is found responsible of violence and is suspended, expelled, or withdraws with charges pending, New York State law requires colleges to post a notation on student's transcript "violation of student code of conduct." Please refer to the Transcript Notation Appeal Policy for details on the process by which a student or graduate may seek to have such a notation removed at the appropriate time.
Student Cases: Simplified Formal Investigation and Adjudication Procedures
Investigation
Investigators will generally follow this process
- Interview the Complainant
- Interview witnesses named by Complainant
- Interview Respondent
- Interview witnesses named by Respondent
- Gather evidence as they deem relevant
- Re-interview if needed either or both parties
- Type interviews in real time, read back, parties allowed to rephrase, add, or explain then sign the statement as accurate
- Gather letters, interviews, evidence, timeline and policies in a shared file that both parties may access when materials are gathered.
- Title IX Coordinator advises when investigation materials are ready to view generally within a 10-day period, usually with some notice before the period begins.
- Both parties may review the Investigation materials within a 10-day period and provide a written response within the same period. These statements will be included in the Investigation File.
- All investigation materials, including responses, go to the Review Board.
Adjudication
- The Review Board is comprised of three individuals, two of whom are SLU employees, all trained in sexual misconduct adjudication. The third person will serve as the chairperson managing the live hearing.
- Hear opening statements from both parties
- Pose questions to the Investigators, to either party, to any witness. If a party or witness whose presence is requested by a party declines to participate in the hearing or does not answer permissible cross-examination questions by an advisor at the hearing, the hearing panel may nevertheless rely on statements of that party or witness, during the hearing or otherwise, in reaching a determination regarding responsibility, but may also determine what significance to afford those statements in view of the lack of cross-examination (for example, the hearing panel may determine whether the statements are sufficiently reliable in the absence of cross-examination). The RB panel will not, however, draw an inference as to responsibility based solely on a party’s or witness’s absence from the hearing or refusal to answer questions posed by the other party’s advisor.
- Consider cross-examination questions by each party’s Advisor of Choice
- Hear closing statements from both parties
- Decision and sanction by Review Board
- Appeal to Deans of Academic Affairs and Student Life on specific criteria:
- Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the hearing
- Inappropriate sanction
- New evidence not reasonably available at the time of the determination of responsibility or dismissal
- Bias that affected the outcome of the matter on the part of the Title IX Coordinator, investigators or Review Board members
Employee Cases: Simplified Formal Investigation and Adjudication Procedures
- Note: Where one party is a student, the student procedures (and hearing) will apply
- A written report of the investigation will be provided to the Title IX Coordinator and Senior Staff, as designated by the Title IX Coordinator.
- Parties will be notified of the completion of the report and may submit a request to the Title IX Coordinator within 48 hours of that notice to review the investigation report.
- The requesting party will have 7 calendar days to review the investigation report and may submit a final statement to be considered by the Senior Staff.
- A copy of this statement will be shared with the other party, who will have 48 hours to submit a response.
- Decisions and sanctions by Senior Staff
- Appeals within 7 days to different Senior Staff than those who made the determination on specific criteria:
- Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the hearing
- Inappropriate sanction
- New evidence not reasonably available at the time of the determination of responsibility or dismissal
- Bias that affected the outcome of the matter on the part of the Title IX Coordinator, investigators or Senior Staff members
Finding Responsibility and Potential Sanctions:
Using the standard “preponderance of evidence,” the adjudicators on the Review Board or panel will decide whether it is more likely than not that the person accused is responsible for the allegation. We use the terms “responsible” or “not responsible.” Just as in the criminal justice system “not responsible” does not mean “innocent.” It means the Review Board did not find sufficient evidence to hold the accused person responsible for the allegation.
Review Boards will impose sanctions that are proportionate to the allegation, and sanctions can range from disciplinary probation, mandated counseling, suspension for various lengths of time, or expulsion (or termination of employees).
Related: