[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61462-61499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25314]



[[Page 61461]]

Vol. 83

Thursday,

No. 230

November 29, 2018

Part III





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





34 CFR Part 106





Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or 
Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance; Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 61462]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 106

[Docket ID ED-2018-OCR-0064]
RIN 1870-AA14


Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or 
Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

AGENCY: Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education proposes to amend regulations 
implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). 
The proposed regulations would clarify and modify Title IX regulatory 
requirements pertaining to the availability of remedies for violations, 
the effect of Constitutional protections, the designation of a 
coordinator to address sex discrimination issues, the dissemination of 
a nondiscrimination policy, the adoption of grievance procedures, and 
the process to claim a religious exemption. The proposed regulations 
would also specify how recipient schools and institutions covered by 
Title IX (hereinafter collectively referred to as recipients or 
schools) must respond to incidents of sexual harassment consistent with 
Title IX's prohibition against sex discrimination. The proposed 
regulations are intended to promote the purpose of Title IX by 
requiring recipients to address sexual harassment, assisting and 
protecting victims of sexual harassment and ensuring that due process 
protections are in place for individuals accused of sexual harassment.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the 
comment period closes. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate 
copies, please submit your comments only once. Additionally, please 
include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
    If you are submitting comments electronically, we strongly 
encourage you to submit any comments or attachments in Microsoft Word 
format. If you must submit a comment in Adobe Portable Document Format 
(PDF), we strongly encourage you to convert the PDF to ``print-to-PDF'' 
format, or to use some other commonly-used searchable text format. 
Please do not submit the PDF in a scanned format. Using a print-to-PDF 
format allows the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) to 
electronically search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
    [ssquf] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for finding a rule on the site 
and submitting comments, is available on the site under ``How to use 
Regulations.gov'' in the Help section.
    [ssquf] Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: The 
Department strongly encourages commenters to submit their comments 
electronically. If, however, you mail or deliver your comments about 
these proposed regulations, address them to Brittany Bull, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6E310, 
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7100.

    Privacy Note:  The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to 
include in their comments only information that they wish to make 
publicly available.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brittany Bull, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6E310, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-7100. You may also email your questions to 
[email protected], but, as described above, comments must be submitted 
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, postal mail, commercial delivery, 
or hand delivery.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Purpose of This Regulatory Action

    Based on its extensive review of the critical issues addressed in 
this rulemaking, the Department has determined that current regulations 
and guidance do not provide appropriate standards for how recipients 
must respond to incidents of sexual harassment. To address this 
concern, we propose regulations addressing sexual harassment under 
Title IX to better align the Department's regulations with the text and 
purpose of Title IX and Supreme Court precedent and other case law. 
This will help to ensure that recipients understand their legal 
obligations including what conduct is actionable as sexual harassment 
under Title IX, the conditions that activate a mandatory response by 
the recipient, and particular requirements that such a response must 
meet so that recipients protect the rights of their students to access 
education free from sex discrimination.
    In addition to providing recipients with clear legal obligations, 
the transparency of the proposed regulations will help empower students 
to hold their schools accountable for failure to meet those 
obligations. Under the proposed regulations, complainants reporting 
sexual harassment will have greater control over the process. The 
Department recognizes that every situation is unique and that 
individuals react to sexual harassment differently; thus, the proposed 
regulations help ensure that schools provide complainants with clear 
options and honor the wishes of the reporting individual about how to 
respond to the situation, including increased access to supportive 
measures. Where a reporting complainant elects to file a formal 
complaint triggering the school's grievance process, the proposed 
regulations require the school's investigation to be fair and 
impartial, applying mandatory procedural checks and balances, thus 
producing more reliable factual outcomes, with the goal of encouraging 
more students to turn to their schools for support in the wake of 
sexual harassment.

Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action

    With regard to sexual harassment, the proposed regulations would:
    [ssquf] Define the conduct constituting sexual harassment for Title 
IX purposes;
    [ssquf] Specify the conditions that activate a recipient's 
obligation to respond to allegations of sexual harassment and impose a 
general standard for the sufficiency of a recipient's response;
    [ssquf] Specify situations that require a recipient to initiate its 
grievance procedures; and
    [ssquf] Establish procedural safeguards that must be incorporated 
into a recipient's grievance procedures to ensure a fair and reliable 
factual determination when a recipient investigates and adjudicates a 
sexual harassment complaint.
    In addition, the proposed regulations would: Clarify that in 
responding to any claim of sex discrimination under Title IX, 
recipients are not required to deprive an individual of rights that 
would be otherwise guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution; prohibit the 
Department's Office for Civil Rights

[[Page 61463]]

(OCR) from requiring a recipient to pay money damages as a remedy for a 
violation of any Title IX regulation; and eliminate the requirement 
that religious institutions submit a written statement to qualify for 
the Title IX religious exemption.

Costs and Benefits

    As further detailed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, we estimate 
that the total monetary cost savings of these regulations over ten 
years would be in the range of $286.4 million to $367.7 million. In 
addition, the major benefits of these proposed regulations, taken as a 
whole, include achieving the protective purposes of Title IX via fair, 
reliable procedures that provide adequate due process protections for 
those involved in grievance processes.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
these proposed regulations and directed questions. To ensure that your 
comments have the maximum effect on developing the final regulations, 
you should identify clearly the specific section or sections of the 
proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses, and arrange 
your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (explained further 
below), and their overall goal of reducing the regulatory burden that 
might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any 
further ways that we may reduce potential costs or increase potential 
benefits, while preserving the effective and efficient administration 
of the Department's programs and activities.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. 
You also may inspect the comments in person at 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 
Room 6E310, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday of each week, except federal 
holidays. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: Upon request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to 
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary 
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

Background

    Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education 
programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. See 
20 U.S.C. 1681(a). Existing Title IX regulations contain specific 
provisions regarding (i) the Assistant Secretary's authority to 
determine remedies necessary to overcome effects of discrimination (34 
CFR 106.3), (ii) the effect of other requirements (34 CFR 106.6), (iii) 
designation of a responsible employee (34 CFR 106.8(a)), (iv) adoption 
of grievance procedures (34 CFR 106.8(b)), (v) dissemination of policy 
(34 CFR 106.9), and (vi) exemption for religious schools (34 CFR 
106.12). For reasons described in this preamble, the Secretary proposes 
to amend the Title IX regulations at 34 CFR 106.3, 106.6, 106.8, 106.9, 
and 106.12, as well as add new Sec. Sec.  106.30, 106.44, and 106.45.
    The Department's predecessor, the Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare (HEW), promulgated implementing regulations under Title IX 
effective in 1975.\1\ Among other things, those regulations require 
recipients to create and disseminate a policy of non-discrimination 
based on sex, designate a Title IX Coordinator, and adopt and publish 
grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of 
complaints that a school is discriminating based on sex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 FR 24128 (June 4, 1975) (codified at 45 CFR part 86). In 
1980, Congress created the United States Department of Education. 
Public Law 96-88, sec. 201, 93 Stat. 669, 671 (1979); Exec. Order 
No. 12212, 45 FR 29557 (May 2, 1980). By operation of law, all of 
HEW's determinations, rules, and regulations continued in effect and 
all functions of HEW's Office for Civil Rights, with respect to 
educational programs, were transferred to the Secretary of 
Education. 20 U.S.C. 3441(a)(3). The regulations implementing Title 
IX were recodified without substantive change in 34 CFR part 106. 
See 45 FR 30802, 30955-65 (May 9, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the current regulations were issued in 1975, the federal 
courts had not yet addressed recipients' Title IX obligations to 
address sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination. The Supreme 
Court subsequently elaborated on the scope of Title IX, ruling that 
money damages are available for private actions under Title IX based on 
sexual harassment by a teacher against a student, Franklin v. Gwinnett 
Cty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60 (1992); that such damages may only be 
recovered under Title IX when a school official with authority to 
institute corrective measures has actual notice of the harassment but 
is deliberately indifferent to it, Gebser v. Lago Vista Ind. Sch. 
Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998); and that a school can likewise be liable 
under Title IX based on sexual harassment by a student against a 
student but only if ``the recipient is deliberately indifferent to 
known acts of student-on-student sexual harassment,'' ``the harasser is 
under the school's disciplinary authority,'' and ``the behavior is so 
severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies its victims 
the equal access to education that Title IX is designed to protect,'' 
Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 647, 652 (1999).
    In the four decades since HEW issued the 1975 rule, no Title IX 
regulations have been promulgated to address sexual harassment as a 
form of sex discrimination; instead, the Department has addressed this 
subject through a series of guidance documents. See, e.g., Sexual 
Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other 
Students, or Third Parties, 62 FR 12034 (March 13, 1997); Revised 
Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, 
Other Students, or Third Parties (January 19, 2001) (2001 Guidance); 
Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Harassment (January 25, 2006); Dear 
Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence (issued April 4, 2011, withdrawn 
September 22, 2017) (2011 Dear Colleague Letter); Questions and Answers 
on Title IX and Sexual Violence (issued April 29, 2014, withdrawn 
September 22, 2017) (2014 Q&A); Questions and Answers on Campus Sexual 
Misconduct (September 22, 2017) (2017 Q&A). The decades since the 
passage of Title IX have revealed that how schools address sexual 
harassment and sexual assault (collectively referred to herein as 
sexual harassment) affects the educational access and opportunities of 
large numbers of students in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary 
schools across the nation.
    Beginning in mid-2017, the Department started to examine how 
schools and colleges were applying Title IX to sexual harassment under 
then-applicable guidance. The Department conducted listening sessions 
and discussions with stakeholders expressing a variety of positions for 
and against the status quo, including advocates for survivors of sexual 
violence; advocates for accused students; organizations representing 
schools and colleges; attorneys representing survivors, the accused, 
and institutions; Title IX Coordinators and other school and college 
administrators; child and sex abuse prosecutors;

[[Page 61464]]

scholars and experts in law, psychology, and neuroscience; and numerous 
individuals who have experienced school-level Title IX proceedings as a 
complainant or respondent. The Department also reviewed information 
that includes white papers, reports, and recommendations issued over 
the past several years by legal and public policy scholars, civil 
rights groups, and committees of nonpartisan organizations \2\ as well 
as books detailing case studies of campus Title IX proceedings.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ E.g., Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk, The Sex Bureaucracy, 104 
Calif. L. Rev. 881 (2016); John Villasenor, A probabilistic 
framework for modelling false Title IX `convictions' under the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, 15 Law, Probability and Risk 
223, 223-37 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgw006; Open Letter 
from Members of the Penn Law School Faculty, Sexual Assault 
Complaints: Protecting Complainants and the Accused Students at 
Universities, Wall St. J. Online (Feb. 18, 2015), http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0218_upenn.pdf 
(statement of 16 members of the University of Pennsylvania Law 
School faculty); Rethink Harvard's Sexual Harassment Policy, Boston 
Globe (Oct. 15, 2014), https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html (Statement of 28 members of the Harvard Law School 
faculty); Am. Bar Assn., ABA Criminal Justice Section Task Force on 
College Due Process Rights and Victim Protections: Recommendations 
for Colleges and Universities in Resolving Allegations of Campus 
Sexual Misconduct (2017), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminaljustice/2017/ABA-Due-Process-Task-Force-Recommendations-and-Report.authcheckdam.pdf; American College of 
Trial Lawyers, Task Force on the Response of Universities and 
Colleges to Allegations of Sexual Violence, White Paper on Campus 
Sexual Assault Investigations (2017), https://www.actl.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/position-statements-and-white-papers/task_force_allegations_of_sexual_violence_white_paper_final.pdf; 
Elizabeth Bartholet, Nancy Gertner, Janet Halley & Jeannie Suk 
Gersen, Fairness For All Students Under Title IX (Aug. 21, 2017), 
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33789434. See also Nedda 
Black et al., The NCHERM Group, LLC, 2017 NCHERM Group White Paper: 
Due Process and the Sex Police (2017), https://www.ncherm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/TNG-Whitepaper-Final-Electronic-Version.pdf; 
Sharyn Potter et al., Prevention Innovations Research Ctr., Univ. of 
New Hampshire, It's Not Just the What but the How: Informing 
Students about Campus Policies and Resources (2015), https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/departments/Prevention%20Innovations%20Research%20Center/White_Paper_87367_for_web.pdf; Dana Bolger, Gender Violence Costs: 
Schools' Financial Obligations Under Title IX, 125 Yale L. J. 2106 
(2016), https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/gender-violence-costs-schools-financial-obligations-under-title-ix; Katherine K. 
Baker et al., Title IX and the Preponderance of the Evidence: A 
White Paper, http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Title-IX-Preponderance-White-Paper-signed-11.29.16.pdf (signed by dozens of law professors and scholars); 
Alexandra Brodsky, A Rising Tide: Learning About Fair Disciplinary 
Process from Title IX, 66 J. of Legal Educ. 822 (2017), https://jle.aals.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&context=home.
    \3\ E.g., K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr., Campus Rape 
Frenzy, (2017); Laura Kipnis, Unwanted Advances (2017). See also 
Annie E. Clark and Andrea L. Pino, We Believe You: Survivors of 
Campus Sexual Assault Speak Out (2016); Jon Krakauer, Missoula: Rape 
and the Justice System in a College Town, (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department learned that schools and colleges were uncertain 
about whether the Department's guidance was or was not legally binding. 
To the extent that guidance was viewed as mandatory, the obligations 
set forth in previous guidance were issued without the benefit of 
notice and comment that would have permitted the public and all 
stakeholders to comment on the feasibility and effectiveness of the 
guidance. Several of the prescriptions set forth in previous guidance 
(for example, compulsory use by all schools and colleges of the 
preponderance of the evidence standard and prohibition of mediation in 
Title IX sexual assault cases) generated particular criticism and 
controversy.
    Other criticisms of the previous guidance included that those 
guidance documents pressured schools and colleges to forgo robust due 
process protections; \4\ captured too wide a range of misconduct, 
resulting in infringement on academic freedom and free speech and 
government regulation of consensual, noncriminal sexual activity; \5\ 
and removed reasonable options for how schools should structure their 
grievance processes to accommodate each school's unique pedagogical 
mission, resources, and educational community.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ E.g., Open Letter from Members of the Penn Law School 
Faculty, supra note 2 (``[W]e believe that OCR's approach exerts 
improper pressure upon universities to adopt procedures that do not 
afford fundamental fairness.''). See also Bartholet et al., supra 
note 2, at 1 (``In the past six years, under pressure from the 
previous Administration, many colleges and universities all over the 
country have put in place new rules defining sexual misconduct and 
new procedures for enforcing them. While the Administration's goals 
were to provide better protections for women . . . the new policies 
and procedures have created problems of their own, many of them 
attributable to directives coming from [OCR]. Most of these problems 
involve unfairness to the accused; some involve unfairness to both 
accuser and accused[.] OCR has an obligation to address the 
unfairness that has resulted from its previous actions and the 
related college and university responses''). See also Plummer v. 
Univ. of Houston, 860 F.3d 767, 777-78 (5th Cir. 2017) (Jones, J., 
dissenting) (The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter ``was not adopted 
according to notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures; its extremely 
broad definition of `sexual harassment' has no counterpart in 
federal civil rights case law; and the procedures prescribed for 
adjudication of sexual misconduct are heavily weighted in favor of 
finding guilt'').
    \5\ E.g., Kipnis, supra note 3, at 33 (``The reality is that a 
set of incomprehensible directives, issued by a branch of the 
federal government, are being wielded in wildly idiosyncratic ways, 
according to the whims and biases of individual Title IX officers 
operating with no public scrutiny or accountability. Some of them 
are also all too willing to tread on academic and creative freedom 
as they see fit''). See also Gersen and Suk, supra note 2, at 902-03 
(Asserting that OCR's guidance requires schools to regulate student 
conduct ``that is not creating a hostile environment and therefore 
is not sexual harassment and therefore not sex discrimination'' and 
concluding that OCR's guidance oversteps OCR's jurisdictional 
authority); see also Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk, The Sex 
Bureaucracy, The Chronicle of Higher Educ. (Jan. 6, 2017) (https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-College-Sex-Bureaucracy/238805) (OCR's 
``broad definition'' of sexual harassment has ``grown to include 
most voluntary and willing sexual contact''). See also Open Letter 
from Members of the Penn Law School Faculty, supra note 2 (``These 
cases are likely to involve highly disputed facts, and the `he said/
she said' conflict is often complicated by the effects of alcohol 
and drugs'').
    \6\ E.g., Institutional Challenges in Responding to Sexual 
Violence On College Campuses: Testimony Provided to the Subcomm. on 
Higher Educ. and Workforce Training, 114th Cong. 2, 5-6 (2015) 
(statement of Dana Scaduto, Campus Counsel, Dickinson College, 
discussing the problems with attempting to impose one-size-fits-all 
rules that fail to account for the wide diversity of institutions of 
higher education across the country), https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/testimony_scaduto.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After personally engaging with numerous stakeholders including 
sexual violence survivors, students accused of campus sexual assault, 
and school and college attorneys and administrators, the Secretary of 
Education delivered a speech in September 2017 \7\ in which she 
emphasized the importance of Title IX and the high stakes of sexual 
misconduct. The Secretary identified problems with the current state of 
Title IX's application in schools and colleges, including overly broad 
definitions of sexual harassment, lack of notice to the parties, lack 
of consistency regarding both parties' right to know the evidence 
relied on by the school investigator and right to cross-examine parties 
and witnesses, and adjudications reached by school administrators 
operating under a federal mandate to apply the lowest possible standard 
of evidence. Secretary DeVos stated that in endeavoring to find a 
``better way forward'' that works for all students, ``non-negotiable 
principles'' include the right of every survivor to be taken seriously 
and the right of every person accused to know that guilt is not 
predetermined.\8\ Quoting an open letter from law school faculty,\9\ 
Secretary DeVos affirmed that ``there is nothing inconsistent with a 
policy that both strongly condemns and punishes sexual misconduct and 
ensures a fair adjudicatory process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Betsy DeVos, U.S. Sec'y of Educ., Prepared Remarks on Title 
IX Enforcement (Sept. 7, 2017), https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-devos-prepared-remarks-title-ix-enforcement.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Open Letter from Members of the Penn Law School Faculty, 
supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 22, 2017, the Department rescinded previous guidance 
documents that had never had

[[Page 61465]]

the benefit of the public notice and comment process; \10\ left in 
place the 2001 Guidance that had been subjected to public notice and 
comment (though not rulemaking); issued the 2017 Q&A as an interim 
question and answer document to identify recipients' obligations under 
Title IX to address sexual harassment as a temporary measure to provide 
necessary information while proceeding with the time-intensive process 
of notice and comment rulemaking; and announced its intent to 
promulgate regulations under Title IX following the rulemaking 
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department has 
continued to hold listening sessions and discussions with stakeholders 
and experts since the rescission of the previous guidance to inform the 
Department's proposed Title IX regulations including hearing from 
stakeholders who believe the Department should adopt the policies 
embodied in its previous or current guidance. The need to address 
through rulemaking the serious subject of how schools respond to sexual 
harassment was well expressed by sixteen law school faculty at 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of Pennsylvania Law School:

    \10\ Specifically, the Department rescinded the 2011 Dear 
Colleague Letter and the 2014 Q&A.

    Both the legislative process and notice-and-comment rulemaking 
are transparent, participatory processes that afford the opportunity 
for input from a diversity of viewpoints. That range of views is 
critical because this area implicates competing values, including 
privacy, safety, the functioning of the academic community, and the 
integrity of the educational process for both the victim and the 
accused, as well as the fundamental fairness of the disciplinary 
process. . . . In addition, adherence to a rule-of-law standard 
would have resulted in procedures with greater legitimacy and buy-in 
from the universities subject to the resulting rules.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Open Letter from Members of the Penn Law School Faculty, 
supra note 2.

    While implementing regulations under Title IX since 1975 have 
required schools to provide for a ``prompt and equitable'' grievance 
process to resolve complaints of sex discrimination by the school, the 
Department's guidance (both the guidance documents rescinded in 2017 
and the ones remaining) fails to provide the clarity, permanence, and 
prudence of regulation properly informed by public participation in the 
full rulemaking process. Under the system created by the Department's 
guidance, hundreds of students have filed complaints with OCR alleging 
their school failed to provide a prompt or equitable process in 
response to a report of sexual harassment,\12\ and over 200 students 
have filed lawsuits against colleges and universities alleging their 
school disciplined them for sexual misconduct without providing due 
process protections.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., OCR's website listing currently pending 
investigations into sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and 
sexual violence: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/open-investigations/index.html.
    \13\ See KC Johnson, Judge Xinis' Outrage, Acad. Wonderland: 
Comments on the Contemp. Acad. (Apr. 3, 2018), https://academicwonderland.com/2018/04/03/judge-xinis-outrage/ (over 200 
students have sued their colleges over due process issues since the 
2011 Dear Colleague Letter); KC Johnson, Pomona, the Courts, & Basic 
Fairness, Acad. Wonderland: Comments on the Contemp. Acad. (Dec. 8, 
2017), https://academicwonderland.com/2017/12/08/pomona-the-courts-basic-fairness/ (over 90 colleges have lost due process challenges 
by respondent students since the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department recognizes that despite well-intentioned efforts by 
school districts, colleges and universities, advocacy organizations, 
and the Department itself, sexual harassment continues to present 
serious problems across the nation's campuses. The lack of clear 
regulatory standards has contributed to processes that have not been 
fair to all parties involved, that have lacked appropriate procedural 
protections, and that have undermined confidence in the reliability of 
the outcomes of investigations of sexual harassment allegations. Such 
deficiencies harm complainants, respondents, and recipients alike.
    The framework created under these proposed regulations stems from 
the Department's commitment to the rule of law and the Department's 
recognition that it has statutory authority under 20 U.S.C. 1682 to 
issue regulations that effectuate Title IX's provisions--to protect all 
students from sex discrimination (here, in the form of sexual 
harassment) that jeopardizes equal access to education. The proposed 
regulations would help ensure that the obligations imposed on 
recipients fall within the scope of the civil rights law that Congress 
created and, where persuasive, align with relevant case law. Thus, the 
proposed regulations set forth clear standards that trigger a 
recipient's obligation to respond to sexual harassment, including 
defining the conduct that rises to the level of Title IX as conduct 
serious enough to jeopardize a person's equal access to the recipient's 
education program or activity, and confining a recipient's Title IX 
obligations to sexual harassment of which it has actual knowledge.
    Within those clarified standards triggering a recipient's Title IX 
obligations, the proposed regulations instruct recipients to take 
certain steps that, in the Department's judgment based on extensive 
interaction with stakeholders, will foster educational environments 
where all students and employees know that every school must respond 
appropriately to sexual harassment. The proposed regulations provide 
that complainants experiencing sexual harassment may report allegations 
to their school and expect their school to respond in a manner that is 
not clearly unreasonable and incentivize recipients to give various 
supportive measures to complainants to restore or preserve the 
individual's equal access to education as a way of demonstrating that 
the recipient's response to the complainant's report was not 
deliberately indifferent.
    The proposed regulations require schools to investigate and 
adjudicate formal complaints of sexual harassment, and to treat 
complainants and respondents equally, giving each a meaningful 
opportunity to participate in the investigation and requiring the 
recipient to apply substantive and procedural safeguards that provide a 
predictable, consistent, impartial process for both parties and 
increase the likelihood that the recipient will reach a determination 
regarding the respondent's responsibility based on objective standards 
and relevant facts and evidence. By separating a recipient's obligation 
to respond to each known report of sexual harassment from the 
recipient's obligation to investigate formal complaints of sexual 
harassment, the proposed regulations give sexual harassment 
complainants greater confidence to report and expect their school to 
respond in a meaningful way, while requiring that where a complainant 
also wants a formal investigation to potentially result in discipline 
against a respondent, that grievance process will be predictable and 
fair to both parties, resulting in a factually reliable determination 
about the complainant's allegations.

Significant Proposed Regulations

    Rather than proceeding sequentially, we group and discuss the 
proposed amendments under the substantive or procedural issues to which 
they pertain. We do not address proposed regulatory changes that are 
technical or otherwise minor in effect.
    In discussing the proposed regulations, we first address how 
recipients must respond to sexual harassment and the procedures for 
resolving formal complaints of sexual harassment. Under the response 
provisions, we address: Adoption of standards from Title IX Supreme 
Court

[[Page 61466]]

precedent and other case law (proposed Sec. Sec.  106.44(a) and 
106.30); responses required in specific circumstances and accompanying 
safe harbors (proposed Sec.  106.44(b)); emergency removals (proposed 
Sec.  106.44(c)); and the use of administrative leave (proposed Sec.  
106.44(d)). We next turn to grievance procedures for addressing formal 
complaints of sexual harassment (proposed Sec.  106.45) including: 
Clarification that the recipient's treatment of both complainant and 
respondent could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex 
(proposed Sec.  106.45(a)); general requirements for grievance 
procedures (proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(1)); notice to the parties 
(proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(2)); and procedures for investigations 
(proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)). Also within the grievance procedures 
section we address evidentiary standards for determinations of 
responsibility (proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(4)(i)); the content of such 
written determinations (proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(4)(ii)); and the 
timing of providing the determinations to the parties (proposed Sec.  
106.45(b)(4)(iii)). We next address procedures for appeals of written 
determinations (proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(5)); informal resolution 
procedures (proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(6)); and recordkeeping procedures 
(proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(7)).
    The proposed regulations also seek to clarify existing Title IX 
regulations in other areas beyond sexual harassment. Specifically, we 
state that OCR shall not deem necessary the payment of money damages to 
remedy violations under part 106 (proposed Sec.  106.3(a)). We address 
the intersection among Title IX regulations, constitutional rights, 
student privacy rights, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
(proposed Sec.  106.6). We clarify the provisions governing the 
designation of a Title IX Coordinator (proposed Sec.  106.8). And we 
clarify that a recipient that qualifies for the religious exemption 
under Title IX can claim its exemption without seeking written 
assurance of the exemption from the Department (proposed Sec.  106.12).

I. Recipient's Response to Sexual Harassment

(Proposed Sec.  106.44)

    Statute: Title IX states generally that no person in the United 
States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, 
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any 
education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, 
20 U.S.C. 1681(a), but does not specifically mention sexual harassment.
    Current Regulations: None.

A. Adoption of Supreme Court Standards for Sexual Harassment

Section 106.44(a) General; Section 106.30
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding a new Sec.  106.44 covering 
a recipient's response to sexual harassment. Proposed Sec.  106.44(a) 
would state that a recipient with actual knowledge of sexual harassment 
in an education program or activity of the recipient against a person 
in the United States must respond in a manner that is not deliberately 
indifferent. Proposed Sec.  106.44(a) would also state that a recipient 
is deliberately indifferent only if its response to sexual harassment 
is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.
    We propose definitions for ``sexual harassment'' and ``actual 
knowledge'' in Sec.  106.30. The Department defines ``sexual 
harassment'' to mean either an employee of the recipient conditioning 
the provision of an aid, benefit, or service of the recipient on an 
individual's participation in unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome 
conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and 
objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access 
to the recipient's education program or activity; or sexual assault as 
defined in 34 CFR 668.46(a), implementing the Jeanne Clery Disclosure 
of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act). 
We define ``actual knowledge'' as notice of sexual harassment or 
allegations of sexual harassment to a recipient's Title IX Coordinator 
or any official of the recipient who has authority to institute 
corrective measures on behalf of the recipient, or to a teacher in the 
elementary and secondary context with regard to student-on-student 
harassment. The proposed definition of ``actual knowledge'' also states 
that imputation of knowledge based solely on respondeat superior or 
constructive notice is insufficient to constitute actual knowledge, 
that the standard is not met when the only official of the recipient 
with actual knowledge is also the respondent, and that the mere ability 
or obligation to report sexual harassment does not qualify an employee, 
even if that employee is an official, as one who has authority to 
institute corrective measures on behalf of the recipient.
    Reasons: The Department believes that the administrative standards 
governing recipients' responses to sexual harassment should be 
generally aligned with the standards developed by the Supreme Court in 
cases assessing liability under Title IX for money damages in private 
litigation. The Department believes that students and institutions 
would benefit from the clarity of an essentially uniform standard. More 
importantly, the Department believes that the Supreme Court's 
foundational decisions in this area, Gebser and Davis, are based on a 
textual interpretation of Title IX and on policy rationales that the 
Department finds persuasive for the administrative context. The 
Department's proposed regulations significantly reflect legal precedent 
because, while we could have chosen to regulate in a somewhat different 
manner, we believe that the standards articulated by the Court in these 
areas are the best interpretation of Title IX and that a consistent 
body of law will facilitate appropriate implementation.
    First, the Court has held that Title IX governs misconduct by 
recipients, not by third parties such as teachers and students. As the 
Court noted in Gebser, Title IX is a statute ``designed primarily to 
prevent recipients of federal financial assistance from using the funds 
in a discriminatory manner.'' Gebser, 524 U.S. at 292; Cannon v. Univ. 
of Chicago, 414 U.S. 677, 704 (1979) (noting that the primary 
congressional purpose behind the statutes was ``to avoid the use of 
federal resources to support discriminatory practices''). It is thus a 
recipient's own misconduct--not the actions of employees, students, or 
other third parties--that subjects the recipient to liability under 
Title IX.
    Second, because Congress enacted Title IX under its Spending Clause 
authority, the obligations it imposes on recipients are in the nature 
of a contract. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 286; Davis, 526 U.S. at 640. The 
Court has reasoned that it follows from this that recipients must be on 
clear notice of what conduct is prohibited and that recipients must be 
held liable only for conduct over which they have control. Id. at 644-
45.
    Third, the text of Title IX prohibits only discrimination that has 
the effect of denying access to the recipient's educational program or 
activities. Id. at 650-52. Accordingly, Title IX does not prohibit sex-
based misconduct that does not rise to that level of severity.
    And finally, the Court reasoned in Davis that Title IX must be 
interpreted in a manner that leaves room for flexibility in schools' 
disciplinary decisions and that does not place courts in the position 
of second-guessing the disciplinary decisions made by school 
administrators. Id. at 648.
    As a matter of policy, the Department believes that these same 
principles

[[Page 61467]]

should govern administrative enforcement of Title IX. To that end, the 
proposed regulation would provide that actual knowledge--rather than 
mere constructive knowledge or imputation of knowledge based on a 
respondeat superior theory--triggers the recipient's duty to respond. 
Consistent with Title IX's focus on the recipient's own misconduct and 
with the contractual nature of the duty imposed by Title IX, this 
standard ensures that the recipient is on clear notice of the 
discrimination (or alleged discrimination) that it must address. By 
contrast, as the Court observed in Gebser, a constructive knowledge 
standard would make a funding recipient liable for misconduct of which 
it was unaware. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 287. Further, applying this 
standard in the administrative enforcement context is consistent with 
``Title IX's express means of enforcement--by administrative agencies--
[which] operates on the assumption of actual notice to officials of the 
funding recipient.'' Id. at 288.
    Similarly, proposed Sec.  106.44(a) adopts the Gebser/Davis 
standard that actual knowledge means ``notice of sexual harassment or 
allegations of sexual harassment to an official of the recipient who 
has authority to institute corrective measures on behalf of the 
recipient.'' Consistent with the text and purpose of Title IX, this 
standard ensures that a recipient is liable only for its own 
misconduct. As the Court noted in Gebser and Davis, it is only when the 
recipient makes an intentional decision not to respond to third-party 
discrimination that the recipient itself can be said to ``subject'' its 
students to such discrimination. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 291-92; Davis, 526 
U.S. at 642-43. Determining whether someone is an official with 
authority to take corrective action is a fact-specific inquiry. See 
e.g., Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., Fla., 604 F.3d 1248, 1256 (11th 
Cir. 2010) (``we also note that the ultimate question of who is an 
appropriate person is `necessarily a fact-based inquiry' because 
`officials' roles vary among school districts.' '') (quoting Murrell v. 
Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 186 F.3d 1238, 1247 (10th Cir. 1999)).
    For recipients that are elementary and secondary schools, with 
respect to student-on-student sexual harassment, proposed Sec.  106.30 
states that actual knowledge can also come from notice to a teacher. 
The Department recognizes that the Supreme Court has not held 
definitively that teachers are ``appropriate officials with the 
authority to take corrective action'' with respect to student-on-
student sexual harassment; however, in the elementary and secondary 
school setting where school administrators and teachers are more likely 
to act in loco parentis, and exercise a considerable degree of control 
and supervision over their students, the Department believes this 
interpretation is reasonable. Davis, 526 U.S. at 646, citing Veronica 
Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 655 (1995) (noting that a public 
school's power over its students is ``custodial and tutelary, 
permitting a degree of supervision and control that could not be 
exercised over free adults''). Teachers specifically have a ``degree of 
familiarity with, and authority over, their students that is 
unparalleled except perhaps in the relationship between parent and 
child.'' New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 348 (1985) (Powell, J., 
concurring). Thus, the Department believes that teachers at elementary 
and secondary schools should be considered to have the requisite 
authority to impart actual knowledge to the recipient regarding 
student-on-student conduct that could constitute sexual harassment and 
to trigger a recipient's obligations under Title IX. Whether in the 
context of elementary and secondary schools, or institutions of higher 
education, determining who is an official to whom notice of sexual 
harassment gives actual knowledge to the recipient will be fact-
specific. Notice to a recipients' Title IX Coordinator, however, will 
always confer actual knowledge on the recipient; therefore, every 
student has a clearly designated option for reporting sexual harassment 
to trigger their school's response obligations.
    The definition in proposed Sec.  106.30 also states that the mere 
ability or obligation to report sexual harassment does not qualify an 
employee, even if that employee is an official, as one who has 
authority to institute corrective measures on behalf of the recipient. 
Plamp v. Mitchell Sch. Dist. No. 17-2, 565 F.3d 450, 459 (8th Cir. 
2009) (``After all, each teacher, counselor, administrator, and 
support-staffer in a school building has the authority, if not the 
duty, to report to the school administration or school board 
potentially discriminatory conduct. But that authority does not amount 
to an authority to take a corrective measure or institute remedial 
action within the meaning of Title IX. Such a holding would run 
contrary to the purposes of the statute''); see also Santiago v. Puerto 
Rico, 655 F.3d 61, 75 (1st Cir. 2011) (``The empty allegation that a 
school employee `failed to report' harassment to someone higher up in 
the chain of command who could have taken corrective action is not 
enough to establish institutional liability. Title IX does not sweep so 
broadly as to permit a suit for harm-inducing conduct that was not 
brought to the attention of someone with the authority to stop it.'') 
(internal citation omitted).
    Further, a recipient's actual knowledge must be regarding conduct 
of the type proscribed under Title IX. The Department intends that the 
proposed definition of sexual harassment be consistent with the text of 
Title IX and with the Court's decisions in Gebser and Davis. The 
proposed regulation defines sexual harassment as either an employee of 
the recipient conditioning the provision of an aid, benefit, or service 
of the recipient on an individual's participation in unwelcome sexual 
conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, 
pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a 
person equal access to the recipient's education program or activity; 
or sexual assault as defined in 34 CFR 668.46(a) (implementing the 
Clery Act). In each instance, following the text and purpose of Title 
IX, the definition thus seeks to include only sex-based discrimination 
that is sufficiently serious as to effectively deprive a student of 
equal access to a funding recipient's educational program or activity. 
Institutions of higher education must comply with both the Clery Act 
and Title IX. Because the purpose of Title IX is to prohibit a 
recipient from subjecting individuals to sex discrimination in its 
education program or activity, the definition of sexual harassment 
under Title IX focuses on sexual conduct that jeopardizes a person's 
equal access to an education program or activity. Such sexual 
harassment includes conduct that is also a crime (such as sexual 
assault), but Title IX does not focus on crimes per se. By contrast, 
the Clery Act focuses on particular crimes (stalking, dating violence, 
domestic violence, sexual assault) and an institution's obligation to 
disclose information and services to victims, and otherwise respond, to 
reports of such crimes. Although the Clery Act focuses on crimes that 
may also meet the definition of ``sexual harassment'' under the Title 
IX definition proposed in Sec.  106.30, such crimes do not always 
necessarily meet that definition (for example, where an incident of 
stalking is not ``based on sex'' as required under the Title IX 
definition of sexual harassment). The proposed regulations set forth 
definitions and obligations that further the purpose of Title IX with 
the goal of ensuring that institutions of higher

[[Page 61468]]

education can also comply with their Clery Act obligations without 
conflict or inconsistency.
    Proposed Sec.  106.44(a) also reflects the statutory provision that 
a recipient is only responsible for responding to conduct that occurs 
within its ``education program or activity.'' See 20 U.S.C. 1681(a) 
(prohibiting a recipient from subjecting persons in the United States 
to discrimination ``under any education program or activity''). The 
Title IX statute defines ``program or activity'' as ``all of the 
operations of'' a recipient. See 20 U.S.C. 1687. An ``education program 
or activity'' includes ``any academic, extracurricular, research, [or] 
occupational training.'' 34 CFR 106.31. See also Doe v. Brown Univ., 
896 F.3d 127, 132 n.6 (1st Cir. 2018) (``an institution's education 
program or activity'' may include ``university libraries, computer 
labs, and vocational resources . . . campus tours, public lectures, 
sporting events, and other activities at covered institutions''). 
Whether conduct occurs within a recipient's education program or 
activity does not necessarily depend on the geographic location of an 
incident (e.g., on a recipient's campus versus off of a recipient's 
campus). See e.g., Rost ex rel. K.C. v. Steamboat Springs RE-2 Sch. 
Dist., 511 F.3d 1114, 1121 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (``We do not suggest 
that harassment occurring off school grounds cannot as a matter of law 
create liability under Title IX'').
    In determining whether a sexual harassment incident occurred within 
a recipient's program or activity, courts have examined factors such as 
whether the conduct occurred in a location or in a context where the 
recipient owned the premises; exercised oversight, supervision, or 
discipline; or funded, sponsored, promoted, or endorsed the event or 
circumstance. See e.g., Davis, 526 U.S. at 646 (``Where, as here, the 
misconduct occurs during school hours and on school grounds--the bulk 
of G.F.'s misconduct, in fact, took place in the classroom--the 
misconduct is taking place `under' an `operation' of the funding 
recipient.''); Samuelson v. Or. State Univ., 725 Fed. Appx. 598, 599 
(9th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's Title IX claim 
against OSU because she ``failed to allege that her sexual assault 
occurred `under' an OSU `program or activity' '' where plaintiff 
alleged that she was assaulted ``off campus by a non-university student 
at a location that had no sponsorship by or association with OSU''); 
Farmer v. Kansas State Univ., 2017 WL 980460, at * 8 (D. Kan. Mar. 14, 
2017) (holding that a KSU fraternity is an ``education program or 
activity'' for purposes of Title IX because ``KSU allegedly devotes 
significant resources to the promotion and oversight of fraternities 
through its websites, rules, and Office of Greek Affairs. Additionally, 
although the fraternity is housed off campus, it is considered a 
`Kansas State University Organization,' is open only to KSU students, 
and is directed by a KSU instructor. Finally, KSU sanctioned the 
alleged assailant for his alcohol use, but not for the alleged assault. 
Presented with these allegations, the Court is convinced that the 
fraternity is an `operation' of the University, and that KSU has 
substantial control over student conduct within the fraternity.'').
    Importantly, nothing in the proposed regulations would prevent a 
recipient from initiating a student conduct proceeding or offering 
supportive measures to students who report sexual harassment that 
occurs outside the recipient's education program or activity (or as to 
conduct that harms a person located outside the United States, such as 
a student participating in a study abroad program). Notably, there may 
be circumstances where the harassment occurs in a recipient's program 
or activity, but the recipient's response obligation is not triggered 
because the complainant was not participating in, or even attempting to 
participate in, the education programs or activities provided by that 
recipient. See e.g., Doe, 896 F.3d at 132-33 (affirming judgment on the 
pleadings and ``[f]inding no plausible claim under Title IX'' where 
plaintiff alleged that, while a Providence College student, three Brown 
University students sexually assaulted her on Brown's campus, and Brown 
notified the plaintiff that she had a right to file a complaint under 
Brown's Code of Student Conduct--but not Title IX--because she had not 
availed herself or attempted to avail herself of any of Brown's 
educational programs and therefore could not have been denied those 
benefits).
    The Department wishes to emphasize that when determining how to 
respond to sexual harassment, recipients have flexibility to employ 
age-appropriate methods, exercise common sense and good judgment, and 
take into account the needs of the parties involved. Finally, the 
Department wishes to clarify that Title IX's ``education program or 
activity'' language should not be conflated with Clery Act geography; 
these are distinct jurisdictional schemes, though they may overlap in 
certain situations.
    Once it has been established that a recipient has actual knowledge 
of sexual harassment in its education program or activity, it becomes 
necessary to evaluate the recipient's response. Although the Department 
is not required to adopt the deliberate indifference standard 
articulated by the Court, we are persuaded by the policy rationales 
relied on by it and believe it's the best policy approach. As the Court 
reasoned in Davis, a recipient acts with deliberate indifference only 
when it responds to sexual harassment in a manner that is ``clearly 
unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.'' Davis, 526 U.S. at 
648-49. The Department believes this standard holds recipients 
accountable without depriving them of legitimate and necessary 
flexibility to make disciplinary decisions and to provide supportive 
measures that might be necessary in response to sexual harassment. 
Moreover, the Department believes that teachers and local school 
leaders with unique knowledge of the school culture and student body 
are best positioned to make disciplinary decisions; thus, unless the 
recipient's response to sexual harassment is clearly unreasonable in 
light of known circumstances, the Department will not second guess such 
decisions. In fact, the Court observed in Davis that courts must not 
second guess recipients' disciplinary decisions. Id. As a matter of 
policy, the Department believes that it would be equally wrong for it 
to second guess recipients' disciplinary decisions through the 
administrative enforcement process. Where a respondent has been found 
responsible for sexual harassment, any disciplinary sanction decision 
rests within the discretion of the recipient, although the recipient 
must also provide remedies, as appropriate, to the complainant designed 
to restore or preserve the complainant's educational access, as 
provided for in proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(1)(i).
    The Department acknowledges that proposed Sec.  106.44(a) would 
adopt standards that depart from those set forth in prior guidance and 
OCR enforcement of Title IX. The Department's guidance and enforcement 
practices have taken the position that constructive notice--as opposed 
to actual notice--triggered a recipient's duty to respond to sexual 
harassment; that recipients had a duty to respond to a broader range of 
sex-based misconduct than the sexual harassment defined in the proposed 
regulation; and that recipients' response to sexual harassment should 
be judged under a reasonableness standard, rather than under the 
deliberate indifference

[[Page 61469]]

standard adopted by the proposed regulation. In 2001, the Department 
asserted that the Court's decisions in Gebser and Davis and the 
liability standard set out for private actions for monetary damages did 
not preclude the Department from maintaining its administrative 
enforcement standards reflected in the 1997 guidance. See 2001 Guidance 
at iii-iv.
    Based on its consideration of the text and purpose of Title IX, of 
the reasoning underlying the Court's decisions in Gebser and Davis, and 
of the views of the stakeholders it has consulted, the Department now 
believes that the earlier guidance should be reconsidered. Contrary to 
the text of Title IX and inconsistent with the contractual nature of 
the obligations the statute imposes pursuant to Congress' Spending 
Clause authority, the guidance's constructive notice standard made 
funding recipients liable for conduct of which they were unaware. 
Similarly, the guidance arguably exceeded the text of the statute by 
requiring institutions to respond to conduct less severe than that 
proscribed by Title IX. And, by evaluating schools' responses under a 
mere reasonableness standard, the guidance improperly deprived 
administrators of needed flexibility to make disciplinary decisions 
affecting their students.
    The deliberate indifference standard set forth in Davis and in 
proposed Sec.  106.44(a) allows schools predictably to evaluate their 
response to sexual harassment for purposes of both civil litigation and 
administrative enforcement by the Department based on a consistent 
standard. Although the Department is not required to adopt the 
liability standards applied by the Supreme Court in private suits for 
money damages, the Department is persuaded by the policy rationales 
relied on by the Court. Generally, the liability standards of actual 
knowledge and deliberate indifference are also appropriate in 
administrative enforcement of Title IX, where a recipient's federal 
funding is at stake if it fails to comply with Title IX, because such 
standards are premised on holding recipients accountable for responding 
to discrimination of which the recipients know and have control. 
Recognizing that the Department has broad authority under the Title IX 
statute to issue regulations that effectuate the provisions of Title 
IX, the Department is retaining and proposes to add in the proposed 
regulation provisions that would clarify that, in addition to a general 
deliberate indifference standard, schools must take other actions that 
courts do not require in private litigation under Title IX (e.g., 
requiring a designated Title IX Coordinator, requiring written 
grievance procedures, describing the supportive measures that a non-
deliberatively indifferent response may require, requiring a school to 
investigate and adjudicate formal complaints, and other requirements 
found in proposed Sec. Sec.  106.8, 106.44, and 106.45).

B. Responding to Formal Complaints of Sexual Harassment; Safe Harbors

Section 106.44(b) Specific Circumstances; Section 106.30
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.44(b) to address 
specific circumstances under which a recipient will respond to sexual 
harassment. We propose adding paragraph (b)(1) stating that a recipient 
must follow procedures (including implementing any appropriate remedy 
as required) consistent with Sec.  106.45 in response to a formal 
complaint as to allegations of conduct within its education program or 
activity, and that if the recipient follows procedures consistent with 
Sec.  106.45 in response to a formal complaint, the recipient's 
response to the formal complaint is not deliberately indifferent and 
does not otherwise constitute sex discrimination under Title IX. 
Proposed Sec.  106.30 defines ``formal complaint'' as a document signed 
by a complainant or by the Title IX Coordinator alleging sexual 
harassment against a respondent about conduct within its education 
program or activity, and requesting initiation of the recipient's 
grievance procedures consistent with Sec.  106.45.
    We also propose adding paragraph (b)(2), stating that when a 
recipient has actual knowledge of reports by multiple complainants of 
conduct by the same respondent that could constitute sexual harassment, 
the Title IX Coordinator must file a formal complaint; if the Title IX 
Coordinator files a formal complaint in response to such allegations, 
and the recipient follows procedures (including implementing any 
appropriate remedy where required) consistent with Sec.  106.45 in 
response to the formal complaint, the recipient's response to the 
reports is not deliberately indifferent.
    In addition, we propose adding paragraph (b)(3), which states that, 
for institutions of higher education, in the absence of a formal 
complaint, a recipient is not deliberately indifferent when it 
implements supportive measures designed to effectively restore or 
preserve access to the recipient's education program or activity. We 
further proposed that the recipient must also at the same time give 
written notice to the complainant stating that the complainant can 
choose to file a formal complaint at a later time despite having 
declined to file a formal complaint at the time the supportive measures 
are offered.
    We propose adding paragraph (b)(4), which states that where 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) are not implicated, a recipient with 
actual knowledge of sexual harassment in its education program or 
activity against a person in the United States must, consistent with 
paragraph (a), respond in a manner that is not deliberately 
indifferent. A recipient is deliberately indifferent only if its 
response to sexual harassment is clearly unreasonable in light of the 
known circumstances.
    Proposed Sec.  106.30 defines ``complainant'' as an individual who 
has reported being the victim of conduct that could constitute sexual 
harassment, or on whose behalf the Title IX Coordinator has filed a 
formal complaint. Additionally, for purposes of this proposed 
paragraph, the person to whom the individual has reported must be the 
Title IX Coordinator or another person to whom notice of sexual 
harassment results in the recipient's actual knowledge under Sec.  
106.30.
    Proposed Sec.  106.30 defines ``respondent'' as an individual who 
has been reported to be the perpetrator of conduct that could 
constitute sexual harassment.
    Proposed Sec.  106.30 defines ``supportive measures'' as non-
disciplinary, non-punitive individualized services offered as 
appropriate, as reasonably available, and without fee or charge, to the 
complainant or the respondent before or after the filing of a formal 
complaint or where no formal complaint has been filed. Section 106.30 
goes on to explain that such measures are designed to restore or 
preserve access to the recipient's education program or activity, 
without unreasonably burdening the other party; protect the safety of 
all parties and the recipient's educational environment; and deter 
sexual harassment. Supportive measures may include counseling, 
extensions of deadlines or other course-related adjustments, 
modifications of work or class schedules, campus escort services, 
mutual restrictions on contact between the parties, changes in work or 
housing locations, leaves of absence, increased security and monitoring 
of certain areas of the campus, and other similar measures. Section 
106.30 also states that the recipient must maintain as confidential any 
supportive measures provided to the complainant or respondent, to the 
extent that maintaining such confidentiality would

[[Page 61470]]

not impair the ability of the institution to provide the supportive 
measures. Furthermore, Sec.  106.30 clarifies that the Title IX 
Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the effective 
implementation of supportive measures.
    Finally, we propose adding Sec.  106.44(b)(5), which explains that 
the Assistant Secretary will not deem a recipient's determination 
regarding responsibility to be evidence of deliberate indifference by 
the recipient merely because the Assistant Secretary would have reached 
a different determination based on an independent weighing of the 
evidence.
    Reasons: To clarify a recipient's responsibilities under this 
standard, proposed Sec.  106.44(b) would specify two circumstances 
under which a recipient must initiate its grievance procedures, and in 
those situations provide a safe harbor from a finding of deliberate 
indifference where the recipient does in fact implement grievance 
procedures consistent with the proposed Sec.  106.45. Those two 
situations are (i) where a formal complaint is filed, or (ii) where the 
recipient has actual knowledge of reports by multiple complainants of 
conduct by the same respondent that could constitute sexual harassment 
(in which case the proposed regulations require the recipient's Title 
IX Coordinator to file a formal complaint if none has already been 
filed). In response to either of these two situations, if the recipient 
follows grievance procedures consistent with proposed Sec.  106.45, 
including implementing any appropriate remedy as required for the 
complainant, the recipient is given a safe harbor from a finding of 
deliberate indifference by the Department with respect to its response 
to the formal complaint, because the recipient's response would not be 
``clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.'' Davis, 
526 U.S. at 648-49, 654. The Department believes that including these 
safe harbors in the regulations emphasizes a recipient's obligation to 
respond to known sexual harassment and to ensure a complainant's access 
to the recipient's education program or activity in situations where a 
finding of responsibility has been made, while preserving the 
recipient's flexibility to implement its grievance procedures, provided 
those procedures comply with the requirements of proposed Sec.  106.45. 
The safe harbor available in proposed Sec.  106.44(b)(1) would shield 
the recipient from a finding by the Department that the recipient's 
response to the formal complaint constituted sex discrimination under 
Title IX, regardless of whether the complainant claimed that the 
response was deliberately indifferent, or whether the respondent 
claimed that the recipient's response otherwise constituted sex 
discrimination. For institutions of higher education, proposed Sec.  
106.44(b)(3) provides a safe harbor against a finding of deliberate 
indifference where, in the absence of a formal complaint, a school's 
response to known, reported, or alleged sexual harassment is to offer 
and provide the complainant supportive measures designed to effectively 
restore or preserve the complainant's access to the recipient's 
education program or activity. This provision is intended to call 
recipients' attention to the importance of offering supportive measures 
to students who may not wish to file a formal complaint that would 
initiate a grievance process. The Department has heard from a wide 
range of stakeholders about the importance of a school taking into 
account the wishes of the complainant in deciding whether or not a 
formal investigation and adjudication is warranted. The proposed 
regulation creates a framework where a complainant has the right to 
file a formal complaint and the school must then initiate its grievance 
procedures, but in proposed Sec.  106.44(b)(3) the Department also 
recognizes that for a variety of reasons, not all complainants want to 
file a formal complaint, and that in many situations a complainant's 
access to his or her education can be effectively restored or preserved 
through the school providing supportive measures. The proposed 
regulation requires that, to be entitled to this safe harbor, the 
recipient must first inform the complainant in writing of his or her 
right to pursue a formal complaint, including the right to later file a 
formal complaint (consistent with any other requirements of the 
proposed regulation). Proposed Sec.  106.44(b)(3) gives a safe harbor 
only to institutions of higher education, in recognition that college 
and university students are generally adults capable of deciding 
whether supportive measures alone suffice to protect their educational 
access.
    Proposed Sec.  106.44(b)(4) states that even if none of the safe 
harbor situations is present, the recipient's response to sexual 
harassment must still meet the general requirement in Sec.  106.44(a) 
to not be deliberately indifferent, which means the recipient's 
response must not be clearly unreasonable in light of the known 
circumstances. Section 106.44(b)(1)-(3) explains what deliberate 
indifference means in three specific contexts. Section 106.44(b)(4) 
clarifies that when those three situations are not implicated, the 
general deliberate indifference standard specific in Sec.  106.44(a) 
applies to a recipient with actual knowledge of sexual harassment in an 
education program or activity of the recipient against a person in the 
United States that effectively denies an individual equal access to the 
recipient's education program or activity.
    To define the respective parties involved in a recipient's 
grievance procedures, proposed Sec.  106.30 defines ``complainant'' as 
one who has reported being the victim of sexually harassing conduct. To 
be considered a ``complainant,'' such a report must be made to the 
recipient's Title IX Coordinator or other official to whom notice of 
sexual harassment results in the recipient having actual knowledge as 
described in Sec.  106.30. This clarifies when a recipient must view a 
person as a complainant for purposes of offering supportive measures, 
investigating a formal complaint, and any other response necessary to 
meet the recipient's obligation to not be deliberately indifferent. 
Proposed Sec.  106.30 defines ``respondent'' as an individual who has 
been the subject of a report of sexual harassment.
    Consistent with feedback from many stakeholders, the Department 
recognizes that often the most effective measures a recipient can take 
to support its students in the aftermath of an alleged incident of 
sexual harassment are outside the grievance process and involve working 
with the affected individuals to provide reasonable supportive measures 
that increase the likelihood that they will be able to continue their 
education in a safe, supportive environment.
    Also consistent with feedback from stakeholders on the issue of 
supportive measures and to provide needed clarity, we (1) propose to 
define them as non-disciplinary, non-punitive individualized services 
offered as appropriate, as reasonably available, and without fee or 
charge, to the complainant or the respondent before or after the filing 
of a formal complaint or where no formal complaint has been filed; (2) 
propose to specify, in the definition, that the recipient must maintain 
as confidential any supportive measures provided to the complainant or 
respondent, to the extent that maintaining such confidentiality would 
not impair the ability of the institution to provide the supportive 
measures; and (3) further specify that such measures are designed to 
restore or preserve access to the recipient's education program or 
activity, without

[[Page 61471]]

unreasonably burdening the other party; protect the safety of all 
parties and the recipient's educational environment; and deter sexual 
harassment. For added clarity on supportive measures, proposed Sec.  
106.30 contains a non-exclusive list of examples of supportive 
measures. Recipients are encouraged to broadly consider what measures 
they can reasonably provide to individual students to ensure continued 
equal access to educational programs, activities, opportunities, and 
benefits for a complainant at the time the complainant reports or files 
a formal complaint, and for a respondent when a formal complaint is 
being investigated.
    We also specify in the proposed definition that the recipient's 
Title IX Coordinator is responsible for coordinating effective 
implementation of supportive measures. Many supportive measures involve 
implementation through various offices or departments within a school; 
when supportive measures are part of a school's response to a Title IX 
sexual harassment report or formal complaint, the Title IX Coordinator 
must serve as the point of contact for the affected students to ensure 
that the supportive measures are effectively implemented so that the 
burden of navigating paperwork or other policy requirements within the 
recipient's own system does not fall on the student receiving the 
supportive measure. For example, where a mutual no-contact order has 
been imposed as a supportive measure, the affected complainant and 
respondent should know to contact the Title IX Coordinator with 
questions about how to interpret or enforce the no-contact order; as a 
further example, where a student receives an academic course adjustment 
as a supportive measure, the Title IX Coordinator is responsible for 
communicating with other offices within the school as needed to ensure 
that the adjustment occurs as intended and without fee or charge to the 
student. As another example, if counseling services are provided as a 
supportive measure, the Title IX Coordinator should help coordinate the 
service and ensure the sessions occur without fee or charge. Proposed 
Sec.  106.44(b)(5) would provide that the Assistant Secretary will not 
deem a recipient's determination regarding responsibility that results 
from the implementation of its grievance procedures to be evidence of 
deliberate indifference by the recipient merely because the Assistant 
Secretary would have reached a different determination based on an 
independent weighing of the evidence. During a complaint investigation 
or compliance review, OCR's role is not to conduct a de novo review of 
the recipient's investigation and determination of responsibility for a 
particular respondent. Rather, OCR's role is to determine whether a 
recipient has complied with Title IX and its implementing regulations. 
Thus, OCR will not find a recipient to have violated Title IX or this 
part solely because OCR may have weighed the evidence differently in a 
given case. The Department believes it is important to include this 
provision in the regulations to provide notice and transparency to 
recipients about OCR's role and standard of review in enforcing Title 
IX. This provision does not, however, preclude OCR from requiring a 
recipient's determination of responsibility to be set aside if the 
recipient did not comply with proposed Sec.  106.45.

C. Additional Rules Governing Recipients' Responses to Sexual 
Harassment

Section 106.44(c) Emergency Removal
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.44(c) stating 
that nothing in Sec.  106.44 precludes a recipient from removing a 
respondent from the recipient's education program or activity on an 
emergency basis, provided that the recipient undertakes an 
individualized safety and risk analysis, determines that an immediate 
threat to the health or safety of students or employees justifies 
removal, and provides the respondent with notice and an opportunity to 
challenge the decision immediately following the removal. Paragraph (c) 
also states that the paragraph shall not be construed to modify any 
rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), or Title 
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
    Reasons: Recognizing that there are situations in which a 
respondent may pose an immediate threat to the health and safety of the 
campus community before an investigation concludes, proposed Sec.  
106.44(c) would allow recipients to remove such respondents, provided 
that the recipient undertakes a safety and risk analysis and provides 
notice and opportunity to the respondent to challenge the decision 
immediately following removal. This proposed provision tracks the 
language in the Clery Act regulations at 34 CFR 668.46(g) and would 
apply to all recipients subject to Title IX. The Department believes 
that this provision for emergency removals should be applicable at the 
elementary and secondary education level as well as the postsecondary 
education level to ensure the health and safety of all students. When 
considering removing a respondent pursuant to this provision, the 
proposed regulations require that a recipient follow the requirements 
of the IDEA, Section 504, and Title II of the ADA. Thus, a recipient 
may remove a student on an emergency basis under Sec.  106.44(c), but 
only to the extent that such removal conforms with the requirements of 
the IDEA, Section 504 and Title II of the ADA.
Section 106.44(d) Administrative Leave
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.44(d) stating 
that nothing in Sec.  106.44 precludes a recipient from placing a non-
student employee respondent on administrative leave during the pendency 
of an investigation.
    Reasons: Because placing a non-student respondent on administrative 
leave does not implicate access to the recipient's education programs 
and activities in the same way that other respondent-focused measures 
might, and in light of the potentially negative impact of forcing a 
recipient to continue an active agency relationship with a respondent 
while accusations are being investigated, the Department concludes that 
it is appropriate to allow recipients to temporarily put non-student 
employees on administrative leave pending an investigation.

II. Grievance Procedures for Formal Complaints of Sexual Harassment

(Proposed Sec.  106.45)

    Statute: The statute does not directly address grievance procedures 
for formal complaints of sexual harassment. The Secretary has the 
authority to regulate with regard to discrimination on the basis of sex 
in education programs or activities receiving federal financial 
assistance specifically under 20 U.S.C. 1682 and generally under 20 
U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
    Current Regulations: 34 CFR 106.8(b) states that ``A recipient 
shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and 
equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any 
action which would be prohibited by this part.''
Section 106.45(a) Discrimination on the Basis of Sex
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding a new Sec.  106.45 
addressing the required grievance procedures for formal complaints of 
sexual harassment. Proposed paragraph (a) states that a recipient's 
treatment of a complainant in response to a formal complaint of

[[Page 61472]]

sexual harassment may constitute discrimination on the basis of sex, 
and also states that a recipient's treatment of the respondent may 
constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX.
    Reasons: Deliberate indifference to a complainant's allegations of 
sexual harassment may violate Title IX by separating the student from 
his or her education on the basis of sex; likewise, a respondent can be 
unjustifiably separated from his or her education on the basis of sex, 
in violation of Title IX, if the recipient does not investigate and 
adjudicate using fair procedures before imposing discipline. Fair 
procedures benefit all parties by creating trust in both the grievance 
process itself and the outcomes of the process.

A. General Requirements for Grievance Procedures

Section 106.45(b)(1)
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.45(b) to specify 
that for the purpose of addressing formal complaints of sexual 
harassment, grievance procedures must comply with the requirements of 
proposed Sec.  106.45. Paragraph (b)(1) states that grievance 
procedures must--
     Treat complainants and respondents equitably; an equitable 
resolution must include remedies for the complainant where a finding of 
responsibility against the respondent has been made, with such remedies 
designed to restore or preserve access to the recipient's education 
program or activity, and due process protections for the respondent 
before any disciplinary sanctions are imposed;
     Require an investigation of the allegations and an 
objective evaluation of all relevant evidence--including both 
inculpatory and exculpatory evidence--and provide that credibility 
determinations may not be based on a person's status as a complainant, 
respondent, or witness;
     Require that any individual designated by a recipient as a 
coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker not have a conflict of 
interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally 
or an individual complainant or respondent; and that a recipient ensure 
that coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers receive training 
on the definition of sexual harassment and how to conduct an 
investigation and grievance process--including hearings, if 
applicable--that protect the safety of students, ensure due process 
protections for all parties, and promote accountability; and that any 
materials used to train coordinators, investigators, or decision-makers 
not rely on sex stereotypes and instead promote impartial 
investigations and adjudications of sexual harassment;
     Include a presumption that the respondent is not 
responsible for the alleged conduct until a determination regarding 
responsibility is made at the conclusion of the grievance process;
     Include reasonably prompt timeframes for completion of the 
grievance process, including reasonably prompt timeframes for filing 
and resolving appeals if the recipient offers an appeal, and including 
a process that allows for the temporary delay of the grievance process 
or the limited extension of timeframes for good cause with written 
notice to the complainant and the respondent of the delay or extension, 
and the reasons for the action; good cause may include considerations 
such as the absence of the parties or witnesses, concurrent law 
enforcement activity, or the need for language assistance or 
accommodation of disabilities;
     Describe the range of possible sanctions and remedies that 
the recipient may implement following any determination of 
responsibility;
     Describe the standard of evidence to be used to determine 
responsibility;
     Include the procedures and permissible bases for the 
complainant and respondent to appeal if the recipient offers an appeal; 
and
     Describe the range of supportive measures available to 
complainants and respondents.
    Reasons: In describing the requirements for grievance procedures 
for formal complaints of sexual harassment in paragraph (b)(1), the 
Department's intent is to balance the need to establish procedural 
safeguards providing a fair process for all parties with recognition 
that a recipient needs flexibility to employ grievance procedures that 
work best for the recipient's educational environment.
    Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(1)(i) would require that grievance 
procedures treat complainants and respondents equitably, echoing the 
existing requirement in 34 CFR 106.8 that a recipient's grievance 
procedures provide for ``prompt and equitable resolution'' of 
complaints. Stakeholders have urged the Department to protect the 
interests of both the complainant and the respondent, and to ensure 
that recipients' procedures treat both parties equitably and fairly 
throughout the process, including incorporating the protections 
described throughout proposed Sec.  106.45(b). A fair and equitable 
grievance process benefits all parties because they are more likely to 
trust in, engage with, and rely upon the process as legitimate. The 
Department recognizes that some recipients are state actors with 
responsibilities to provide protections to students and employees under 
the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Other recipients are 
private institutions that do not have constitutional obligations to 
their students and employees. The due process protections provided 
under these proposed regulations aim to effectuate the objectives of 
Title IX by creating consistent, fair, objective grievance processes 
that make the process equitable for both parties and are more likely to 
generate reliable outcomes. When presented with an allegation of sexual 
harassment the recipient must respond in a manner that is not 
deliberately indifferent, but to evaluate what constitutes an 
appropriate response, the recipient must first reach factual 
determinations about the allegations at issue. This requires the 
recipient to employ a grievance process that rests on fundamental 
notions of fairness and due process protections so that findings of 
responsibility rest on facts and evidence. Only when an outcome is the 
product of a predictable, fair process that gives both parties 
meaningful opportunity to participate will the recipient be in a 
position to determine what remedies and/or disciplinary sanctions are 
warranted. When a recipient establishes an equitable process with due 
process protections and implements it consistently, its findings will 
be viewed with more confidence by the parties and the public.
    Although both complainants and respondents have a common interest 
in a fair process, they also have distinct interests that are 
recognized in paragraph (b)(1)(i). For example, paragraph (b)(1)(i) 
explains that equitable grievance procedures will provide remedies for 
the complainant as appropriate and due process protections for the 
respondent before any disciplinary action is taken. Because a grievance 
process could result in a determination that the respondent sexually 
harassed the complainant, and because the resulting sanctions against 
the respondent could include a complete loss of access to the education 
program or activity of the recipient, an equitable grievance procedure 
will only reach such a conclusion following a process that seriously 
considers any contrary arguments or evidence the respondent might have, 
including by providing the respondent with all of the specific due 
process protections

[[Page 61473]]

outlined in the rest of the proposed regulations. Likewise, because the 
complainant's access to the recipient's education program or activity 
can be limited by sexual harassment, an equitable grievance procedure 
will provide relief from any sexual harassment found under the 
procedures required in the proposed regulations and restore access to 
the complainant accordingly.
    Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(1)(ii) requires that a recipient 
investigate a complaint and that grievance procedures include an 
objective evaluation of the evidence. Stakeholders have raised concerns 
that recipients sometimes ignore evidence that does not fit with a 
predetermined outcome, and that investigators and decision-makers have 
inappropriately discounted testimony based on whether it comes from the 
complainant or the respondent. Paragraph (b)(1)(ii) responds to these 
concerns by requiring the recipient to conduct an investigation and 
objectively evaluate all evidence, and by prohibiting the recipient 
from basing its evaluation of testimony on the person's status as a 
complainant, respondent, or witness.
    Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(1)(iii) would address the problems that 
have arisen for complainants and respondents as a result of 
coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers making decisions based 
on bias by requiring recipients to fill such positions with individuals 
free from bias or conflicts of interest. This proposed provision 
generally tracks the language in the Clery Act regulations at 34 CFR 
668.46(k)(3)(i)(C) and would apply to all recipients subject to Title 
IX. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) would also require that coordinators, 
investigators, and decision-makers receive training on (1) the 
definition of sexual harassment and (2) how to conduct the 
investigation and grievance process in a way that protects student 
safety, due process, and accountability. This proposed provision 
generally tracks the language in the Clery Act regulations at 34 CFR 
668.46(k)(2)(ii) and would apply to all recipients subject to Title IX. 
The Department believes that such training will help ensure that those 
individuals responsible for implementing the recipient's grievance 
procedures are appropriately informed at the elementary and secondary 
education level as well as the postsecondary education level. 
Recipients would also be required to use training materials that 
promote impartial investigations and adjudications and that do not rely 
on sex stereotypes, so as to avoid training that would cause the 
grievance process to favor one side or the other or bias outcomes in 
favor of complainants or respondents. Recipients would continue to have 
the discretion to use their own employees to investigate and/or 
adjudicate matters under Title IX or to hire outside individuals to 
fulfill these responsibilities.
    Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(1)(iv) would require that a recipient's 
grievance procedures establish a presumption that the respondent is not 
responsible for the alleged conduct until a determination regarding 
responsibility is made at the conclusion of the grievance process. This 
requirement is added to ensure impartiality by the recipient until a 
determination is made. The requirement also bolsters other provisions 
in the proposed regulation that place the burden of proof on the 
recipient, rather than on the parties; indicate that supportive 
measures are ``non-disciplinary'' and ``non-punitive'' (implying that 
the recipient may not punish an accused person prior to a determination 
regarding responsibility); and impose due process protections 
throughout the grievance process. Finally, pending the finding of facts 
sufficient for the recipient to make a determination regarding 
responsibility, the requirement mitigates the stigma and reputational 
harm that accompany an allegation of sexual misconduct. A fundamental 
notion of a fair proceeding is that a legal system does not prejudge a 
person's guilt or liability.
    The proposed regulations recognize that the time that it takes to 
complete the grievance process will vary depending on, among others 
things, the complexity of the investigation, and that prompt resolution 
of the grievance process is important to both complainants and 
respondents. Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(v) would require recipients to 
designate reasonably prompt timeframes for the grievance process, 
including for appeals if the recipient offers an appeal, but also 
provide that timeframes may be extended for good cause with written 
notice to the parties and an explanation for the delay. This proposed 
provision generally tracks the language in the Clery Act regulations at 
34 CFR 668.46(k)(3)(i)(A), which the Department believes is important 
to include for all recipients subject to Title IX. Some recipients felt 
pressure in light of prior Department guidance to resolve the grievance 
process within 60 days regardless of the particulars of the situation, 
and in some instances, this resulted in hurried investigations and 
adjudications, which sacrificed accuracy and fairness for speed. 
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(v) specifies examples of possible reasons for 
such a delay, such as absence of the parties or witnesses, concurrent 
law enforcement activity, or the need for language assistance or 
accommodation of disabilities. For example, if a concurrent law 
enforcement investigation has uncovered evidence that the police plan 
to release on a specific timeframe and that evidence would likely be 
material to determining responsibility, a recipient could reasonably 
extend the timeframe of the grievance process in order to allow that 
evidence to be included in the final determination of responsibility. 
Any reason for a delay must be justified by good cause and communicated 
by written notice to the complainant and the respondent of the delay or 
extension and the reasons for the action; delays caused solely by 
administrative needs are insufficient to satisfy this standard. 
Moreover, recipients must meet their legal obligation to provide timely 
auxiliary aids and services and reasonable accommodations under Title 
II of the ADA, Section 504, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, and should reasonably consider other services such as meaningful 
access to language assistance.
    It is important for individuals to have a clear understanding of 
the recipients' policies and procedures related to sexual harassment, 
including the consequences of being found responsible for sexual 
harassment, and the procedures the recipient will use to make such a 
determination; otherwise, the parties may not have a full and fair 
opportunity to present evidence and arguments in favor of their side, 
and the accuracy and impartiality of the process could suffer as a 
result. Proposed paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) through (ix) would require that 
the parties be informed of the possible sanctions and remedies that may 
be implemented following the determination of responsibility, the 
standard of evidence to be used during the grievance process, the 
procedures and permissible bases for appeals if the recipient offers an 
appeal, and the range of supportive measures available to complainants 
and respondents. These proposed provisions generally track the language 
in the Clery Act regulations at 34 CFR 668.46(k)(1) and would apply to 
all recipients subject to Title IX. The Department believes that 
requiring a recipient to notify the parties of these matters in advance 
is equally important at the elementary and secondary education level as 
it is at the postsecondary education level to ensure the parties are 
fully informed.

[[Page 61474]]

B. Notice and Investigation

Section 106.45(b)(2) Notice of Allegations
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.45(b)(2) stating 
that upon receipt of a formal complaint, a recipient must provide 
written notice to the parties of the recipient's grievance procedures 
and of the allegations. Such notice must include sufficient details 
(such as the identities of the parties involved in the incident, if 
known, the specific section of the recipient's code of conduct 
allegedly violated, the conduct allegedly constituting sexual 
harassment under this part and under the recipient's code of conduct, 
and the date and location of the alleged incident, if known) and 
provide sufficient time to prepare a response before any initial 
interview. The written notice must also include a statement that the 
respondent is presumed not responsible for the alleged conduct and that 
a determination regarding responsibility is made at the conclusion of 
the grievance process. The notice must inform the parties that they may 
request to inspect and review evidence under Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(viii). 
Additionally, the notice must inform the parties of any provision in 
the recipient's code of conduct that prohibits knowingly making false 
statements or knowingly submitting false information during the 
grievance process. Also, if the recipient decides later to investigate 
allegations not included in the notice provided pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(2)(i)(B), the recipient must provide notice of the additional 
allegations to known parties.
    Reasons: To meaningfully participate in the process, all parties 
must have adequate notice of the allegations and grievance procedures. 
Without the information included in the written notice required by 
proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(2), a respondent would be unable to adequately 
respond to allegations. This notice will also ensure that the 
complainant is able to understand the grievance process, including what 
allegations are part of the investigation. The requirement to provide 
sufficient details (such as the identities of the parties involved in 
the incident, if known, the specific section of the recipient's code of 
conduct allegedly violated, the conduct allegedly constituting sexual 
harassment under this part and under the recipient's code of conduct, 
and the date and location of the alleged incident, if known) applies 
whenever a formal complaint is filed against a respondent, whether the 
complaint is signed by the complainant or by the Title IX Coordinator. 
The qualifier ``if known'' reflects that in some cases, a complainant 
may not know details that ideally would be included in the written 
notice, such as the identity of the respondent, or the date or location 
of the incident. If during the investigation the recipient learns these 
details then the recipient should promptly send the written notice as 
required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) to the now-identified respondent, as 
applicable, and/or inform the respondent of the details of allegations 
that were previously unknown (such as the date or location of the 
alleged incident). The unavailability of material details, particularly 
the identity of the respondent, may impede a recipient's ability to 
investigate and thus impact whether the recipient's response is 
deliberately indifferent. If, during the investigation, the recipient 
decides to investigate additional allegations, the recipient must 
provide notice of those allegations to the parties. This notice would 
keep the parties meaningfully informed of any expansion in the scope of 
the investigation. It is also important for recipients to notify 
parties about any provisions in its code of conduct that prohibit 
knowingly making false statements or knowingly submitting false 
information during the grievance process so as to emphasize the 
recipients' serious commitment to the truth-seeking nature of the 
grievance process and to incentivize honest, candid participation in 
it.
Section 106.45(b)(3) Investigations of a Formal Complaint
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.45(b)(3) stating 
that the recipient must conduct an investigation of the allegations in 
a formal complaint. Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3) also states that if the 
conduct alleged by the complainant would not constitute sexual 
harassment as defined in Sec.  106.30 even if proved or did not occur 
within the recipient's program or activity, the recipient must 
terminate its grievance process with regard to that conduct, and that 
when investigating a formal complaint, a recipient must--
     Ensure that the burden of proof and the burden of 
gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination regarding 
responsibility rest on the recipient and not on the parties;
     Provide equal opportunity for the parties to present 
witnesses and other inculpatory and exculpatory evidence;
     Not restrict the ability of either party to discuss the 
allegations under investigation or to gather and present relevant 
evidence;
     Provide the parties with the same opportunities to have 
others present during any grievance proceeding, including the 
opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by 
the advisor of their choice, and not limit the choice of advisor or 
presence for either the complainant or respondent in any meeting or 
grievance proceeding; however, the recipient may establish restrictions 
regarding the extent to which the advisor may participate in the 
proceedings, as long as the restrictions apply equally to both parties;
     Provide to the party whose participation is invited or 
expected written notice of the date, time, location, participants, and 
purpose of all hearings, investigative interviews, or other meetings 
with a party, with sufficient time for the party to prepare to 
participate;
     For recipients that are elementary and secondary schools, 
the recipient's grievance procedures may require a live hearing. With 
or without a hearing, the decision-maker must, after the recipient has 
incorporated the parties' responses to the investigative report under 
Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(ix), ask each party and any witnesses any relevant 
questions and follow-up questions, including those challenging 
credibility, that a party wants asked of any party or witnesses. If no 
hearing is held, the decision-maker must afford each party the 
opportunity to submit written questions, provide each party with the 
answers, and allow for additional, limited follow-up questions from 
each party. With or without a hearing, all questioning must exclude 
evidence of the complainant's sexual behavior or predisposition, unless 
such evidence about the complainant's sexual behavior is offered to 
prove that someone other than the respondent committed the conduct 
alleged by the complainant, or if the evidence concerns specific 
incidents of the complainant's sexual behavior with respect to the 
respondent and is offered to prove consent. The decision-maker must 
explain to the party proposing the questions any decision to exclude 
questions as not relevant;
     For institutions of higher education, the recipient's 
grievance procedure must provide for a live hearing. At the hearing, 
the decision-maker must permit each party to ask the other party and 
any witnesses all relevant questions and follow-up questions, including 
those challenging credibility. Such cross-examination at a hearing must 
be conducted by the party's advisor of choice, notwithstanding the 
discretion of the recipient under Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(iv) to otherwise 
restrict the extent to which advisors may participate in the 
proceedings. If a party does not have an

[[Page 61475]]

advisor present at the hearing, the recipient must provide that party 
an advisor aligned with that party to conduct cross-examination. All 
cross-examination must exclude evidence of the complainant's sexual 
behavior or predisposition, unless such evidence about the 
complainant's sexual behavior is offered to prove that someone other 
than the respondent committed the conduct alleged by the complainant, 
or if the evidence concerns specific incidents of the complainant's 
sexual behavior with respect to the respondent and is offered to prove 
consent. At the request of either party, the recipient must provide for 
cross-examination to occur with the parties located in separate rooms 
with technology enabling the decision-maker and parties to 
simultaneously see and hear the party answering questions. The 
decision-maker must explain to the party's advisor asking cross-
examination questions any decision to exclude questions as not 
relevant. If a party or witness does not submit to cross-examination at 
the hearing, the decision-maker must not rely on any statement of that 
party or witness in reaching a determination regarding responsibility;
     Provide both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and 
review evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly 
related to the allegations raised in a formal complaint, including the 
evidence upon which the recipient does not intend to rely in reaching a 
determination regarding responsibility, so that each party can 
meaningfully respond to the evidence prior to conclusion of the 
investigation. Prior to completion of the investigative report, the 
recipient must send to each party and the party's advisor, if any, the 
evidence subject to inspection and review in an electronic format, such 
as a file sharing platform, that restricts the parties and advisors 
from downloading or copying the evidence, and the parties shall have at 
least ten days to submit a written response, which the investigator 
will consider prior to completion of the investigative report. The 
recipient must make all such evidence subject herein to the parties' 
inspection and review available at any hearing to give each party equal 
opportunity to refer to such evidence during the hearing, including for 
purposes of cross-examination; and
     Create an investigative report that fairly summarizes 
relevant evidence and, at least ten days prior to a hearing (if a 
hearing is required under Sec.  106.45) or other time of determination 
regarding responsibility, provide a copy of the report to the parties 
for their review and written response.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3) would set forth specific 
standards to govern investigations of formal complaints of sexual 
harassment. To ensure a recipient's resources are directed 
appropriately at handling complaints of sexual harassment, proposed 
paragraph (b)(3) would require recipients to dismiss a formal complaint 
or an allegation within a complaint without conducting an investigation 
if the alleged conduct, taken as true, is not sexual harassment as 
defined in the proposed regulations or if the conduct did not occur 
within the recipient's program or activity. This ensures that only 
conduct covered by Title IX is treated as a Title IX issue in a 
school's grievance process. The Department emphasizes that a recipient 
remains free to respond to conduct that does not meet the Title IX 
definition of sexual harassment, or that did not occur within the 
recipient's program or activity, including by responding with 
supportive measures for the affected student or investigating the 
allegations through the recipient's student conduct code, but such 
decisions are left to the recipient's discretion in situations that do 
not involve conduct falling under Title IX's purview.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i) would place the burden of proof and 
the burden of gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination 
regarding responsibility on the recipient, not on the parties. 
Recipients, not complainants or respondents, must comply with Title IX, 
so the burden of gathering evidence relating to allegations of sexual 
harassment under Title IX and determining whether the evidence shows 
responsibility appropriately falls to the recipient. Although a school 
could contract with a third-party agent to perform an investigation or 
otherwise satisfy its responsibilities under this section, including to 
gather evidence, the recipient will be held to the same standards under 
this section regardless of whether those responsibilities are performed 
by the recipient directly through its employees or through a third 
party such as a contractor. Likewise, although schools will often 
report misconduct under this section to the appropriate authorities, 
including as required under state law, a report to police or the 
presence of a police investigation regarding misconduct under this 
section does not relieve a recipient of its obligations under this 
section. Nothing in the proposed regulation prevents a recipient from 
using evidence merely because it was collected by law enforcement.
    With the goal of ensuring fairness and equity for all parties 
throughout the investigation process, proposed paragraphs (b)(3)(ii), 
(iii), (iv), and (viii) would require recipients to provide the parties 
with an equal opportunity to present witnesses and other inculpatory 
and exculpatory evidence; permit the parties to discuss the 
investigation; provide the parties with the same opportunities to have 
others present during any grievance proceeding, including the 
opportunity to be accompanied by an advisor of their choice with any 
restrictions on the advisor's participation being applied equally to 
both parties; provide the parties with equal opportunity to inspect and 
review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is 
directly related to the allegations raised in a formal complaint, 
including the evidence upon which the recipient does not intend to rely 
in reaching a determination regarding responsibility; equal opportunity 
to respond to such evidence; and equal opportunity to refer to such 
evidence during the hearing, including for purposes of cross-
examination. Because both parties can review and respond to this 
evidence, discuss the investigation with others in order to identify 
additional evidence, introduce any additional evidence into the 
proceeding, and receive guidance from an advisor of their choice 
throughout, the process will be substantially more thorough and fair 
and the resulting outcomes will be more reliable. Proposed paragraph 
(b)(3)(iv) generally tracks the language in the Clery Act regulations 
at 34 CFR 688.46(k)(2)(iii) and (iv) and would apply to all recipients 
subject to Title IX. And, proposed paragraph (b)(3)(viii) is consistent 
with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), under which 
a student has a right to inspect and review records that directly 
relate to that student. The Department believes that permitting both 
parties to be accompanied by an advisor or other individual of their 
choice (who may be an attorney) is also important at the elementary and 
secondary education level to ensure that both parties are treated 
equitably.
    To ensure that the complainant and respondent are able to 
meaningfully participate in the process and that any witnesses have 
adequate time to prepare, proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(v) would require 
recipients to provide to the party whose participation is invited or 
expected written notice of all hearings, investigative interviews, or 
other meetings with a party, with

[[Page 61476]]

sufficient time for the party to prepare to participate in the 
proceeding. Without this protection, a party's ability to participate 
in a hearing, interview, or meeting might not be meaningful or add any 
value to the proceeding. The Department believes that this proposed 
provision, which is similar to the Clery Act regulation at 34 CFR 
688.46(k)(3)(i)(B) with respect to timely notice of meetings, is 
equally important at the elementary and secondary education level and 
the postsecondary education level to ensure that both parties are 
treated equitably.
    Cross-examination is the ``greatest legal engine ever invented for 
the discovery of truth.'' California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158 (1970) 
(quoting John H. Wigmore, 5 Evidence sec. 1367, at 29 (3d ed., Little, 
Brown & Co. 1940)). The Department recognizes the high stakes for all 
parties involved in a sexual harassment investigation, and recognizes 
that the need for recipients to reach reliable determinations lies at 
the heart of Title IX's guarantees for all parties. Indeed, at least 
one federal circuit court has held that in the Title IX context cross-
examination is not just a wise policy, but is a constitutional 
requirement of Due Process. Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 581 (6th Cir. 
2018) (``Not only does cross-examination allow the accused to identify 
inconsistencies in the other side's story, but it also gives the fact-
finder an opportunity to assess a witness's demeanor and determine who 
can be trusted'').
    The Department has carefully considered how best to incorporate the 
value of cross-examination for proceedings at both the postsecondary 
level and the elementary and secondary level. Because most parties and 
many witnesses are minors in the elementary and secondary school 
context, sensitivities associated with age and developmental ability 
may outweigh the benefits of cross-examination at a live hearing. 
Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(vi) allows--but does not require--
elementary and secondary schools to hold a live hearing as part of 
their grievance procedures. With or without a hearing, the complainant 
and the respondent must have an equal opportunity to pose questions to 
the other party and to witnesses prior to a determination of 
responsibility, with each party being permitted the opportunity to ask 
all relevant questions and follow-up questions, including those 
challenging credibility, and a requirement that the recipient explain 
any decision to exclude questions on the basis of relevance. If no 
hearing is held, each party must have the opportunity to conduct its 
questioning of other parties and witnesses by submitting written 
questions to the decision-maker, who must provide the answers to the 
asking party and allow for additional, limited follow-up questions from 
each party.
    In contrast, the Department has determined that at institutions of 
higher education, where most parties and witnesses are adults, 
grievance procedures must include live cross-examination at a hearing. 
Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(vii) requires institutions to provide a 
live hearing, and to allow the parties' advisors to cross-examine the 
other party and witnesses. If a party does not have an advisor at the 
hearing, the recipient must provide that party an advisor aligned with 
that party to conduct cross-examination. Cross-examination conducted by 
the parties' advisors (who may be attorneys) must be permitted 
notwithstanding the discretion of the recipient under Sec.  
106.45(b)(3)(iv) to otherwise restrict the extent to which advisors may 
participate in the proceedings. In the context of institutions of 
higher education, the proposed regulation balances the importance of 
cross-examination with any potential harm from personal confrontation 
between the complainant and the respondent by requiring questions to be 
asked by an advisor aligned with the party. Further, the proposed 
regulation allows either party to request that the recipient facilitate 
the parties being located in separate rooms during cross-examination 
while observing the questioning live via technological means. The 
proposed regulations thereby provide the benefits of cross-examination 
while avoiding any unnecessary trauma that could arise from personal 
confrontation between the complainant and the respondent. Cf. Baum, 903 
F.3d at 583 (``Universities have a legitimate interest in avoiding 
procedures that may subject an alleged victim to further harm or 
harassment. And in sexual misconduct cases, allowing the accused to 
cross-examine the accuser may do just that. But in circumstances like 
these, the answer is not to deny cross-examination altogether. Instead, 
the university could allow the accused student's agent to conduct 
cross-examination on his behalf. After all, an individual aligned with 
the accused student can accomplish the benefits of cross-examination--
its adversarial nature and the opportunity for follow-up--without 
subjecting the accuser to the emotional trauma of directly confronting 
her alleged attacker.'').
    In addition, proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(vi) and (vii) would set 
forth a standard for when questions regarding a complainant's sexual 
behavior may be asked, applicable to all recipients. These sections 
incorporate language from (and are in the spirit of) the rape shield 
protections found in Federal Rule of Evidence 412, which is intended to 
safeguard complainants against invasion of privacy, potential 
embarrassment, and stereotyping. See Fed. R. Evid. 412 Advisory 
Committee's Note. As the Court has explained, rape shield protections 
are intended to protect complainants ``from being exposed at trial to 
harassing or irrelevant questions concerning their past sexual 
behavior.'' Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 146 (1991). Similarly, 
proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(vi) and (vii) would prevent harassing or 
irrelevant questions about a complainant's sexual behavior or 
predisposition from being asked. Importantly, these proposed paragraphs 
also ensure that questions about a complainant's sexual behavior can be 
asked to prove that someone other than the respondent committed the 
conduct alleged by the complainant, or when evidence about specific 
incidents of the complainant's sexual behavior with respect to the 
respondent is offered to prove consent. Federal Rule of Evidence 412 
applies these exceptions to the general prohibition against asking 
about a complainant's sexual behavior, and for the same reasons, such 
exceptions promote truth-seeking in campus proceedings.
    To maintain a transparent process, the parties need a complete 
understanding of the evidence obtained by the recipient and how a 
determination regarding responsibility is made. For that reason, 
proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(viii) would require recipients to provide 
both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and review any evidence 
obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the 
allegations raised in a formal complaint, including evidence upon which 
the recipient does not intend to rely in making a determination 
regarding responsibility. The evidence must also be provided 
electronically and the parties must be given at least ten days to 
submit a written response; these requirements will facilitate each 
party's ability to identify evidence that supports their position and 
emphasize such evidence in their arguments to the decision-maker. The 
scope of the parties' right to inspect and review evidence collected by 
the recipient is consistent with students' privacy rights under FERPA, 
under which a student

[[Page 61477]]

has a right to inspect and review records that directly relate to that 
student.
    Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(ix) would require recipients to create 
an investigative report that summarizes relevant evidence and provide a 
copy of the report to the parties, allowing both parties at least ten 
days prior to any hearing or other time of determination regarding 
responsibility the opportunity to respond in writing to the report. 
These requirements will put the parties on the same level in terms of 
access to information to ensure that both parties participate in a 
fair, predictable process that will allow the parties to serve as a 
check on any decisions the recipient makes regarding the inclusion or 
relevance of evidence. Notwithstanding the foregoing rights of the 
parties to review and respond to the evidence collected by the 
recipient, the recipient must at all times proceed with the burden of 
conducting the investigation into all reasonably available, relevant 
evidence; the burden of collecting and presenting evidence should 
always remain on the recipient and not on the parties.

C. Standard of Evidence

Section 106.45(b)(4)(i)
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.45(b)(4)(i) 
stating that in reaching a determination regarding responsibility, the 
recipient must apply either the preponderance of the evidence standard 
or the clear and convincing evidence standard. The recipient may, 
however, employ the preponderance of the evidence standard only if the 
recipient uses that standard for conduct code violations that do not 
involve sexual harassment but carry the same maximum disciplinary 
sanction. The recipient must also apply the same standard of evidence 
for complaints against students as it does for complaints against 
employees, including faculty.
    Reasons: The statutory text of Title IX does not dictate a standard 
of evidence to be used by recipients in investigations of sexual 
harassment. Past guidance from the Department originally allowed 
recipients to choose which standard to employ, but was later changed to 
require recipients to use only the preponderance of the evidence. When 
the Department issued guidance requiring recipients to use only 
preponderance of the evidence, it justified the requirement by 
comparing the grievance process to civil litigation, and to the 
Department's own process for investigating complaints against 
recipients under Title IX. Although it is true that civil litigation 
generally uses preponderance of the evidence, and that Title IX 
grievance processes are analogous to civil litigation in many ways, it 
is also true that Title IX grievance processes lack certain features 
that promote reliability in civil litigation. For example, many 
recipients will choose not to allow active participation by counsel; 
there are no rules of evidence in Title IX grievance processes; and 
Title IX grievance processes do not afford parties discovery to the 
same extent required by rules of civil procedure.
    Moreover, Title IX grievance processes are also analogous to 
various kinds of civil administrative proceedings, which often employ a 
clear and convincing evidence standard. See, e.g., Nguyen v. Washington 
Dept. of Health, 144 Wash. 2d 516 (2001) (requiring clear and 
convincing evidence in sexual misconduct case in a professional 
disciplinary proceeding for a medical doctor as a way of protecting due 
process); Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, 136 Ohio St. 3d 276 (2013) 
(clear and convincing evidence applied in sexual harassment case 
involving lawyer). These cases recognize that, where a finding of 
responsibility carries particularly grave consequences for a 
respondent's reputation and ability to pursue a profession or career, a 
higher standard of proof can be warranted. Indeed, one court has held 
that in student disciplinary cases involving serious accusations like 
sexual assault where the consequences of a finding of responsibility 
would be significant, permanent, and far-reaching, a preponderance of 
the evidence standard is inadequate. Lee v. University of New Mexico, 
No. 1:17-cv-01230-JB-LF (D. N.M. Sept. 20, 2018) (``Moreover, the Court 
concludes that preponderance of the evidence is not the proper standard 
for disciplinary investigations such as the one that led to Lee's 
expulsion, given the significant consequences of having a permanent 
notation such as the one UNM placed on Lee's transcript'').
    After considering this issue, the Department decided that its 
proposed regulation should leave recipients with the discretion to use 
either a preponderance or a clear and convincing standard in their 
grievance procedures. The Department does not believe it would be 
appropriate to impose a preponderance requirement in the absence of all 
of the features of civil litigation that are designed to promote 
reliability and fairness. Likewise, the Department believes that in 
light of the due process and reliability protections afforded under the 
proposed regulations, it could be reasonable for recipients to choose 
the preponderance standard instead of the clear and convincing 
standard, and thus, it is appropriate for the Department to give them 
the flexibility to do so.
    To ensure that recipients do not single out respondents in sexual 
harassment matters for uniquely unfavorable treatment, a recipient 
would only be allowed to use the preponderance of the evidence standard 
for sexual harassment complaints if it uses that standard for other 
conduct code violations that carry the same potential maximum sanction 
as the recipient could impose for a sexual harassment conduct code 
violation. Likewise, to avoid the specially disfavored treatment of 
student respondents in comparison to respondents who are employees such 
as faculty members, who often have superior leverage as a group in 
extracting guarantees of protection under a recipient's disciplinary 
procedures, recipients are also required to apply the same standard of 
evidence for complaints against students as they do for complaints 
against employees, including faculty. In contrast, because of the 
heightened stigma often associated with a complaint regarding sexual 
harassment, the proposed regulation gives recipients the discretion to 
impose a clear and convincing evidence standard with regard to sexual 
harassment complaints even if other types of complaints are subject to 
a preponderance of the evidence standard. Within these constraints, the 
proposed regulation recognizes that recipients should be able to choose 
a standard of proof that is appropriate for investigating and 
adjudicating complaints of sex discrimination given the unique needs of 
their community.

D. Additional Requirements for Grievance Procedures

Section 106.45(b)(4) Determination Regarding Responsibility
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.45(b)(4) stating 
that the decision-maker(s), who cannot be the same person(s) as the 
Title IX Coordinator or the investigator(s), must issue a written 
determination regarding responsibility applying the appropriate 
standard of evidence as discussed above.
    The written determination must include--
     Identification of the section(s) of the recipient's code 
of conduct alleged to have been violated;
     A description of the procedural steps taken from the 
receipt of the complaint through the determination, including any 
notifications to the

[[Page 61478]]

parties, interviews with parties and witnesses, site visits, methods 
used to gather other evidence, and hearings held;
     Findings of fact supporting the determination;
     Conclusions regarding the application of the recipient's 
code of conduct to the facts;
     A statement of, and rationale for, the result as to each 
allegation, including a determination regarding responsibility, any 
sanctions the recipient imposes on the respondent, and any remedies 
provided to the complainant designed to restore or preserve access to 
the recipient's education program or activity; and
     The recipient's procedures and permissible bases for the 
complainant and respondent to appeal.
    The recipient must provide the written determination to the parties 
simultaneously. If the recipient does not offer an appeal, the 
determination regarding responsibility becomes final on the date that 
the recipient provides the parties with the written determination. If 
the recipient offers an appeal, the determination regarding 
responsibility becomes final at either the conclusion of the appeal 
process, if an appeal is filed, or, if an appeal is not filed, the date 
on which an appeal would no longer be considered timely.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(4) would address the process that 
recipients use to make determinations regarding responsibility, with 
requirements designed to ensure that recipients make sound and 
supportable decisions through a process that incorporates appropriate 
protections for all parties while providing adequate notice of such 
decisions. Requiring the decision-maker to be different from any person 
who served as the Title IX Coordinator or investigator forecloses a 
recipient from utilizing a ``single investigator'' or ``investigator-
only'' model for Title IX grievance processes. The Department believes 
that fundamental fairness to both parties requires that the intake of a 
report and formal complaint, the investigation (including party and 
witness interviews and collection of documentary and other evidence), 
drafting of an investigative report, and ultimate decision about 
responsibility should not be left in the hands of a single person. 
Rather, after the recipient has conducted its impartial investigation, 
a separate decision-maker must reach the determination regarding 
responsibility; that determination can be made by one or more decision-
makers (e.g., a panel), but no decision-maker can be the same person 
who served as the Title IX Coordinator or investigator.
    To foster reliability and thoroughness and to ensure that a 
recipient's findings are adequately explained, proposed Sec.  
106.45(b)(4)(i) would require recipients to issue a written 
determination regarding responsibility. So that the parties have a 
complete understanding of the process and information considered by the 
recipient to reach its decision, proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(4)(ii) would 
require the notice of determination to include: The sections of the 
recipient's code of conduct alleged to have been violated; the 
procedural steps taken from the receipt of the complaint through the 
determination; findings of fact supporting the determination; 
conclusions regarding the application of the recipient's code of 
conduct to the facts; a statement of, and the recipient's rationale 
for, the result, including a determination regarding responsibility; 
any sanctions the recipient imposes on the respondent; and information 
regarding the appeals process and the recipient's procedures and 
permissible bases for the complainant and respondent to appeal.
    Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(4)(ii)(E) requires that the written 
determination contain a statement of, and rationale for, the result, 
including any sanctions imposed by the recipient and any remedy given 
to the complainant. Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(4)(iii) requires that this 
written determination be provided simultaneously to the parties. These 
provisions generally track the language of the Clery Act regulations at 
34 CFR 668.46(k)(2)(v) and (k)(3)(iv) already applicable to 
institutions of higher education. The Department believes that the 
benefits of these provisions, including promoting transparency and 
equal treatment of the parties, are equally applicable at the 
elementary and secondary level.
    Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(4)(iii) instructs recipients to provide 
the written determination simultaneously to both parties so that both 
parties know the outcome and, if an appeal is available, both parties 
have equal opportunity to consider filing an appeal. If the recipient 
does not offer an appeal, the determination regarding responsibility 
becomes final on the date that the recipient provides the parties with 
the written determination. If the recipient offers an appeal, the 
determination regarding responsibility becomes final when the appeal 
process is concluded, or if no appeal is filed, on the date on which an 
appeal would not be timely under the recipient's designated time 
frames. Once the determination regarding responsibility has become 
final, in cases where the respondent is found responsible, the 
recipient must promptly implement remedies designed to help the 
complainant maintain equal access to the recipient's educational 
programs, activities, benefits, and opportunities. In cases where the 
respondent is found not responsible, no remedies are required for the 
complainant, although a recipient may continue to offer supportive 
measures to either party.
Section 106.45(b)(5) Appeals
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.45(b)(5) stating 
that a recipient may choose to offer an appeal. If a recipient offers 
an appeal, it must allow both parties to appeal. In cases where there 
has been a finding of responsibility, although a complainant may appeal 
on the ground that the remedies are not designed to restore or preserve 
the complainant's access to the recipient's education program or 
activity, a complainant is not entitled to a particular sanction 
against the respondent. As to all appeals, the recipient must: (i) 
Notify the other party in writing when an appeal is filed and implement 
appeal procedures equally for both parties; (ii) ensure that the appeal 
decision-maker is not the same person as any investigator(s) or 
decision-maker(s) that reached the determination regarding 
responsibility; (iii) ensure that the appeal decision-maker complies 
with the standards set forth in Sec.  106.45(b)(1)(iii); (iv) give both 
parties a reasonable, equal opportunity to submit a written statement 
in support of, or challenging, the outcome; (v) issue a written 
decision describing the result of the appeal and the rationale for the 
result; and (vi) provide the written decision simultaneously to both 
parties.
    Reasons: Many recipients offer an appeal from the outcome of a 
Title IX grievance process. After extensive stakeholder engagement on 
the subject of school-level appeals, the Department believes that by 
offering that opportunity to both parties, recipients will be more 
likely to reach sound determinations, giving the parties greater 
confidence in the ultimate outcome. Complainants and respondents have 
different interests in the outcome of a sexual harassment complaint. 
Complainants ``have a right, and are entitled to expect, that they may 
attend [school] without fear of sexual assault or harassment,'' while 
for respondents a ``finding of responsibility for a sexual offense can 
have a lasting impact on a student's personal life, in addition to [the 
student's] educational and employment opportunities[.]'' Doe

[[Page 61479]]

v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393, 400, 403 (6th Cir. 2017) 
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Although these 
interests differ, each represents high-stakes, potentially life-
altering consequences deserving of an accurate outcome. See id. at 404 
(recognizing that the complainant ``deserves a reliable, accurate 
outcome as much as'' the respondent). The Department proposes that 
where a recipient offers an appeal, such appeal should be equally 
available to both parties, reflecting that each party has an important 
stake in the reliability of the outcome. Importantly, the proposed 
regulation notes that in cases where there has been a finding of 
responsibility, although a complainant may appeal on the ground that 
the remedies are not designed to restore or preserve the complainant's 
access to the recipient's education program or activity, a complainant 
is not entitled to a particular sanction against the respondent. See 
e.g., Davis, 526 U.S. at 648 (``the dissent erroneously imagines that 
victims of peer harassment now have a Title IX right to make particular 
remedial demands.''); Stiles ex rel. D.S. v. Grainger Co., Tenn., 819 
F.3d 834, 848 (6th Cir. 2016) (``Title IX does not give victims a right 
to make particular remedial demands.'') (internal quotations omitted); 
Sanches v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 647 F.3d 156, 
167-68 (5th Cir. 2011) (``Schools are not required to . . . accede to a 
parent's remedial demands'') (internal citations omitted).
    Similarly to the initial investigation and adjudication, the 
recipient must ensure that any appeal process is conducted in a timely 
manner and gives both parties an equal opportunity to argue for or 
against the outcome. Like any of the recipient's Title IX Coordinators, 
investigators, or decision-makers, the appeal decision-maker must be 
free from bias or conflicts of interest, and must be trained on the 
definition of sexual harassment and the recipient's grievance process 
using training materials that promote impartial decision-making and are 
free from sex stereotypes. When designating reasonable timeframes for 
the filing and resolution of appeals, recipients should endeavor to 
permit parties sufficient time to file an appeal and submit written 
arguments, yet resolve the appeal process as expeditiously as possible 
to provide finality of the grievance process for the benefit of all 
parties.
Section 106.45(b)(6) Informal Resolution
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.45(b)(6) stating 
that at any time prior to reaching a determination regarding 
responsibility the recipient may facilitate an informal resolution 
process, such as mediation, that does not involve a full investigation 
and adjudication, provided that the recipient provides to the parties a 
written notice disclosing--
     The allegations;
     The requirements of the informal resolution process 
including the circumstances under which it precludes the parties from 
resuming a formal complaint arising from the same allegations, if any; 
and
     Any consequences resulting from participating in the 
informal resolution process, including the records that will be 
maintained or could be shared.
    The recipient must also obtain the parties' voluntary, written 
consent to the informal resolution process.
    Reasons: As mentioned previously, the proposed regulations reflect 
the Department's recognition that recipients' good judgment and common 
sense are important elements of a response to sex discrimination that 
meets the requirements of Title IX. The Department also recognizes that 
in responding to sexual harassment, it is important to take into 
account the needs of the parties involved in each individual case, some 
of whom may prefer not to go through a formal complaint process. 
Recognizing these factors, proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(6) would permit 
recipients to facilitate an informal resolution process of an 
allegation of sexual harassment at any time prior to issuing a final 
determination regarding responsibility, if deemed appropriate by the 
recipient and the parties. To ensure that the parties do not feel 
forced into an informal resolution by a recipient, and to ensure that 
the parties have the ability to make an informed decision, proposed 
paragraph (b)(6)(i) would require recipients to inform the parties in 
writing of the allegations, the requirements of the informal resolution 
process, and any consequences resulting from participating in the 
informal process. For example, the recipient would need to explain to 
the parties if one or more available informal resolution options would 
become binding on the parties at any point, as is often the case with 
arbitration-style processes, or if the process would remain non-binding 
throughout, as is often the case with mediation-style processes. 
Informal resolution options may lead to more favorable outcomes for 
everyone involved, depending upon factors such as the age, 
developmental level, and other capabilities of the parties; the 
knowledge, skills, and experience level of those facilitating or 
conducting the informal resolution process; the severity of the 
misconduct alleged; and likelihood of recurrence of the misconduct. 
Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(ii) would require the recipient to obtain 
voluntary, written consent from the parties in advance of any informal 
resolution process in order to ensure that no party is involuntarily 
denied the protections that would otherwise be provided by these 
regulations.
Section 106.45(b)(7) Recordkeeping
    Proposed Regulations: We propose adding Sec.  106.45(b)(7) stating 
that a recipient must create, make available to the complainant and 
respondent, and maintain for a period of three years records of--
     The sexual harassment investigation, including any 
determination regarding responsibility, disciplinary sanctions imposed 
on the respondent, and remedies provided to the complainant;
     Any appeal and the result therefrom;
     Informal resolution, if any; and
     All materials used to train coordinators, investigators, 
decision-makers with regard to sexual harassment.
    This provision would also provide that a recipient must create and 
maintain for a period of three years records of any actions, including 
any supportive measures, taken in response to a report or formal 
complaint of sexual harassment. In each instance, the recipient must 
document the basis for its conclusion that its response was not clearly 
unreasonable, and document that it has taken measures designed to 
restore or preserve access to the recipient's educational program or 
activity. The documentation of certain bases or measures does not limit 
the recipient in the future from providing additional explanations or 
detailing additional measures taken.
    Reasons: To ensure that the parties, the Department, and recipients 
have access to relevant information for an appropriate period of time 
following the completion of the grievance procedure process, proposed 
Sec.  106.45(b)(7) would address the recordkeeping requirements related 
to formal complaints of sexual harassment with which recipients must 
comply. These requirements would benefit complainants and respondents 
by empowering them to more effectively hold their recipient schools and

[[Page 61480]]

institutions accountable for Title IX compliance by ensuring the 
existence of records that could be used during an investigation by the 
Department or in private litigation. We believe the required three-year 
retention period is sufficient to allow the Department and the parties 
to ensure compliance with the proposed regulations, but we specifically 
seek comment on the appropriate period for retention in a directed 
question below. During the record retention period, these records would 
continue to be subject to the applicable provisions of FERPA, as 
discussed below.

III. Clarifying Amendments to Existing Regulations

Remedial and Affirmative Action and Self-Evaluation (Current Sec.  
106.3(a) and Proposed Sec.  106.3(a))

    Statute: The statute does not directly address the issue of 
particular types of remedies, beyond the statement that compliance may 
be effected by a withdrawal of federal funding or ``by any other means 
authorized by law.'' 20 U.S.C. 1682. The Secretary has the authority to 
regulate with regard to discrimination on the basis of sex in education 
programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance 
specifically under 20 U.S.C. 1682 and generally under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 
and 3474.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  106.3(a) provides that if the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights finds that a recipient has 
discriminated against a person on the basis of sex in an education 
program or activity, the recipient shall be required to take remedial 
action that the Assistant Secretary deems necessary ``to overcome the 
effects of such discrimination.''
    Proposed Regulations: We propose modifying the language to apply to 
any violation of part 106 and adding language to Sec.  106.3(a) stating 
that the remedial action deemed necessary by the Assistant Secretary 
shall not include assessment of damages.
    Reasons: The proposed changes would clarify, consistent with the 
Supreme Court's case law in this area and mindful of the difference 
between a private right of action opening the door to damages assessed 
by a court and the Department's role administratively enforcing Title 
IX without express statutory authority to collect damages, that the 
Assistant Secretary shall not assess damages against a recipient. 
Gebser, 524 U.S. at 288-89 (``While agencies have conditioned continued 
funding on providing equitable relief to the victim, the regulations do 
not appear to contemplate a condition ordering payment of monetary 
damages, and there is no indication that payment of damages has been 
demanded as a condition of finding a recipient to be in compliance with 
the statute'') (internal citation omitted).
    For example, if a student entitled to speech therapy under her 
Individualized Education Program (IEP) complains that a school district 
did not provide the therapy, the Department may permissibly require 
that the school district reimburse the parents for their reasonable and 
documented expenses for obtaining services that that the school 
district was required to provide. Cf. Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't 
of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 370 (1985) (``[T]he Town repeatedly 
characterizes reimbursement as `damages,' but that simply is not the 
case. Reimbursement merely requires the Town to belatedly pay expenses 
that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first 
instance had it developed a proper IEP.''). Likewise, in the context of 
Title IX, if a recipient allowed male students with athletic 
scholarships to retain their scholarships even if they are removed from 
the team or stop participating on the team, but did not allow female 
students the same ability to retain their scholarship, the Department 
could require a recipient to come into compliance with Title IX by 
restoring the relevant scholarship, even though the restoration will 
require the payment of monies by the recipient. See, e.g., Romeo 
Community Schools v. United States Dep't of Health, Education & 
Welfare, 600 F.2d 581, 583 (6th Cir. 1979) (emphasis added) (``Romeo 
received a letter from the regional director of HEW demanding that it 
alter its practices with respect to pregnancy leave to conform to Sec.  
86.57(c) and reimburse and adjust the salaries and retirement credits 
of any employees who had not been permitted to use accrued sick leave 
while on pregnancy related leave since June 23, 1972. The letter from 
HEW also required assurances from Romeo that it would comply with Sec.  
86.57, and that reimbursement had been made.''). Thus, in those narrow 
instances where a failure to pay a specific amount for a specific 
purpose constitutes the crux of the violation, the resolution can 
include a monetary payment and still be an equitable remedy squarely 
tied to the violation the Department identified. Notably, this proposed 
modification does not affect the Department's statutory authority to 
suspend or terminate federal funding from a recipient that has violated 
Title IX and refused to come into compliance.

Effect of Other Requirements and Preservation of Rights (Current Sec.  
106.6 and Proposed Sec.  106.6)

    Statute: The statute does not directly address the effect of other 
requirements or the preservation of rights. The Secretary has the 
authority to regulate with regard to discrimination on the basis of sex 
in education programs or activities receiving federal financial 
assistance specifically under 20 U.S.C. 1682 and generally under 20 
U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  106.6 provides that the 
obligations under the Title IX regulations do not alter obligations not 
to discriminate on the basis of sex under other specified laws and 
Executive Orders, and the obligation to comply with Title IX is not 
obviated or alleviated by State or local laws or by a rule or 
regulation of any organization, club, or league.
Section 106.6(d) Constitutional Protections
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to add paragraph (d) to 
Sec.  106.6 to affirm that nothing in 34 CFR part 106 requires a 
recipient to: Restrict any rights that are protected from governmental 
action by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; deprive an 
individual of rights that would otherwise be protected from 
governmental action under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and 
Fourteenth Amendments; or restrict any other rights guaranteed against 
governmental action by the U.S. Constitution.
    Reasons: Despite the language in current Sec.  106.6 and the 
discussions in Department guidance regarding the due process 
protections for public school students and employees and free speech 
rights under the First Amendment (2001 Guidance at 22) there appears to 
be significant confusion regarding the intersection of individuals' 
rights under the U.S. Constitution with a recipient's obligations under 
Title IX. In particular, during listening sessions the Department heard 
concerns that Title IX enforcement has had a chilling effect on free 
speech. We are proposing to add paragraph (d) to clarify that nothing 
in these regulations requires a recipient to infringe upon any 
individual's rights protected under the First Amendment or the Due 
Process Clauses, or other any other rights guaranteed by the U.S. 
Constitution. The language also makes it clear that, under the Title IX 
regulations, recipients--including private recipients--are not 
obligated by

[[Page 61481]]

Title IX to restrict speech or other behavior that the federal 
government could not restrict directly. Consistent with Supreme Court 
case law, the government may not compel private actors to restrict 
conduct that the government itself could not constitutionally restrict. 
See e.g., Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 (1963); Truax v. 
Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 38 (1915). Thus, recipients that are private 
entities are not required by Title IX or its regulations to restrict 
speech or other behavior that would be protected against restriction by 
governmental entities. This protection against governmental 
restrictions on constitutional rights applies to all the civil rights 
laws that Department enforces, but we are adding paragraph (d) to the 
Title IX regulations because the issue arises frequently in the context 
of sexual harassment. When the Department enforces Title IX and its 
accompanying regulations, the constitutional rights of individuals 
involved in a recipient's grievance process will always be considered 
and protected.
Section 106.6(e) Interaction With FERPA
    Proposed Regulations: We are also proposing to add paragraph (e) to 
Sec.  106.6 to clarify that obligations under this part are not 
obviated or alleviated by the requirements in the FERPA statute or 
regulations.
    Reasons: In 1994, as part of the Improving America's Schools Act, 
Congress amended the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), of which 
FERPA is a part, to state that nothing in GEPA ``shall be construed to 
affect the applicability of . . . title IX of the Education Amendments 
of 1972 . . . .'' 20 U.S.C. 1221(d). The proposed regulations under 
Title IX should be read to be consistent with a recipient's obligations 
under FERPA.
Section 106.6(f) Interaction With Title VII
    Proposed Regulations: We are also proposing to add paragraph (f) to 
Sec.  106.6 to clarify that nothing in the proposed regulations shall 
be read in derogation of an employee's rights under Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. and its implementing 
regulations.
    Reasons: Employees of a school may have rights under both Title IX 
and Title VII. To the extent that any rights, remedies, or procedures 
differ under Title IX and Title VII, this provision clarifies that 
nothing about the proposed regulations is intended to diminish, 
restrict, or lessen any rights an employee may have against his or her 
school under Title VII.

Designation of Coordinator, Dissemination of Policy, Adoption of 
Grievance Procedures (Current Sec. Sec.  106.8 and 106.9 and Proposed 
Sec.  106.8)

    Statute: The statute does not directly address the designation of a 
Title IX Coordinator, the dissemination of policy, or the adoption of 
grievance procedures. The Secretary has the authority to regulate with 
regard to discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or 
activities receiving federal financial assistance, specifically under 
20 U.S.C. 1682 and generally under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  106.8(a) requires a recipient to 
designate at least one employee to be the ``responsible employee'' who 
has the duty to coordinate the recipient's efforts to comply with and 
carry out its responsibilities under the regulations, including any 
investigation of any complaint alleging a recipient's noncompliance 
with, or actions which would be prohibited by, 34 CFR part 106. Section 
106.8(a) also requires recipients to notify all students and employees 
of the name, office address, and telephone number of such employee or 
employees.
    Title 34 CFR 106.8(b) requires recipients to adopt and publish 
grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of 
student and employee complaints of sex discrimination.
    Title 34 CFR 106.9(a)(1) requires recipients to notify applicants 
for admission and employment, students and parents of elementary and 
secondary school students, employees, sources of referral for 
applicants for admission and employment, and unions or professional 
organizations holding collective bargaining agreements or professional 
agreements with the recipient that it does not discriminate on the 
basis of sex in the education program or activity which it operates. 
Such notice must state that inquiries about the application of Title IX 
may be referred to the employee designated pursuant to Sec.  106.8, or 
to the Assistant Secretary.
    Title 34 CFR 106.9(b) lists the types of publications where the 
recipient shall publish its nondiscrimination policy, and 34 CFR 
106.9(c) specifies the manner of distribution of such publications.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to clarify the requirements 
of 34 CFR 106.8(a). Proposed Sec.  106.8(a) would state that the 
designated individual is referred to as the ``coordinator,'' and would 
alter the required methods for notification. Proposed Sec.  106.8(a) 
would also remove potentially unclear language in the existing 
regulation that could be read to require that the coordinator must be 
the one that handles the investigations and otherwise directly carries 
out the recipient's responsibilities.
    We also propose moving the ``notification of policy'' requirement 
in current Sec.  106.9(a)(1) to proposed Sec.  106.8(b)(1). Proposed 
Sec.  106.8(b)(1) would streamline the list of people whom recipients 
must notify of its policy of non-discrimination based on sex, and 
clarify that such a notice must state that inquiries about application 
of Title IX to the recipient may be made to the recipient's Title IX 
Coordinator or the Assistant Secretary, or to both.
    Proposed Sec.  106.8(b)(2) requires recipients to prominently 
display their Title IX non-discrimination policy on their website (if 
any) and in each handbook or catalog that it makes available to the 
list of people who must be notified in paragraph (b)(1), and prohibits 
recipients from using or distributing publications stating that the 
recipient treats applicants, students, or employees differently on the 
basis of sex except as such different treatment is permitted by this 
part.
    We also propose moving the requirements in current 34 CFR 106.8(b) 
to proposed Sec.  106.8(c), with modifications as proposed below. 
Proposed Sec.  106.8(c) would clarify that with respect to sexual 
harassment, the grievance procedures requirements specifically apply to 
formal complaints as defined in Sec.  106.30. Proposed Sec.  106.8(c) 
would also require recipients to provide notice of their grievance 
procedures to students and employees.
    We also propose adding paragraph (d) to Sec.  106.8 to clarify that 
the policy and grievance procedures described in this section need not 
apply to persons outside the United States.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  106.8(a) would reflect the current reality 
of Title IX compliance--namely, that recipients generally name a Title 
IX Coordinator and designate that individual to coordinate their 
efforts to comply with Title IX. It appears that the phrase ``and carry 
out'' in the existing regulation could be read to suggest that the 
Title IX Coordinator must be the one who carries out the recipient's 
duties under Title IX, rather than allowing the coordinator to 
coordinate the actions of others in carrying out those duties. Since 
the phrase is redundant and can be confusing, we propose removing it. 
In addition, in light of the expansion of

[[Page 61482]]

the regulations elsewhere to expressly cover investigations of Title IX 
complaints, the language specifically including coordination of such 
investigations in the responsibilities of the designated individual 
would no longer be necessary, and would therefore be removed.
    Proposed Sec.  106.8(a) would also modernize the notification 
requirements to better ensure that students and employees are aware of 
how to contact a recipient's Title IX Coordinator. Given the changes in 
methods of communication since the regulations were issued in 1975, the 
proposed amendments would require the recipient to notify students and 
employees of the electronic mail address of the employee or employees 
designated as Title IX Coordinators, in addition to providing the 
coordinator's office address and phone number. To alleviate the 
administrative and financial burden on a recipient to provide a new 
notice every time it designates an additional or different coordinator, 
the proposed amendments permit recipients to provide notice of a 
coordinator's name and contact information or, alternatively, simply a 
title with an established method of contacting the coordinator that 
does not change as the identity of the coordinator changes. The 
Department solicits comments on whether larger institutions of higher 
education should have a minimum number of individuals with whom 
individuals can file a complaint of sex discrimination.
    Proposed Sec.  106.8(b)(2) would require recipients to prominently 
display their non-discrimination policy on their websites, if any, and 
in each handbook or catalog made available to the list of people to 
whom notice must be sent under paragraph (b)(1). Proposed Sec.  
106.8(b)(2) streamlines the list of required publications that must 
display the recipient's Title IX non-discrimination policy, to reduce 
the burden on recipients (including the requirement for distribution of 
written publications included in current Sec.  106.9(c)) while still 
ensuring that the policy is adequately communicated to all required 
persons, in light of the reality that most recipients have websites 
where the non-discrimination policy would have to be prominently 
displayed. In addition, proposed Sec.  106.8(b)(2) would replace the 
existing restriction on publications that suggest a policy of sex 
discrimination (either by text or illustration) with a restriction on 
publications that state a policy of sex discrimination. This change 
would remove the subjective determination of whether the illustrations 
in a publication could be construed to suggest a policy of sex 
discrimination and instead focus the requirement on recipients' express 
statements of policy. As a result, the requirement would be more clear, 
both for recipients seeking to comply with the requirement and for 
those enforcing the requirement. Because most recipients have websites 
on which they must display their Title IX non-discrimination policy 
pursuant to proposed Sec.  106.8(b)(2), proposed Sec.  106.8(b)(1) 
streamlines the list of people to whom the recipient must send notice 
of its policy. Applicants for admission and employment, students, 
employees, and employee unions and professional organizations must 
receive the notice under proposed Sec.  106.8(b)(2).
    Proposed Sec.  106.8(d) would clarify that the recipient's code of 
conduct and grievance procedures apply to all students and employees 
located in the United States with respect to allegations of sex 
discrimination in an education program or activity of the recipient. 
The statutory language of Title IX limits its application to protecting 
``person[s] in the United States.'' 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).

Educational Institutions Controlled by Religious Organizations (Current 
and Proposed Sec.  106.12)

    Statute: The statute addresses educational institutions controlled 
by religious organizations, stating that Title IX ``shall not apply to 
an educational institution which is controlled by a religious 
organization if the application of this subsection would not be 
consistent with the religious tenets of such organization,'' 20 U.S.C. 
1681(a)(3), and that the term ``program or activity'' ``does not 
include any operation of an entity which is controlled by a religious 
organization if the application of section 1681 of this title to such 
operation would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such 
organization,'' 20 U.S.C. 1687.
    Current Regulations: Current 34 CFR 106.12(a) provides an exemption 
for educational institutions controlled by a religious organization, to 
the extent that application of the regulation would be inconsistent 
with the religious tenets of the organization. To claim this exemption, 
Sec.  106.12(b) requires recipients to submit a letter to the Assistant 
Secretary stating which parts of the regulation conflict with a 
specific tenet of the religion.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose revising Sec.  106.12(b) to 
clarify that an educational institution may--but is not required to--
seek assurance of its religious exemption by submitting a written 
request for such an assurance to the Assistant Secretary. Further, 
Sec.  106.12(b) is revised to state that even if an institution has not 
sought assurance of its exemption, the institution may still invoke its 
religious exemption during the course of any investigation pursued 
against the institution by the Department.
    Reasons: The current regulations suggest that the recipients may 
only claim the exemption from paragraph (a) by submitting a letter to 
the Assistant Secretary. The additional language clarifying that the 
letter to the Assistant Secretary is not required to assert the 
exemption brings the regulatory language into alignment with 
longstanding Department practice. The statutory text of Title IX offers 
an exemption to religious entities without expressly requiring 
submission of a letter, and the Department believes such a requirement 
is unnecessary. The Department should not impose confusing or 
burdensome requirements on religious institutions that qualify for the 
exemption.

Exercise of Rights by Parents/Guardians of Students

    The Department recognizes that when a party is a minor, has been 
appointed a guardian, is attending an elementary or secondary school, 
or is under the age of 18, recipients have the discretion to look to 
state law and local educational practice in determining whether the 
rights of the party shall be exercised by the parent(s) or guardian(s) 
instead of or in addition to the party. For example, if the parent or 
guardian of a minor student at an elementary or secondary school files 
a complaint on behalf of the student, and state law and local 
educational practice recognize the parent or guardian as the 
appropriate person to exercise that student's legal rights, the student 
would be a ``complainant'' under the proposed regulation even though 
the action of filing the complaint was taken by the parent or guardian 
instead of the student.
Directed Questions
    The Department seeks additional comments on the questions below:
    1. Applicability of the rule to elementary and secondary schools. 
The proposed rule would apply to all recipients of federal financial 
assistance, including institutions of higher education and elementary 
and secondary schools. The Department is interested in whether there 
are parts of the proposed rule that will be unworkable at the 
elementary and secondary school level, if there are additional parts of 
the proposed rule where the Department should direct

[[Page 61483]]

recipients to take into account the age and developmental level of the 
parties involved and involve parents or guardians, and whether there 
are other unique aspects of addressing sexual harassment at the 
elementary and secondary school level that the Department should 
consider, such as systemic differences between institutions of higher 
education and elementary and secondary schools.
    2. Applicability of provisions based on type of recipient or age of 
parties. Some aspects of our proposed regulations, for instance, the 
provision regarding a safe harbor in the absence of a formal complaint 
in proposed Sec.  106.44(b)(3) and the provision regarding written 
questions or cross-examination in proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(vi) and 
(vii), differ in applicability between institutions of higher education 
and elementary and secondary schools. We seek comment on whether our 
regulations should instead differentiate the applicability of these or 
other provisions on the basis of whether the complainant and respondent 
are 18 or over, in recognition of the fact that 18-year-olds are 
generally considered to be adults for many legal purposes.
    3. Applicability of the rule to employees. Like the existing 
regulations, the proposed regulations would apply to sexual harassment 
by students, employees, and third parties. The Department seeks the 
public's perspective on whether there are any parts of the proposed 
rule that will prove unworkable in the context of sexual harassment by 
employees, and whether there are any unique circumstances that apply to 
processes involving employees that the Department should consider.
    4. Training. The proposed rule would require recipients to ensure 
that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers receive 
training on the definition of sexual harassment, and on how to conduct 
an investigation and grievance process, including hearings, that 
protect the safety of students, ensures due process for all parties, 
and promotes accountability. The Department is interested in seeking 
comments from the public as to whether this requirement is adequate to 
ensure that recipients will provide necessary training to all 
appropriate individuals, including those at the elementary and 
secondary school level.
    5. Individuals with disabilities. The proposed rule addresses the 
rights of students with disabilities under the IDEA, Section 504, and 
Title II of the ADA in the context of emergency removals (proposed 
Sec.  106.44(c)). The Department is interested in comments from the 
public as to whether the proposed rule adequately takes into account 
other issues related to the needs of students and employees with 
disabilities when such individuals are parties in a sex discrimination 
complaint, or whether the Department should consider including 
additional language to address the needs of students and employees with 
disabilities as complainants and respondents. The Department also 
requests consideration of the different experiences, challenges, and 
needs of students with disabilities in elementary and secondary schools 
and in postsecondary institutions related to sexual harassment.
    6. Standard of Evidence. In Sec.  106.45(b)(4)(i), we are proposing 
that the determination regarding responsibility be reached by applying 
either a preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and 
convincing standard, and that the preponderance standard be used only 
if it is also used for conduct code violations that do not involve 
sexual harassment but carry the same maximum disciplinary sanction. We 
seek comment on (1) whether it is desirable to require a uniform 
standard of evidence for all Title IX cases rather than leave the 
option to schools to choose a standard, and if so then what standard is 
most appropriate; and (2) if schools retain the option to select the 
standard they wish to apply, whether it is appropriate to require 
schools to use the same standard in Title IX cases that they apply to 
other cases in which a similar disciplinary sanction may be imposed.
    7. Potential clarification regarding ``directly related to the 
allegations'' language. Proposed Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(viii) requires 
recipients to provide each party with an equal opportunity to inspect 
and review any evidence directly related to the allegations obtained as 
part of the investigation, including the evidence upon which the 
recipient does not intend to rely in reaching a determination regarding 
responsibility, and provide each party with an equal opportunity to 
respond to that evidence prior to completion of the investigative 
report. The ``directly related to the allegations'' language stems from 
requirements in FERPA, 20 U.S. Code 1232g(a)(4)(A)(i). We seek comment 
on whether or not to regulate further with regard to the phrase, 
``directly related to the allegations'' in this provision.
    8. Appropriate time period for record retention. In Sec.  
106.45(b)(7), we are proposing that a recipient must create, make 
available to the complainant and respondent, and maintain records for a 
period of three years. We seek comments on what the appropriate time 
period is for this record retention.
    9. Technology needed to grant requests for parties to be in 
separate rooms at live hearings. In Sec.  106.45(b)(3)(vii) we require 
institutions of higher education to grant requests from parties to be 
in separate rooms at live hearings, with technology enabling the 
decision-maker and parties to see and hear each other simultaneously. 
We seek comments on the extent to which institutions already have and 
use technology that would enable the institution to fulfill this 
requirement without incurring new costs or whether institutions would 
likely incur new costs associated with this requirement.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a 
rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    Under Executive Order 12866,\14\ section 3(f)(1), the changes made 
in this regulatory action materially alter the rights and obligations 
of recipients of federal financial assistance under Title IV of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title IV). Therefore, the Secretary 
certifies that this is a significant regulatory action subject to 
review by OMB. Also under Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential

[[Page 61484]]

Memorandum ``Plain Language in Government Writing,'' the Secretary 
invites comment on how easy these regulations are to understand in the 
Clarity of the Regulations section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Exec. Order No. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 
FR 190 (Oct. 4, 1993), www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the 
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates 
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 
that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For FY 2019, no regulations exceeding the 
agency's total incremental cost allowance will be permitted, unless 
required by law or approved in writing by the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget. The proposed regulations are a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 but do not impose total costs 
greater than zero. Accordingly, the Department is not required to 
identify two deregulatory actions under E.O. 13771.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Exec. Order No. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs, 82 FR 22 (Jan. 30, 2017), www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02451.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also reviewed these proposed regulations under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these proposed regulations only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits justify their costs. Based on the 
analysis that follows, the Department believes that these regulations 
are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, or tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In this RIA we discuss the need for regulatory action, the 
potential costs and benefits, assumptions, limitations, and data 
sources, as well as regulatory alternatives we considered. Although the 
majority of the costs related to information collection are discussed 
within this RIA, elsewhere in this notice under Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 we also identify and further explain burdens specifically 
associated with information collection requirements.
1. Need for Regulatory Action
    Based on its extensive review of the critical issues addressed in 
this rulemaking, the Department has determined that current regulations 
and guidance do not provide sufficiently clear standards for how 
recipients must respond to incidents of sexual harassment, including 
defining what conduct constitutes sexual harassment. To address this 
concern, we propose this regulatory action to address sexual harassment 
under Title IX for the central purpose of ensuring that recipients 
understand their legal obligations, including what conduct is 
actionable as harassment under Title IX, the conditions that activate a 
mandatory response by the recipient, and particular requirements that 
such a response must meet in order to ensure that the recipient is 
protecting the rights of all its students to equal access to education 
free from sex discrimination.
    In addition to addressing sexual harassment, the Department has 
concluded it is also necessary to amend three parts of the existing 
regulations that apply to all sex discrimination under Title IX. We 
propose expressly stating that Title IX does not require recipients to 
infringe upon existing constitutional protections, that the Department 
may not require money damages as a remedy for violations under Title 
IX, and that recipients that qualify for a religious exemption under 
Title IX need not submit a letter to the Department as a prerequisite 
to claiming the exemption.
2. Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
    The Department has analyzed the costs and benefits of complying 
with these proposed regulations. Due to the number of affected 
entities, the variation in likely responses, and the limited 
information available about current practices, particularly at the 
local educational agency (LEA) level, we cannot estimate the likely 
effects of these proposed regulations with absolute precision. The 
Department specifically invites public comment on: Data sources which 
would provide comprehensive information regarding current practices in 
Title IX enforcement, information regarding the number of recipients in 
each analytical group described in section 4.b below, and time 
estimates for the activities described in 4.c disaggregated by type of 
recipient. Despite these limitations, we estimate that these 
regulations would result in a net cost savings of between $286.4 
million to $367.7 million over ten years.
3. Benefits of the Proposed Regulations
    The proposed regulatory action will result in recipients better 
understanding their legal obligations to address sexual harassment 
under Title IX by providing a legal framework for recipients' responses 
to sexual harassment that ensures all reports of sexual harassment are 
treated seriously and all persons accused are given due process 
protections before being disciplined for sexual harassment. The 
proposed regulatory action will correct problems identified by the 
Department with the current framework governing sexual harassment 
(under current regulations and guidance), such as recipients not 
understanding their duties and responsibilities and a lack of robust 
due process protections in recipient grievance procedures under Title 
IX. In addition, the proposed regulatory action will correct capturing 
too wide a range of misconduct resulting in infringement on academic 
freedom and free speech.
4. Costs of the Proposed Regulations
    These proposed regulations would among other things: Define sexual 
harassment for Title IX purposes; clarify when a recipient's obligation 
to investigate a complaint of sexual harassment is activated; define 
the minimum requirements of grievance

[[Page 61485]]

procedures for Title IX purposes; establish a process for informal 
resolution of sexual harassment claims; and require appropriate 
documentation of all Title IX complaints and investigations.
    Prior to discussing the Department's estimates, we believe it is 
important to emphasize that these estimates are not an attempt to 
quantify the economic effects of sexual harassment, broadly, or sexual 
assault, specifically. Other studies \16\ have attempted to quantify 
such costs and, while incidents of sexual assault may have real 
economic consequences, these estimates are only intended to capture the 
economic impacts of this proposed regulatory action. The Department 
does not believe it is reasonable to assume that these proposed 
regulations will have a quantifiable effect on the underlying rate of 
sexual harassment occurring in the education programs or activities of 
recipients. As a result, we do not attempt to capture costs that arise 
out of the underlying incidents themselves, but rather those associated 
with the actions prescribed by the proposed regulations and the likely 
response of regulated entities to those proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Cora Peterson et al., Lifetime Economic Burden 
of Rape Among U.S. Adults, 52 Am. J. of Preventative Med. 691 
(2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.a. Establishing a Baseline
    To accurately estimate the costs of these proposed regulations, the 
Department needed to establish an appropriate baseline for current 
practice. In doing so, it was necessary to know the current number of 
Title IX investigations occurring in LEAs and institutions of higher 
education (IHEs) eligible for Title IV federal funding. In 2014, the 
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight 
released a report \17\ which included survey data from 440 four-year 
IHEs regarding the number of investigations of sexual violence that had 
been conducted during the previous five year period. Two of the five 
possible responses to the survey were definite numbers (0, 1), while 
the other three were ranges (2-5, 6-10, >10). Responses were also 
disaggregated by size of institution (Large, Medium, or Small). 
Although the report does not clearly identify a definition of ``sexual 
violence'' provided to survey respondents, the term would appear to 
capture only a subset of the types of incidents that may result in a 
Title IX investigation. Indeed, when the Department examined public 
reports of Title IX reports and investigations at 55 IHEs nationwide, 
incidents of sexual misconduct represented, on average, 45 percent of 
investigations conducted. Further, a number of the types of incidents 
that were categorized as ``sexual misconduct'' in those reports may, or 
may not, have been categorized as ``sexual violence,'' depending on the 
survey respondent. To address the fact that the subcommittee report may 
fail to capture all incidents of sexual misconduct at responding IHEs, 
the Department first top-coded the survey data. To the extent that 
survey respondents treated the terms ``sexual misconduct'' and ``sexual 
violence'' interchangeably, this top-coding approach may result in an 
overestimate of the number of sexual misconduct investigations 
conducted at institutions. By top-coding the ranges (e.g., ``5'' for 
any respondent indicating ``2-5'') and assuming 50 investigations for 
any respondent indicating more than 10 investigations, the Department 
was able to estimate the average number of sexual misconduct 
investigations conducted by four-year institutions in each size 
category. We then divided this estimate by five to arrive at an 
estimated number of investigations per year. To address the fact that 
incidents of sexual misconduct only represent a subset of all Title IX 
investigations conducted by IHEs in any given year, we then multiplied 
this result by two, assuming (consistent with our convenience sample of 
public Title IX reporting) that sexual misconduct investigations 
represented approximately 50 percent of all Title IX investigations 
conducted by institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Claire McCaskill, S. Subcomm. on Financial Contracting 
Oversight--Majority Staff, Sexual Violence on Campus, 113th Cong. 
(2014), https://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/SurveyReportwithAppendix.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the report only surveyed four-year institutions, the 
Department needed to impute similar data for two-year and less-than-
two-year institutions, which represent approximately 57 percent of all 
Title IV-eligible institutions. In order to do so, the Department 
analyzed sexual offenses reported under the Clery Act and combined 
those data with total enrollment information from the Integrated 
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for all Title IV-eligible 
institutions within the United States. Assuming that the number of 
reports of sexual offenses under the Clery Act is positively correlated 
with the number of investigations, the Department arrived at a general 
rate of investigations per reported sexual offense at four-year IHEs by 
institutional enrollment. These rates were then applied to two-year and 
less-than-two-year institutions within the same category using the 
average number of sexual offenses reported under the Clery Act for such 
institutions to arrive at an average number of investigations per year 
by size and level of institution. These estimates were then weighted by 
the number of Title IV-eligible institutions in each category to arrive 
at an estimated average 2.36 investigations of sexual harassment per 
IHE per year.\18\ To the extent that the number of investigations and 
the number of Clery Act reports of sexual offenses are not uniformly 
correlated across types of institutions (i.e., less-than-two-year, two-
year, and four-year), this may represent an over- or-under-estimate of 
the actual number of investigations per IHE per year. We invite the 
public to provide any pertinent evidence on determining investigations 
of sexual harassment per IHE per year to improve our baseline 
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ To determine the sensitivity of this estimate to our coding 
of the survey data, the Department also conducted these analyses by 
coding the data using medians for each range (e.g., 3.5 for the ``2-
5'' range) with a code of 30 for the ``>10'' group and by top-coding 
using a 100 for the ``>10'' group. These alternative approaches 
would result in baseline estimates ranging from 1.48 to 4.31 
investigations per year per IHE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department does not have information on the average number of 
investigations of sexual harassment occurring each year in LEAs. As 
part of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), the Department does, 
however, gather information on the number of incidents of harassment 
based on sex in LEAs each year. During school year 2015-2016, LEAs 
reported an average of 3.23 of such incidents. Therefore, the 
Department assumes that LEAs, on average, currently conduct 
approximately 3.23 Title IX investigations each year. We invite public 
comment on the extent to which this is a reasonable assumption.
4.b. Developing the Model
    After the Department issued guidance regarding Title IX compliance 
in 2011, the Department noted a much larger number of incidents of 
sexual harassment being reported to and investigated by LEAs and IHEs 
each year. In 2017, the Department rescinded that guidance and 
published alternative, interim guidance while this proposed regulatory 
action was underway. The Department reaffirmed that the interim 
guidance is not legally binding on recipients. Wiersma-Mosley and 
DiLoreto \19\ did not identify substantial

[[Page 61486]]

rollback of Title IX activities among IHEs compared to Richards,\20\ 
who found substantial changes relative to Karjane, Fisher, and 
Cullen.\21\ Consistent with those studies, we believe it is highly 
likely that a subset of recipients have continued Title IX enforcement 
in accordance with the prior, now rescinded guidance, due to the 
uncertainty of the regulatory environment, and that it is reasonable to 
assume that some subset of recipients either never complied with the 
2011 DCL or the 2014 Q&A or amended their compliance activities after 
the rescission of that guidance. We do not, however, know with absolute 
certainty how many recipients fall into each category, making it 
difficult to accurately predict the likely effects of this proposed 
regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Jacquelyn D. Wiersma-Mosley and James DiLoreto, The Role of 
Title IX Coordinators on College and University Campuses, 8 Behav. 
Sci. 1, 5-6 (2018), available at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/8/4/38/htm (click on ``Full-Text PDF'').
    \20\ Tara N. Richards, An updated review of institutions of 
higher education's (IHEs) response to sexual assault: Results from a 
nationally representative sample, J. of Interpersonal Violence 1, 
11-12 (2016).
    \21\ Heather M. Karjane, Bonnie S. Fisher, and Francis T. 
Cullen, Educ. Development Ctr., Inc., Campus Sexual Assault: How 
America's Institutions of Higher Education Respond 62-94 (2002), 
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/196676.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the Department assumes that recipients fall into one of 
three groups: (1) Recipients who have complied with the statutory and 
regulatory requirements and either did not comply with the 2011 DCL or 
the 2014 Q&A or who reduced Title IX activities to the level required 
by statute and regulation after the rescission of the 2011 DCL or the 
2014 Q&A and will continue to do so; (2) recipients who continued Title 
IX activities at the level required by the 2011 DCL or the 2014 Q&A but 
will amend their Title IX activities to the level required under 
current statute and the proposed regulations issued in this proceeding; 
and (3) recipients who continued Title IX activities at the level 
required under the 2011 DCL or the 2014 Q&A and will continue to do so 
after final regulations are issued. In this structure, we believe that 
recipients in the second group are most likely to experience a net cost 
savings under these proposed regulations. We therefore only estimate 
savings for this group of recipients. To the extent that recipients in 
the other two groups experience savings, we herein underestimate the 
savings from this proposed action. We note that we calculate some 
increased costs for recipients in all three categories.
    In estimating the number of recipients in each group, we assume 
that most LEAs and Title IV-eligible IHEs are generally risk averse 
regarding Title IX compliance, and so we assume that very few would 
have adjusted their enforcement efforts after the rescission of the 
2011 DCL or the 2014 Q&A or would have failed to align their activities 
with the guidance initially. Therefore, we estimate that only 5 percent 
of LEAs and 5 percent of IHEs fall into Group 1.\22\ Given the 
particularly acute financial constraints on LEAs, we assume that a vast 
majority (90 percent) will fall into Group 2--meeting all requirements 
of the proposed regulations and applicable laws, but not using limited 
resources to maintain a Title IX compliance structure beyond such 
requirements. Among IHEs, we assume that, for a large subset of 
recipients, various pressures will result in retention of the status 
quo in every manner that is permitted under the proposed regulations. 
These institutions are voluntarily assuming higher costs than the 
regulations require. Nonetheless, our model does account for their 
decision to do so, and we only assume that 50 percent of IHEs 
experience any cost savings from these proposed regulations (placing 
them in Group 2). Therefore, we estimate that Group 3 will consist of 5 
percent of LEAs and 45 percent of IHEs. We invite public comment on the 
extent to which the estimated number of entities in each group is 
appropriate, or whether recipients would expect costs or costs savings 
from the proposed regulations, and why.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ If our estimates were revised to increase the number of 
recipients in this group, our calculated net savings would be 
reduced. See section 4.e. Sensitivity Analysis for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless otherwise specified, our model uses median hourly wages for 
personnel employed in the education sector as reported by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics \23\ and an employer cost for employee compensation 
rate of 1.46.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2017 
National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 
Estimates: Sector 61--Educational Services (Mar. 30, 2018), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_61.htm.
    \24\ U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic 
News Release: Table 1. Civilian Workers, by Major Occupational and 
Industry Group (Sept. 18, 2018), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.c. Cost Estimates
    We assume that, once the Department issues final regulations, all 
recipients will need to review the regulations. At the LEA level, we 
assume this would involve the Title IX Coordinator (assuming a loaded 
wage rate of $65.22 per hour for educational administrators) for 4 
hours and a lawyer (at a rate of $90.71 per hour) for 8 hours. At the 
IHE level, we assume the Title IX Coordinator and lawyer would spend 
more time reviewing the regulations, at 8 hours and 16 hours, 
respectively. This results in a total cost of $29,732,680 in Year 1.
    We also assume that recipients would be required to revise their 
grievance procedures to ensure compliance with the proposed 
regulations. Although the requirements of these proposed regulations 
closely mirror requirements in other regulations and statutes, we 
assume that all recipients will need to revise their procedures. We 
believe that revising grievance procedures at the LEA level will 
require the work of the Title IX Coordinator for 4 hours and a lawyer 
for 16 hours. At the IHE level, we assume this would require the Title 
IX Coordinator devote 8 hours and a lawyer devote 32 hours. In total, 
we estimate the cost of revising grievance procedures to be 
approximately $51,603,180 in Year 1.
    The proposed regulations also require recipients to post 
nondiscrimination statements on their websites as required under the 
existing regulation. We assume, however, that this is already standard 
practice for many recipients. We assume that 40 percent of LEAs and 20 
percent of IHEs \25\ will need to do work to post these statements. At 
the LEA level, we assume that this work will require 0.5 hours from the 
Title IX Coordinator, 0.5 hours from a lawyer, and 2 hours from a web 
developer (at $44.12 per hour). At the IHE level, we assume this would 
require 1 hour from the Title IX Coordinator, 1 hour from a lawyer, and 
2 hours from a web developer. We estimate the total cost of posting 
nondiscrimination statements on the recipient's website will cost 
$1,347,520 in Year 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Richards, supra note 20, at 11 and Wiersma-Mosley & 
DiLoreto, supra note 19, at 5 found that approximately 80 percent of 
IHEs (81 percent and 79 percent, respectively) posted their policies 
and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations also require relevant staff to receive 
training on the requirements of Title IX. Although recipients may 
currently engage in annual training of Title IX staff,\26\ we assume 
that all recipients will conduct new or revised training aligned with 
these proposed regulations. We assume that the training will take 16 
hours each for the Title IX Coordinator, the investigator, and a 
decision-maker at both the LEA and IHE level for a total estimated cost 
of approximately $14,458,650 in Year 1. We do not

[[Page 61487]]

calculate additional costs in future years as we assume that recipients 
will resume training of staff one their prior schedule after Year 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Angela F. Amar et al., Administrators' perceptions of 
college campus protocols, response, and student prevention efforts 
for sexual assault, 29 Violence Vict. 167 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations require recipients to conduct an 
investigation only in the event of a formal complaint of sexual 
harassment. In reviewing a sample of public Title IX documents, the 
Department noted that larger IHEs were more likely than smaller IHEs to 
conduct investigations only in the event of formal complaints, as 
opposed to investigating all reports they received. Consistent with 
this observation, the Department found that the rate of average 
investigations relative to the number of reports of sexual offenses 
under the Clery Act was lower at large (more than 10,000 students) 
four-year institutions than it was at smaller four-year institutions. 
As a result, the Department used the Clery Act data to impute the 
likely effect of these proposed regulations on various institutions. 
Specifically, we assume that, under these regulations, the gap in the 
rate of investigations between large IHEs and smaller ones would 
decrease by approximately 50 percent. Therefore, we estimate that the 
requirement to investigate only in the event of formal complaints would 
result in a reduction in the average number of investigations per IHE 
per year of 0.75. This reduction is equivalent to all IHEs in Group 2 
experiencing a reduction in investigations of approximately 32 percent. 
In addition, the proposed regulations only require investigations in 
the event of sexual harassment within a recipient's education program 
or activity. Again, assuming that Clery Act reports correlate with all 
incidents of sexual harassment (as defined in these proposed 
regulations), we assume a further reduction in the number of 
investigations per IHE per year of approximately 0.18, using the number 
of non-campus, public property, and reported-by-police reports as a 
proxy for the number of off-campus sexual harassment investigations 
currently being conducted by IHEs.\27\ As a result, we estimate that 
each IHE in Group 2 will experience a reduction in the number of Title 
IX investigations of approximately 0.93 per year.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Department notes that this likely represents a severe 
under-estimate of the actual proportion of incidents of sexual 
harassment that occur off-campus. According to a study from United 
Educators, approximately 41 percent of sexual assault claims 
examined occurred off-campus. United Educators, Facts from United 
Educator's Report Confronting Campus Sexual Assault (2015), https://www.ue.org/sexual_assault_claims_study/. Nonetheless, it is likely 
that some subset of these incidents occurred ``under'' the 
recipients' ``education program or activity'' and would still 
require a response by the recipient. If the Department were to 
assume 25 percent of those incidents required investigation under 
the proposed rules and increased its estimate of the number of off-
campus incidents that would no longer require investigation to 30 
percent (rather than the current 11 percent), the estimated cost 
savings of these proposed regulations would increase to 
approximately $359 to $456 million over ten years.
    \28\ We note that the alternative coding options discussed above 
would result in an estimated reduction in the number of 
investigations each year between 0.60 and 1.58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the LEA level, given the lack of information regarding the 
actual number of investigations conducted each year, the Department 
assumes that only 50% of the incidents reported in the CRDC would 
result in a formal complaint, for a reduction in the number of 
investigations of 1.62 per year. We invite the public to provide any 
information on the extent to which this is a reasonable assumption.
    To be clear, these estimates are not meant to discourage recipients 
from investigating at a higher rate. Nor do these estimates of a 
decrease in investigations predict a decrease in recipient's obligation 
to respond in some appropriate way to a report of sexual harassment. 
For example, as noted earlier, nothing in the proposed regulations 
would prevent a recipient from initiating a student conduct proceeding 
or offering supportive measures to students who report sexual 
harassment that occurs outside the recipient's education program or 
activity.
    Although we estimate that the number of investigations under the 
proposed regulations will decrease at both the IHE and LEA levels, 
Title IX Coordinators are still expected to respond to informal 
complaints or reports. Such responses will not be dictated by the 
recipient's grievance procedures, but may involve talking with the 
reporting party, discussing options, connecting him or her with 
relevant on- or off-campus resources, conducting some sort of further 
investigation, and other supportive measures.\29\ Although the proposed 
regulations require such supportive measures to be offered without fee 
or charge, we do not estimate specific costs associated with the 
provision of particular supportive measures. We have chosen not to 
include such costs for several reasons. First, in many instances, 
particular services are already offered without fee or cost to 
students. For example, many IHEs offer free mental health services to 
students. In such an instance, it is difficult to identify the marginal 
cost of an additional individual seeking out such already covered 
services. Second, even if we were able to identify the marginal cost of 
the provision of such services to the recipient, it would be difficult 
to accurately capture the portion of that cost attributable to the 
referral by the Title IX coordinator rather than to the underlying 
reported harassment. For example, Krebs et al.\30\ found that 22 
percent of victims of forced sexual assault sought out psychological 
counseling, 11 percent moved residences, and 8 percent dropped a class. 
It is difficult to assess what marginal impact these proposed 
regulations would have on the likelihood of complainants and 
respondents taking such actions. In the event that a clear fee exists 
for a particular service that the recipient would waive in accordance 
with these proposed regulations, we could calculate a cost arising from 
the lost revenue to the recipient. Due to the lack of adequate 
information about such fee structures and the highly personalized 
nature of supportive measures provided to complainants and respondents, 
we cannot at this time provide such estimates with any precision. We 
invite the public to provide any information on the relative fees that 
may be waived by recipients as a result of these proposed regulations 
and the frequency with which such measures are implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Amar et al. supra note 26, at 174 identified the most 
common campus services provided at the IHE level were mental health 
services, health services, law enforcement, and victim assistance/
advocacy.
    \30\ Christopher P. Krebs et al.,The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) 
Study: Final Report, Nat'l Inst. of Just. (2007), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We assume that the provision of supportive measures will take 
approximately 3 hours per report for Title IX coordinators and 8 hours 
for an administrative assistant at the LEA level. At the IHE level, we 
estimate that it would require 3 hours per incident for the Title IX 
coordinator and 16 hours for an administrative assistant. We therefore 
estimate that the response to informal complaints will cost 
approximately $5,356,590 per year.
    At the LEA level, we assume that the average response to a formal 
complaint will require 8 hours from the Title IX Coordinator, 16 hours 
for an administrative assistant, one hour each for two lawyers 
(assuming both parties obtain legal counsel),\31\ 20 hours from an 
investigator, and 8 hours from a decision-maker. We also assume that, 
in 75 percent of LEAs, the Title IX

[[Page 61488]]

coordinator also acts as the decision-maker, which would not be 
allowable under the proposed regulations. Assuming a reduction in the 
average number of investigations of 1.62 per LEA per year and the use 
of an independent decision-maker in each investigation, these proposed 
regulations would result in a cost savings of $57,136,120 per year at 
the LEA level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ This average is based on the assumption that in a 
significant number of cases at the LEA level, either or both of the 
parties will choose to proceed without an attorney, or with a non-
attorney advisor, such that the average cost for advisors will be 
two attorney hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the IHE level, we assume that the average response to a formal 
complaint would require 24 hours from the Title IX Coordinator, 40 
hours from an administrative assistant, 40 hours each for 2 lawyers 
(assuming both parties obtain counsel), 40 hours for an investigator, 
and 16 hours for a decision-maker. We note that, under these proposed 
regulations, recipients are required to provide parties with advisors 
to conduct cross-examination if they do not have an advisor present. 
Given that our estimates assume all parties obtain counsel, we do not 
believe that this additional requirement would result in an increased 
cost not otherwise captured by our estimates. Consistent with Wiersma-
Mosley and DiLareto, we also assume that the Title IX coordinator 
serves as the decision-maker in 60 percent of IHEs. Assuming an average 
reduction of 0.0.93 investigations per year per IHE and the use of 
independent decision-makers, we estimate these proposed regulations to 
result in a net cost savings of $41,440,300 per year at the IHE level.
    We recognize that some recipients may currently conduct 
investigations in a manner with a less robust due process framework 
than what would be required under the proposed regulations. For these 
recipients, included in Group 1 as described in section 4.b, the 
regulations may result in an increased cost per investigations. At the 
LEA level, we assume these regulations would require 2 additional hours 
from the Title IX coordinator, 4 hours from an administrative 
assistant, 1 hour each from two lawyers, 10 additional hours from an 
investigator, and 8 additional hours from a decision-maker per 
investigation, for a total increased cost of approximately $1,609,200 
per year. At the IHE level, we assume that these proposed regulations 
would require an additional 6 hours from a Title IX coordinator, 10 
hours from an administrative assistant, 20 hours each from two lawyers, 
20 hours from an investigator, and 16 hours from a decision-maker, for 
a total increased cost of $2,829,570 per year.
    We note that the proposed regulations require a hearing for formal 
complaints at the IHE level. We do not estimate any additional cost 
associated with this provision beyond those outlined above, given that 
the use of hearing boards has become a relatively common practice at 
the IHE level.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Amar et al., supra note 26, at 172-3 found that 
approximately 87 percent of institutions used a hearing board which 
typically involved students, faculty, staff, and administrators. To 
the extent that these proposed regulations result in IHEs reducing 
the membership of hearing boards to, for example, a single decision-
maker, these regulations would result in additional cost savings not 
otherwise captured here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed regulations allow for formal complaints 
to be informally resolved. We assume that 10 percent of all formal 
complaints at the LEA and IHE level would be resolved through informal 
resolution.\33\ In such instances at the LEA level, we assume the Title 
IX Coordinator and administrative assistant will each have to dedicate 
4 hours beyond what they would have for a full adjudication to reflect 
the potential additional administrative tasks associated with this 
approach. Nonetheless, we estimate that informal resolution will save 
half of the time outlined above for lawyers and investigators, and save 
the full estimated time commitment of decision-makers. At the IHE 
level, we assume similar time savings for lawyers, investigators, and 
decision-makers, with Title IX Coordinators and administrative 
assistants each dedicating an additional 8 hours per case. In total, we 
assume informal resolution will result in a cost savings of 
approximately $3,414,980 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ This figure likely represents an underestimate of the 
actual number that would be resolved informally. Wiersma-Mosley & 
DiLoreto, supra note 19, at 6, report that 34 percent of cases were 
resolved through informal resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations also require grievance procedures to 
include the opportunity for both parties to appeal if an appeal is 
offered. Richards indicates that approximately 84 percent of IHEs have 
an appeals process. For purposes of these estimates, we assume that any 
recipient in Group 3, as described in section 4.b, currently operates 
an appeals process. However, all recipients in Groups 1 and 2 would 
need to institute such a structure. Given that many recipients in 
Groups 1 and 2 may currently operate an appeals process, this approach 
would overestimate the costs of these proposed regulations. Based on 
our review of Title IX documents from various institutions, we assume 
that approximately 50 percent of investigations taken through to a 
determination of responsibility will result in an appeal by either 
party. We assume that, at the LEA level, each appeal will require 4 
hours from the Title IX coordinator, 8 hours from an administrative 
assistant, one hour each from two lawyers, and 8 hours from a decision-
maker. At the IHE level, we assume each appeal will require 12 hours 
from a Title IX coordinator, 20 hours from an administrative assistant, 
10 hours each from 2 lawyers, and 8 hours from a decision-maker. In 
total, we estimate the appeals process will cost approximately 
$20,770,220 per year. To the extent that IHEs choose not to offer 
appeals, this calculation would represent an overestimate of actual 
burden.
    The proposed regulations require recipients to maintain certain 
documentation regarding their Title IX activities. We assume that the 
proposed recordkeeping and documentation requirements would have a 
higher first year cost associated with establishing the system for 
documentation with a lower out-year cost for maintaining it. At the LEA 
level, we assume that the Title IX Coordinator would spend 4 hours in 
Year 1 establishing the system and an administrative assistant would 
spend 8 hours doing so. At the IHE level, we assume recipients are less 
likely to use a paper filing system and are likely to use an electronic 
database for managing such information. Therefore, we assume it will 
take a Title IX Coordinator 24 hours, an administrative assistant 40 
hours, and a database administrator ($50.71) 40 hours to set up the 
system for a total Year 1 estimated cost of approximately $38,836,760.
    In later years, we assume that the systems will be relatively 
simple to maintain. At the LEA level, we assume it will take the Title 
IX Coordinator 2 hours and an administrative assistant 4 hours to do 
so. At the IHE level, we assume 4 hours from the Title IX Coordinator, 
40 hours from an administrative assistant, and 8 hours from a database 
administrator. In total, we estimate an ongoing cost of approximately 
$15,189,260 per year.
    In total, the Department estimates these proposed regulations will 
result in a net cost savings of approximately $286.4 million to $367.7 
million over ten years on a net present value basis.
4.d. Other Issues in the Proposed Regulations
    The proposed regulations address three topics that do not involve a 
recipient's response to sexual harassment and which the Department 
estimates will not result in any net cost or benefit to regulated 
entities.
    First, the proposed regulations emphasize that nothing about 
enforcement of Title IX shall require the

[[Page 61489]]

Department or a recipient to violate the constitutional rights of any 
person. The Departments estimates that there are no costs or cost 
savings arising from this proposed provision because it does not 
require any new act on the part of a recipient.
    Second, the proposed regulations state that money damages shall not 
be required by the Department as a remedy for a recipient's violation 
of Title IX or its regulations. The Department's OCR generally does not 
impose money damages as a remedy under Title IX; however, occasionally 
OCR does require a recipient to pay sums of money as reimbursement to 
remedy a Title IX violation. Although the number of instances in which 
OCR imposes money damages is minimal, the Department wishes to 
emphasize through the proposed regulation that any remedy involving 
payment of money must be linked to bringing the recipient into 
compliance with Title IX, rather than falling into a category of 
imposing money damages. There is no cost associated with this proposed 
regulation because no new act is required of recipients.
    Third, the proposed regulations clarify that a religious 
institution is not required to preemptively submit a written letter to 
the Department to claim the religious exemption from Title IX provided 
for by statute. There is no cost associated with the proposed 
regulation concerning religious institutions because the proposed 
regulation simply clarifies that such institutions do not need to 
submit a written letter to the Department to claim the religious 
exemption available under the Title IX statute, and does not require 
any new action by recipients.
4.e. Sensitivity Analysis
    The Department's estimated costs and benefits for these proposed 
regulations are largely driven by two assumptions: The number of 
recipients that will not conduct activities beyond those required for 
compliance with the final regulations, and the change in the number of 
investigations conducted each year by each of those recipients. To 
assess the robustness of our estimates, we have conducted nine 
different simulations of our model with varying combinations of an 
upper, lower, and current estimate for each of these two factors. 
Regarding the upper bound for the number of recipients that will not 
conduct activities beyond those required for compliance with the final 
regulations, we assume 100 percent of LEAs and 85 percent of IHEs. For 
the lower bound, we assume 50 percent of LEAs and 33 percent of IHEs. 
In both instances, we assume the remainder of recipients are in Group 
3. As discussed above, alternative coding of investigation rate data 
would have resulted in an estimated reduction in the number of 
investigations per IHE per year ranging from 0.60 to 1.58. Therefore, 
these estimates served as our upper and lower bound estimates for those 
institutions with a 25 percent to 75 percent reduction for LEAs. The 
estimated net present value of each of these alternative models, 
discounted at seven percent, is included in the table below.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ We note that a three percent discount rate would result in 
larger estimated savings over the ten year time horizon.

                                          Table 1--Sensitivity Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number of recipients reducing number of investigations
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Upper bound      Primary estimate     Lower bound
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated reduction in             Upper Bound.........     ($820,648,142)     ($431,940,097)     ($221,468,788)
 investigations per recipient.
                                   Primary Estimate....      (534,363,019)      (286,449,261)      (110,309,915)
                                   Lower Bound.........      (388,322,321)      (210,250,875)       (53,605,189)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, the Department believes that its evaluation 
of the likely costs and benefits is accurate in assuming these proposed 
regulations would result in a net cost savings to recipients over a ten 
year period. Although we believe the estimates presented herein are 
conservative estimates of savings, even extreme lower bound estimates 
result in a calculated net cost savings.
5. Regulatory Alternatives Considered
    The Department considered the following alternatives to the 
proposed regulations: (1) Leaving the current regulations and current 
guidance in place and issuing no proposed regulations at all; (2) 
leaving the current regulations in place and reinstating the 2011 DCL 
or the 2014 Q&A and (3) issuing proposed regulations that added to the 
current regulations broad statements of general principles under which 
recipients must promulgate grievance procedures. Alternative (2) was 
rejected by the Department for the reasons expressed in the preamble to 
these proposed regulations; the procedural and substantive problems 
with the 2011 DCL and the 2014 Q&A that prompted the Department to 
rescind that guidance remained as concerning now as when the guidance 
was rescinded, and the Department determined that restoring that 
guidance would once again leave recipients unclear about how to ensure 
they implemented prompt and equitable grievance procedures. Alternative 
(1) was rejected by the Department because even though current 
regulations require recipients to have grievance procedures providing 
for ``prompt and equitable'' resolution of sex discrimination 
complaints, current regulations are entirely silent on whether Title IX 
and those implementing regulations cover sexual harassment; addressing 
a crucial topic like sexual harassment through guidance would 
unnecessarily leave this serious issue subject only to non-legally 
binding guidance rather than regulatory prescriptions. The lack of 
legally binding standards would leave survivors of sexual harassment 
with fewer legal protections and persons accused of sexual harassment 
with no predictable, consistent expectation of the level of fairness or 
due process available from recipients' grievance procedures. 
Alternative (3) was rejected by the Department because the problems 
with the status quo regarding recipients' Title IX procedures, as 
identified by numerous stakeholders and experts, made it clear that a 
regulation that was too vague or broad (e.g., ``Provide due process 
protections before disciplining a student for sexual harassment'') 
would not provide sufficient predictability or consistency across 
recipients to achieve the benefits sought by the Department. After 
careful consideration of various alternatives, the Department believes 
that the proposed regulations represent

[[Page 61490]]

the most prudent and cost effective way of achieving the desired 
benefits of (a) ensuring that recipients know their specific legal 
obligations with respect to responses to sexual harassment and (b) 
ensuring that schools and colleges take all reports of sexual 
harassment seriously and all persons accused of sexual harassment are 
treated fairly.
6. Accounting Statement
    As required by OMB Circular A-4, in the following table we have 
prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the 
expenditures associated with the provisions of these proposed 
regulations. This table provides our best estimate of the changes in 
annual monetized costs, benefits, and transfers as a result of the 
proposed regulations.

                      Table 2--Accounting Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                             Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarity, specificity, and      Not Quantified.
 permanence with respect to
 recipient schools and
 colleges knowing their legal
 obligations under Title IX
 with respect to sexual
 harassment.
A legal framework for          Not Quantified.
 schools' and colleges'
 response to sexual
 harassment that ensures all
 reports of sexual harassment
 are treated seriously and
 all persons accused are
 given due process before
 being disciplined for sexual
 harassment.
Preserve constitutional        Not Quantified.
 rights, assure recipients
 that monetary damages will
 not be required by the
 Department, recognize
 religious exemptions in the
 absence of written request.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                      Costs
                                       ---------------------------------
                                               7%               3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading and understanding the rule....       $3,956,322       $3,384,055
Revision of grievance procedures......        6,866,478        5,873,268
Posting of non-discrimination                   179,305          153,369
 statement............................
Training of Title IX Coordinators,            1,923,912        1,645,626
 investigators, decision-makers.......
Response to informal reports..........        5,336,591        5,336,591
Reduction in the number of                 (99,176,416)     (99,176,416)
 investigations.......................
Increased investigation requirements..        4,438,769        4,438,769
Appeal process........................       20,770,218       20,770,218
Informal resolution of complaints.....      (3,414,979)      (3,414,979)
Creation and maintenance of                  18,335,868       17,880,723
 documentation........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments 
on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, 
including answers to questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed regulations (use of 
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
     Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if 
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is 
preceded by the symbol ``section'' and a numbered heading; for example, 
section 106.9 Dissemination of policy.)
     Could the description of the proposed regulations in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed regulations 
easier to understand?
    To send any comments that concern how the Department could make 
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble.

Deregulatory Action

    Consistent with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 
2017), we have estimated that this proposed rule will result in cost 
savings. Therefore, this proposed rule would be considered an Executive 
Order 13771 deregulatory action.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Business Impacts)

    This analysis, required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, presents 
an estimate of the effect of the proposed regulations on small 
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards 
define proprietary institutions of higher education as small businesses 
if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their 
field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. 
Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are 
independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of 
operation. Public institutions and local educational agencies are 
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government 
overseeing a population below 50,000.
    Publicly available data from the National Center on Education 
Statistics' Common Core of Data indicate that, during the 2015-2016 
school year, 99.4 percent of local educational agencies had enrollments 
of less than 50,000 students.
    The Department's eZ-Audit data shows that there were 1,522 Title IV 
proprietary schools with revenue less than $7,000,000 for the 2015-2016 
Award Year; \35\ however, the Department lacks data to identify which 
public and private, nonprofit institutions qualify as small. Given the 
data limitations, the Department proposes a data-driven definition for 
``small institution'' in each sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ U.S. Dept. of Educ., Federal Student Aid, Proprietary 
School 90/10 Revenue Percentages, studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-center/school/proprietary (select ``2015-2016 Award Year: Report and 
Summary Chart'' from the dropdown menu; click ``Go'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Proposed Definition

    The Department has historically assumed that all private nonprofit 
institutions were small because none were considered dominant in their 
field. However, this approach masks significant differences in 
resources among different segments of these

[[Page 61491]]

institutions. The Department proposes to use enrollment data for its 
definition of small institutions of postsecondary education. Prior 
analyses show that enrollment and revenue are correlated for 
proprietary institutions. Further, enrollment data are readily 
available to the Department for every postsecondary institution while 
revenue is not. The Department analyzed a number of data elements 
available in IPEDS, including Carnegie Size Definitions, IPEDS 
institutional size categories, total FTE, and its own previous research 
on proprietary institutions referenced in ED-2017-OPE-0076i. As a 
result of this analysis, the Department proposes to use this definition 
to define small institutions:
     Two-year IHEs, enrollment less than 500 FTE; and
     Four-year IHEs, enrollment less than 1,000 FTE.
    Table 3 shows the distribution of small institutions under this 
proposed definition using the 2016 IPEDS institution file.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See U.S. Dept. of Educ., Nat'l Ctr. for Educ. Statistics, 
Integrated Postsecondary Educ. Data System 2016 Institutional 
Characteristics: Directory Information survey file (2016), 
nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/DataFiles.aspx (select ``Compare 
institutions;'' select ``By Groups'' and then ``EZ Group'' in the 
drop down menu; select ``Title IV Participating'' and ``U.S. Only'' 
and then click the ``Search'' button; click ``Continue;'' select 
``Browse/Search Variables;'' click the plus sign next to 
``institutional Characteristics'' > ``Control or Affiliation'' > 
``Institutional Control or Affiliation'' and click the check boxes 
for ``2016-2017'' and ``Control of Institution;'' then select 
``Institutional Characteristics'' > ``Institution classifications'' 
> ``1980-81 to current year'' and check the boxes for ``2016-2017'' 
and ``Sector of institution;'' click the plus sign next to 
``Frequently Used/Derived Variables'' > ``Fall enrollment/retention 
rates'' > Total, full- and part-time enrollment and fall FTE'' and 
check the boxes next to ``Fall 2016-'' and ``Total enrollment'').

                              Table 3--Small Institutions Under Proposed Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Level                            Type                 Small           Total          Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-year................................  Public..................             342           1,240              28
2-year................................  Private.................             219             259              85
2-year................................  Proprietary.............           2,147           2,463              87
4-year................................  Public..................              64             759               8
4-year................................  Private.................             799           1,672              48
4-year................................  Proprietary.............             425             558              76
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.............................  ........................           3,996           6,951              57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed definition, the two-year small institutions are 
68% of all two-year institutions (2,708/3,962), 68% of all small 
institutions (2,708/3,996), and 39% of the overall population of 
institutions (2,708/6,951); whereas, four-year small institutions are 
43% of all four-year institutions (1,288/2,989), 32% of all small 
institutions (1,288/3,996), and 19% of the overall population of 
institutions (1,288/6,951). Figure 1 shows a visual representation of 
the universe and the percentage that would be defined as small using 
the above proposed definition.

[[Page 61492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29NO18.000

    Similarly, small public institutions are 20% of all public 
institutions (406/1,999), 10% of all small public institutions (406/
3,996), and 6% of the overall population of institutions (406/6,951). 
Small private nonprofit institutions are 53% of all private nonprofit 
institutions (1,018/1,999), 25% of all small institutions (1,018/
3,996), and 15% of the overall population of institutions (1,018/
6,951). Finally, and small proprietary institutions are 85% of all 
proprietary institutions (2,572/1,999), 64% of all small institutions 
(2,572/3,996), and 37% of the overall population of institutions 
(2,572/6,951).
    The Department requests comment on the proposed definition. It will 
consider these suggestions in development of the final rule.

2. Impact Estimate Using Proposed Definition

2.a. Impact on Local Education Agencies
    As disused in the Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers 
section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the Department estimates 
that these proposed regulations will result in a net cost savings for 
regulated entities, including LEAs. Although the savings accruing to 
any particular LEA depend on a number of factors, including the LEA's 
Title IX enforcement history, its response to the proposed regulations, 
and the number of formal complaints of sexual harassment the LEA 
receives in the future, the Department was interested in whether the 
regulations would have a disproportionate effect on small LEAs--that 
is, whether small LEAs were likely to realize benefits proportionate to 
their size and number.
    Using data from the 2015-2016 Civil Rights Data Collection, we 
examined the number of allegations of harassment and bullying based on 
sex by LEA size. Given the extreme upper end of the enrollment 
distribution that qualifies an LEA as no longer a small entity for 
these purposes--less than one percent of all LEAs--it is reasonable to 
expect that the number of reported incidents of such harassment in 
small LEAs closely aligns with the average number for all LEAs. On 
average, LEAs reported 3.23 allegations of harassment or bullying on 
the basis of sex in the 2015-2016 school year. By comparison, large 
LEAs (those with more than 50,000 students) reported an average of 
112.54 such incidents and small LEAs reported 2.64 allegations on 
average.
    Based on the model described in the Discussion of Costs, Benefits, 
and Transfers section above, the Department estimates that a small LEA 
that experienced only an 8 percent reduction in investigations annually 
would experience a net cost savings over the ten year time horizon.
2.b. Impact on Institutions of Higher Education
    As with LEAs, the Department estimates that these proposed 
regulations will result in a net cost savings for IHEs over the ten 
year time horizon. The amount of savings that any particular IHE will 
realize, if any, depends on a wide number of factors, including its 
Title IX compliance history, its response to the proposed regulations, 
and the number of formal complaints of sexual harassment the IHE 
receives in the future. Regardless of these variables, the Department 
did analyze extant data sources to attempt to analyze the likely 
differential impact across IHEs of various sizes.
    As noted in the Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers 
section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis, an analysis of data reported 
by IHEs under the Clery Act found that smaller institutions

[[Page 61493]]

tended to have, on average, fewer such reports per IHE.\37\ Applying 
the definitions noted above, we also found that small entities had far 
fewer reports than did large entities.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ We note that although enrollment and the number of Clery 
Act reports are positively correlated, enrollment alone explains 
only 26 percent of the observed variation in the number of reports.
    \38\ We note that this finding is driven largely by 
institutional size rather than a higher rate of offenses at larger 
institutions. Across all levels and school types, except for private 
4-year institutions, small entities had higher rates of Clery Act 
reports per enrolled student than did larger ones. Private 
institutions generally had the highest rates, with private 4-year 
institutions having the highest rate of Clery Act reports of any 
category examined.

                Table 4--Average Clery Act Reports of Sexual Offenses by Size/Type of Institution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Level                                 Type                   Not small         Small      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-year................................  Public...........................            12.1             1.1  11.3
4-year................................  Private..........................             8.7             0.7  4.7
4-year................................  Proprietary......................             0.5             0.1  0.2
2-year................................  Public...........................             0.7             0.2  0.7
2-year................................  Private..........................             1.2             0.1  0.3
2-year................................  Proprietary......................             0.1             0.0  0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming that Clery Act reports are correlated with the number of 
incidents of sexual harassment under Title IX, we would assume that 
small institutions have a lower number of Title IX complaints each 
year. As a result, they may experience less cost savings under this 
proposed rule given the smaller baseline. This lower baseline may, 
however, be offset slightly by the higher relative number of 
investigations undertaken at smaller institutions, as noted in the 
Senate report. Additionally, we note that small institutions also have 
a higher than average number of Clery Act reports occurring off-campus, 
indicating that they may also have a larger number of Title IX sexual 
harassment reports originating off-campus. In examining the model 
described in the Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers Section 
above, the Department estimates that, due to the small baseline number 
of investigations likely conducted by such entities currently, small 
institutions would need to realize a 37 percent reduction in 
investigations (equivalent to approximately one fewer investigation 
every five years) in order to realize a net cost savings across the 10 
year time horizon. If the institution did not need to update its 
grievance procedures, it would only need to recognize a 33 percent 
reduction (approximately one fewer investigation every six years).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and the burden 
of responding, the Department provides the general public and federal 
agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing 
collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This requirement helps 
ensure that: The public understands the Department's collection 
instructions; respondents can provide the requested data in the desired 
format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; 
collection instruments are clearly understood; and the Department can 
properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.
    The following sections contain information collection requirements:

Section 106.45(b)(7)--Recordkeeping

    Section 106.45(b)(7) would require recipients to maintain certain 
documentation regarding their Title IX activities. LEAs and IHEs would 
be required to create and maintain for a period of three years records 
of: Sexual harassment investigations; determinations; appeals; 
disciplinary sanctions and remedies; informal resolutions; materials 
used to train coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers; any 
actions, including supportive measures, taken in response to a report 
or formal complaint of sexual harassment; and documentation of the 
bases upon which the recipient concluded that its response was not 
clearly unreasonable and that its measures taken were designed to 
restore or preserve access to the recipient's educational program or 
activity. This information will allow a recipient and OCR to assess on 
a longitudinal basis the prevalence of sexual harassment affecting 
access to a recipient's programs and activities, whether a recipient is 
complying with Title IX when responding to reports and formal 
complaints, and the necessity for additional or different training. We 
estimate the volume of records to be created and retained may represent 
a decline from current recordkeeping due to clarification elsewhere in 
the proposed regulations that no investigation needs to be conducted 
where allegations, if true, do not constitute sexual harassment as 
defined under the regulations, and that informal means may be used to 
resolve sexual harassment complaints, both changes likely resulting in 
fewer investigative records being generated.
    We estimate that recipients would have a higher first-year cost 
associated with establishing the system for documentation with a lower 
out-year cost for maintaining it. At the LEA level, we assume that the 
Title IX Coordinator would spend 4 hours in Year 1 establishing the 
system and an administrative assistant would spend 8 hours doing so. At 
the IHE level, we assume recipients are less likely to use a paper 
filing system and are likely to use an electronic database for managing 
such information. Therefore, we assume it will take a Title IX 
Coordinator 24 hours, an administrative assistant 40 hours, and a 
database administrator 40 hours to set up the system for a total Year 1 
estimated cost for 16,606 LEAs and 6,766 IHEs of approximately 
$38,836,760.
    In later years, we assume that the systems will be relatively 
simple to maintain. At the LEA level, we assume it will take the Title 
IX Coordinator 2 hours and an administrative assistant 4 hours to do 
so. At the IHE level, we assume 4 hours from the Title IX Coordinator, 
40 hours from an administrative assistant, and 8 hours from a database 
administrator. In total, we estimate an ongoing cost of approximately 
$15,189,260 per year.
    We estimate that LEAs would take 12 hours and IHEs would take 104 
hours to establish and maintain a recordkeeping system for the required 
sexual harassment documentation during Year 1. In out-years, we 
estimate that LEAs

[[Page 61494]]

would take 6 hours annually and IHEs would take 52 hours annually to 
maintain the recordkeeping requirement for Title IX sexual harassment 
documentation. The total burden for this recordkeeping requirement over 
three years is 398,544 hours for LEAs and 1,407,328 hours for IHEs. 
Collectively, we estimate the burden over three years for LEAs and IHEs 
for recordkeeping of Title IX sexual harassment documents would be 
1,805,872 hours under OMB Control Number 1870-NEW.

Section 106.44(b)(3)

    Section 106.44(b)(3) applies only to IHEs and would require that 
where a complainant reports sexual harassment but does not wish to file 
a formal complaint, the IHE would have a safe harbor against a finding 
of deliberate indifference where it offers the complainant supportive 
measures, but must inform the complainant in writing of the 
complainant's right to file a formal complaint. This information 
provided by IHEs to complainants will ensure that complainants receive 
supportive measures to assist them in the aftermath of sexual 
harassment and also remain aware of their right to file a formal 
complaint that requires the IHE to investigate the sexual harassment 
allegations.
    We estimate that most IHEs will need to create a form, or modify a 
form they already use, to comply with this requirement to inform the 
complainant in writing. We estimate that it will take Title IX 
Coordinators one (1) hour in Year 1 to create or modify a form to use 
for these purposes, that there will be no cost in out-years, and that 
the cost of maintaining such a form is captured under the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec.  106.45(b)(7) described above, for a total Year 1 
cost of $441,270. Total burden for this requirement over three years is 
6,766 hours.

Section 106.45(b)(2)--Notice of Allegations

    Section 106.45(b)(2) would require all recipients, upon receipt of 
a formal complaint, to provide written notice to the complainant the 
respondent, informing the parties of the recipient's grievance 
procedures and providing sufficient details of the sexual harassment 
allegations being investigated. This written notice will help ensure 
that the nature and scope of the investigation, and the recipient's 
procedures, are clearly understood by the parties at the commencement 
of an investigation.
    We estimate that most LEAs and IHEs will need to create a form, or 
modify one already used, to comply with these requirements. We estimate 
that it will take Title IX Coordinators one (1) hour to create or 
modify a form to use for these purposes, and that an attorney will 
spend 0.5 hours reviewing the form for compliance with Sec.  
106.45(b)(2). We estimate there will be no cost in out-years, and that 
the cost of maintaining such a form is captured under the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec.  106.45(b)(7) described above, for a total Year 1 
cost of $2,584,310. Total burden for this requirement over three years 
is 35,058 hours.

Section 106.45(b)(6)--Informal Resolution

    Section 106.45(b)(6) would require that recipients who wish to 
provide parties with the option of informal resolution of formal 
complaints, may offer this option to the parties but may only proceed 
by: First, providing the parties with written notice disclosing the 
sexual harassment allegations, the requirements of an informal 
resolution process, any consequences from participating in the informal 
resolution process; and second, obtaining the parties' voluntary, 
written consent to the informal resolution process.
    This provision permits--but does not require--LEAs and IHEs to 
allow for voluntary participation informal resolution as a method of 
resolving the allegations raised in formal complaints without 
completing the investigation and adjudication.
    We estimate that not all LEAs or IHEs will choose to offer informal 
resolution as a feature of their grievance process; of those who do, we 
estimate that most will need to create a form, or modify one already 
used, to comply with the requirements of this section. We estimate that 
it will take Title IX Coordinators one (1) hour to create or modify a 
form to use for these purposes, and that an attorney will spend 0.5 
hours reviewing the form for compliance with Sec.  106.45(b)(6). We 
estimate there will be no cost in out-years, and that the cost of 
maintaining such a form is captured under the recordkeeping 
requirements of Sec.  106.45(b)(7) described above, for a total Year 1 
cost of $2,584,310. The total burden for this requirement over three 
years is 35,058 hours.

                        Collection of Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    OMB control No. and
   Regulatory section     Information collection     estimated burden
                                                    [change in burden]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
106.45(b)(7)...........  This proposed            OMB 1870-NEW. The
                          regulatory provision     burden over the first
                          would require LEAs and   three years would be
                          IHEs to maintain         $69,215,280 and
                          certain documentation    1,805,872 hours.
                          related to Title IX
                          activities.
106.44(b)(3)...........  This proposed            OMB 1870-NEW. The
                          regulatory provision     burden over the first
                          would require IHEs who   three years would be
                          offer supportive         $441,270 and 6,766
                          measures to notify the   hours.
                          complainant of the
                          right to file a formal
                          complaint.
106.45(b)(2)...........  This proposed            OMB 1870-NEW. The
                          regulatory provision     burden over the first
                          would require LEAs and   three years would be
                          IHEs to provide          $2,584,310 and 35,058
                          parties with written     hours.
                          notice when
                          investigating a formal
                          complaint.
106.45(b)(6)...........  This proposed            OMB 1870-NEW. The
                          regulatory provision     burden over the first
                          would require LEAs and   three years would be
                          IHEs to provide          $2,584,310 and 35,058
                          written notice to        hours.
                          parties wishing to
                          participate in
                          informal resolution of
                          a formal complaint.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for these 
proposed requirements. If you want to review and comment on the ICR(s), 
please follow the instructions listed under the ADDRESSES section of 
this notice. Please note that the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OMB) and the Department of Education review all comments 
posted at www.regulations.gov.
    When commenting on the information collection requirements, we 
consider

[[Page 61495]]

your comments on these collections of information in--
     Deciding whether the collections are necessary for the 
proper performance of our functions, including whether the information 
will have practical use;
     Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of 
the collections, including the validity of our methodology and 
assumptions;
     Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information we collect; and
     Minimizing the burden on those who must respond, which 
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
    Addresses: Comments submitted in response to this notice should be 
submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID No. ED 2018-OCR-0064 or via 
postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please specify the 
Docket ID number and indicate ``Information Collection Comments'' on 
the top of your comments if your comment(s) relate to the information 
collection for this rule. Written requests for information or comments 
submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the 
Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ 216-36, 
Washington, DC 20202-4537. Comments submitted by fax or email and those 
submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT: Electronically mail [email protected]. Please do 
not send comments here.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79 because it is not a program or activity 
of the Department that provides federal financial assistance.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions 
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on 
whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of 
information that any other agency or authority of the United States 
gathers or makes available.

Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local elected officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism 
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The proposed regulations in 34 CFR 106.34 and 34 CFR 106.35 
may have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132. 
We encourage State and local elected officials to review and provide 
comments on these proposed regulations.

Accessible Format

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an 
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact 
disc) on request to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document

    The official version of this document is the document published in 
the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of 
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available 
via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. You can view this 
document at that site, as well as all other documents of this 
Department published in the Federal Register, in text or PDF. To use 
PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Through the advanced search feature at this 
site, you can limit your search to documents published by the 
Department.

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 106

    Education, Sex discrimination, Civil rights, Sexual harassment.

    Dated: November 15, 2018.
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary of Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes 
to amend part 106 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

PART 106--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN EDUCATION 
PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 106 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Section 106.3 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  106.3  Available remedies.

    (a) Remedial action. If the Assistant Secretary finds that a 
recipient has violated this part, such recipient shall take such 
remedial action as the Assistant Secretary deems necessary to remedy 
the violation, which shall not include assessment of damages against 
the recipient. Nothing herein prohibits the Assistant Secretary from 
deeming necessary equitable relief to remedy a violation of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 106.6 is amended by revising the section heading and adding 
paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  106.6  Effect of other requirements and preservation of rights.

* * * * *
    (d) Constitutional protections. Nothing in this part requires a 
recipient to:
    (1) Restrict any rights that would otherwise be protected from 
government action by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;
    (2) Deprive a person of any rights that would otherwise be 
protected from government action under the Due Process Clauses of the 
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; or
    (3) Restrict any other rights guaranteed against government action 
by the U.S. Constitution.
    (e) Effect of Section 444 of General Education Provisions Act 
(GEPA)/Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 
1232g and 34 CFR part 99. The obligation to comply with this part is 
not obviated or alleviated by the FERPA statute or regulations.
    (f) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nothing in this part 
shall be read in derogation of an employee's rights under title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. or any 
regulations promulgated thereunder.
0
4. Section 106.8 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 61496]]

Sec.  106.8  Designation of coordinator, dissemination of policy, and 
adoption of grievance procedures.

    (a) Designation of coordinator. Each recipient must designate at 
least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with its 
responsibilities under this part. The recipient must notify all its 
students and employees of the name or title, office address, electronic 
mail address, and telephone number of the employee or employees 
designated pursuant to this paragraph (a).
    (b) Dissemination of policy--(1) Notification of policy. Each 
recipient must notify applicants for admission and employment, 
students, employees, and all unions or professional organizations 
holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the 
recipient that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the 
education program or activity that it operates, and that it is required 
by title IX and this part not to discriminate in such a manner. Such 
notification must state that the requirement not to discriminate in the 
education program or activity extends to employment and admission 
(unless subpart C of this part does not apply to the recipient) and 
that inquiries about the application of title IX and this part to such 
recipient may be referred to the employee designated pursuant to 
paragraph (a) of this section, to the Assistant Secretary, or both.
    (2) Publications. (i) Each recipient must prominently display a 
statement of the policy described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section 
on its website, if any, and in each handbook or catalog that it makes 
available to persons entitled to a notification under paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section.
    (ii) A recipient must not use or distribute a publication stating 
that the recipient treats applicants, students, or employees 
differently on the basis of sex except as such treatment is permitted 
by this part.
    (c) Adoption of grievance procedures. A recipient must adopt and 
publish grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable 
resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action that 
would be prohibited by this part and of formal complaints as defined in 
Sec.  106.30. A recipient must provide notice of the recipient's 
grievance procedures, including how to report sex discrimination and 
how to file or respond to a complaint of sex discrimination, to 
students and employees.
    (d) Application. The requirements that a recipient adopt a policy 
and grievance procedures as described in this section apply only to 
exclusion from participation, denial of benefits, or discrimination on 
the basis of sex occurring against a person in the United States.


Sec.  106.9   [Removed and Reserved]

0
5. Section 106.9 is removed and reserved.
0
6. Section 106.12 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  106.12  Educational institutions controlled by religious 
organizations.

* * * * *
    (b) Assurance of exemption. An educational institution that seeks 
assurance of the exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section 
may do so by submitting in writing to the Assistant Secretary a 
statement by the highest ranking official of the institution, 
identifying the provisions of this part that conflict with a specific 
tenet of the religious organization. An institution is not required to 
seek assurance from the Assistant Secretary in order to assert such an 
exemption. In the event the Department notifies an institution that it 
is under investigation for noncompliance with this part and the 
institution wishes to assert an exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of 
this section, the institution may at that time raise its exemption by 
submitting in writing to the Assistant Secretary a statement by the 
highest ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions 
of this part which conflict with a specific tenet of the religious 
organization, whether or not the institution had previously sought 
assurance of the exemption from the Assistant Secretary.
* * * * *
0
7. Add Sec.  106.30 to read as follows:


Sec.  106.30  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    Actual knowledge means notice of sexual harassment or allegations 
of sexual harassment to a recipient's Title IX Coordinator or any 
official of the recipient who has authority to institute corrective 
measures on behalf of the recipient, or to a teacher in the elementary 
and secondary context with regard to student-on-student harassment. 
Imputation of knowledge based solely on respondeat superior or 
constructive notice is insufficient to constitute actual knowledge. 
This standard is not met when the only official of the recipient with 
actual knowledge is also the respondent. The mere ability or obligation 
to report sexual harassment does not qualify an employee, even if that 
employee is an official, as one who has authority to institute 
corrective measures on behalf of the recipient.
    Complainant means an individual who has reported being the victim 
of conduct that could constitute sexual harassment, or on whose behalf 
the Title IX Coordinator has filed a formal complaint. For purposes of 
this definition, the person to whom the individual has reported must be 
the Title IX Coordinator or another person to whom notice of sexual 
harassment results in the recipient's actual knowledge under this 
section.
    Formal complaint means a document signed by a complainant or by the 
Title IX Coordinator alleging sexual harassment against a respondent 
about conduct within its education program or activity and requesting 
initiation of the recipient's grievance procedures consistent with 
Sec.  106.45.
    Respondent means an individual who has been reported to be the 
perpetrator of conduct that could constitute sexual harassment.
    Sexual harassment means:
    (1) An employee of the recipient conditioning the provision of an 
aid, benefit, or service of the recipient on an individual's 
participation in unwelcome sexual conduct;
    (2) Unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, 
pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a 
person equal access to the recipient's education program or activity; 
or
    (3) Sexual assault, as defined in 34 CFR 668.46(a).
    Supportive measures means non-disciplinary, non-punitive 
individualized services offered as appropriate, as reasonably 
available, and without fee or charge to the complainant or the 
respondent before or after the filing of a formal complaint or where no 
formal complaint has been filed. Such measures are designed to restore 
or preserve access to the recipient's education program or activity, 
without unreasonably burdening the other party; protect the safety of 
all parties and the recipient's educational environment; and deter 
sexual harassment. Supportive measures may include counseling, 
extensions of deadlines or other course-related adjustments, 
modifications of work or class schedules, campus escort services, 
mutual restrictions on contact between the parties, changes in work or 
housing locations, leaves of absence, increased security and monitoring 
of certain areas of the campus, and other similar measures. The 
recipient must maintain as confidential any supportive measures 
provided to the complainant or respondent, to the extent that

[[Page 61497]]

maintaining such confidentiality would not impair the ability of the 
institution to provide the supportive measures. The Title IX 
Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the effective 
implementation of supportive measures.
0
8. Add Sec. Sec.  106.44 and 106.45 to read as follows:


Sec.  106.44  Recipient's response to sexual harassment.

    (a) General. A recipient with actual knowledge of sexual harassment 
in an education program or activity of the recipient against a person 
in the United States must respond in a manner that is not deliberately 
indifferent. A recipient is deliberately indifferent only if its 
response to sexual harassment is clearly unreasonable in light of the 
known circumstances.
    (b) Specific circumstances. (1) A recipient must follow procedures 
consistent with Sec.  106.45 in response to a formal complaint. If the 
recipient follows procedures (including implementing any appropriate 
remedy as required) consistent with Sec.  106.45 in response to a 
formal complaint, the recipient's response to the formal complaint is 
not deliberately indifferent and does not otherwise constitute 
discrimination under title IX.
    (2) When a recipient has actual knowledge regarding reports by 
multiple complainants of conduct by the same respondent that could 
constitute sexual harassment, the Title IX Coordinator must file a 
formal complaint. If the Title IX Coordinator files a formal complaint 
in response to the reports, and the recipient follows procedures 
(including implementing any appropriate remedy as required) consistent 
with Sec.  106.45 in response to the formal complaint, the recipient's 
response to the reports is not deliberately indifferent.
    (3) For institutions of higher education, a recipient is not 
deliberately indifferent when in the absence of a formal complaint the 
recipient offers and implements supportive measures designed to 
effectively restore or preserve the complainant's access to the 
recipient's education program or activity. At the time supportive 
measures are offered, the recipient must in writing inform the 
complainant of the right to file a formal complaint at that time or a 
later date, consistent with other provisions of this part.
    (4) If paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are not 
implicated, a recipient with actual knowledge of sexual harassment in 
an education program or activity of the recipient against a person in 
the United States must, consistent with paragraph (a) of this section, 
respond in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent. A recipient 
is deliberately indifferent only if its response to sexual harassment 
is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.
    (5) The Assistant Secretary will not deem a recipient's 
determination regarding responsibility to be evidence of deliberate 
indifference by the recipient merely because the Assistant Secretary 
would have reached a different determination based on an independent 
weighing of the evidence.
    (c) Emergency removal. Nothing in this section precludes a 
recipient from removing a respondent from the recipient's education 
program or activity on an emergency basis, provided that the recipient 
undertakes an individualized safety and risk analysis, determines that 
an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees 
justifies removal, and provides the respondent with notice and an 
opportunity to challenge the decision immediately following the 
removal. This provision shall not be construed to modify any rights 
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or title II of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act.
    (d) Administrative leave. Nothing in this section precludes a 
recipient from placing a non-student employee respondent on 
administrative leave during the pendency of an investigation.


Sec.  106.45  Grievance procedures for formal complaints of sexual 
harassment.

    (a) Discrimination on the basis of sex. A recipient's treatment of 
a complainant in response to a formal complaint of sexual harassment 
may constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under title IX. A 
recipient's treatment of the respondent may also constitute 
discrimination on the basis of sex under title IX.
    (b) Grievance procedures. For the purpose of addressing formal 
complaints of sexual harassment, grievance procedures must comply with 
the requirements of this section.
    (1) Basic requirements for grievance procedures. Grievance 
procedures must--
    (i) Treat complainants and respondents equitably. An equitable 
resolution for a complainant must include remedies where a finding of 
responsibility for sexual harassment has been made against the 
respondent; such remedies must be designed to restore or preserve 
access to the recipient's education program or activity. An equitable 
resolution for a respondent must include due process protections before 
any disciplinary sanctions are imposed;
    (ii) Require an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence--
including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence--and provide that 
credibility determinations may not be based on a person's status as a 
complainant, respondent, or witness;
    (iii) Require that any individual designated by a recipient as a 
coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker not have a conflict of 
interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally 
or an individual complainant or respondent. A recipient must ensure 
that coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers receive training 
on both the definition of sexual harassment and how to conduct an 
investigation and grievance process, including hearings, if applicable, 
that protect the safety of students, ensure due process protections for 
all parties, and promote accountability. Any materials used to train 
coordinators, investigators, or decision-makers may not rely on sex 
stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications 
of sexual harassment;
    (iv) Include a presumption that the respondent is not responsible 
for the alleged conduct until a determination regarding responsibility 
is made at the conclusion of the grievance process;
    (v) Include reasonably prompt timeframes for conclusion of the 
grievance process, including reasonably prompt timeframes for filing 
and resolving appeals if the recipient offers an appeal, and a process 
that allows for the temporary delay of the grievance process or the 
limited extension of timeframes for good cause with written notice to 
the complainant and the respondent of the delay or extension and the 
reasons for the action. Good cause may include considerations such as 
the absence of the parties or witnesses, concurrent law enforcement 
activity, or the need for language assistance or accommodation of 
disabilities;
    (vi) Describe the range of possible sanctions and remedies that the 
recipient may implement following any determination of responsibility;
    (vii) Describe the standard of evidence to be used to determine 
responsibility;
    (viii) Include the procedures and permissible bases for the 
complainant and respondent to appeal if the recipient offers an appeal; 
and
    (ix) Describe the range of supportive measures available to 
complainants and respondents.
    (2) Notice of allegations--(i) Notice upon receipt of formal 
complaint. Upon receipt of a formal complaint, a

[[Page 61498]]

recipient must provide the following written notice to the parties who 
are known:
    (A) Notice of the recipient's grievance procedures.
    (B) Notice of the allegations constituting a potential violation of 
the recipient's code of conduct, including sufficient details known at 
the time and with sufficient time to prepare a response before any 
initial interview. Sufficient details include the identities of the 
parties involved in the incident, if known, the specific section of the 
recipient's code of conduct allegedly violated, the conduct allegedly 
constituting sexual harassment under this part and under the 
recipient's code of conduct, and the date and location of the alleged 
incident, if known. The written notice must include a statement that 
the respondent is presumed not responsible for the alleged conduct and 
that a determination regarding responsibility is made at the conclusion 
of the grievance process. The written notice must also inform the 
parties that they may request to inspect and review evidence under 
paragraph (b)(3)(viii) of this section and inform the parties of any 
provision in the recipient's code of conduct that prohibits knowingly 
making false statements or knowingly submitting false information 
during the grievance process.
    (ii) Ongoing notice requirement. If, in the course of an 
investigation, the recipient decides to investigate allegations not 
included in the notice provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of 
this section, the recipient must provide notice of the additional 
allegations to the parties, if known.
    (3) Investigations of a formal complaint. The recipient must 
investigate the allegations in a formal complaint. If the conduct 
alleged by the complainant would not constitute sexual harassment as 
defined in Sec.  106.30 even if proved or did not occur within the 
recipient's program or activity, the recipient must dismiss the formal 
complaint with regard to that conduct. When investigating a formal 
complaint, a recipient must--
    (i) Ensure that the burden of proof and the burden of gathering 
evidence sufficient to reach a determination regarding responsibility 
rest on the recipient and not on the parties;
    (ii) Provide equal opportunity for the parties to present witnesses 
and other inculpatory and exculpatory evidence;
    (iii) Not restrict the ability of either party to discuss the 
allegations under investigation or to gather and present relevant 
evidence;
    (iv) Provide the parties with the same opportunities to have others 
present during any grievance proceeding, including the opportunity to 
be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by the advisor of 
their choice, and not limit the choice of advisor or presence for 
either the complainant or respondent in any meeting or grievance 
proceeding; however, the recipient may establish restrictions regarding 
the extent to which the advisor may participate in the proceedings, as 
long as the restrictions apply equally to both parties;
    (v) Provide to the party whose participation is invited or expected 
written notice of the date, time, location, participants, and purpose 
of all hearings, investigative interviews, or other meetings with a 
party, with sufficient time for the party to prepare to participate;
    (vi) For recipients that are elementary and secondary schools, the 
recipient's grievance procedure may require a live hearing. With or 
without a hearing, the decision-maker must, after the recipient has 
incorporated the parties' responses to the investigative report under 
paragraph (b)(3)(ix) of this section, ask each party and any witnesses 
any relevant questions and follow-up questions, including those 
challenging credibility, that a party wants asked of any party or 
witnesses. If no hearing is held, the decision-maker must afford each 
party the opportunity to submit written questions, provide each party 
with the answers, and allow for additional, limited follow-up questions 
from each party. With or without a hearing, all such questioning must 
exclude evidence of the complainant's sexual behavior or 
predisposition, unless such evidence about the complainant's sexual 
behavior is offered to prove that someone other than the respondent 
committed the conduct alleged by the complainant, or if the evidence 
concerns specific incidents of the complainant's sexual behavior with 
respect to the respondent and is offered to prove consent. The 
decision-maker must explain to the party proposing the questions any 
decision to exclude questions as not relevant;
    (vii) For institutions of higher education, the recipient's 
grievance procedure must provide for a live hearing. At the hearing, 
the decision-maker must permit each party to ask the other party and 
any witnesses all relevant questions and follow-up questions, including 
those challenging credibility. Such cross-examination at a hearing must 
be conducted by the party's advisor of choice, notwithstanding the 
discretion of the recipient under paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section 
to otherwise restrict the extent to which advisors may participate in 
the proceedings. If a party does not have an advisor present at the 
hearing, the recipient must provide that party an advisor aligned with 
that party to conduct cross-examination. All cross-examination must 
exclude evidence of the complainant's sexual behavior or 
predisposition, unless such evidence about the complainant's sexual 
behavior is offered to prove that someone other than the respondent 
committed the conduct alleged by the complainant, or if the evidence 
concerns specific incidents of the complainant's sexual behavior with 
respect to the respondent and is offered to prove consent. At the 
request of either party, the recipient must provide for cross-
examination to occur with the parties located in separate rooms with 
technology enabling the decision-maker and parties to simultaneously 
see and hear the party answering questions. The decision-maker must 
explain to the party's advisor asking cross-examination questions any 
decision to exclude questions as not relevant. If a party or witness 
does not submit to cross-examination at the hearing, the decision-maker 
must not rely on any statement of that party or witness in reaching a 
determination regarding responsibility;
    (viii) Provide both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and 
review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is 
directly related to the allegations raised in a formal complaint, 
including the evidence upon which the recipient does not intend to rely 
in reaching a determination regarding responsibility, so that each 
party can meaningfully respond to the evidence prior to conclusion of 
the investigation. Prior to completion of the investigative report, the 
recipient must send to each party and the party's advisor, if any, the 
evidence subject to inspection and review in an electronic format, such 
as a file sharing platform, that restricts the parties and advisors 
from downloading or copying the evidence, and the parties shall have at 
least ten days to submit a written response, which the investigator 
will consider prior to completion of the investigative report. The 
recipient must make all such evidence subject herein to the parties' 
inspection and review available at any hearing to give each party equal 
opportunity to refer to such evidence during the hearing, including for 
purposes of cross-examination; and
    (ix) Create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant 
evidence and, at least ten days prior to a hearing (if a hearing is 
required under this section) or other time of determination

[[Page 61499]]

regarding responsibility, provide a copy of the report to the parties 
for their review and written response.
    (4) Determination regarding responsibility. (i) The decision-
maker(s), who cannot be the same person(s) as the Title IX Coordinator 
or the investigator(s), must issue a written determination regarding 
responsibility. To reach this determination, the recipient must apply 
either the preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and 
convincing evidence standard, although the recipient may employ the 
preponderance of the evidence standard only if the recipient uses that 
standard for conduct code violations that do not involve sexual 
harassment but carry the same maximum disciplinary sanction. The 
recipient must also apply the same standard of evidence for complaints 
against students as it does for complaints against employees, including 
faculty.
    (ii) The written determination must include--
    (A) Identification of the section(s) of the recipient's code of 
conduct alleged to have been violated;
    (B) A description of the procedural steps taken from the receipt of 
the complaint through the determination, including any notifications to 
the parties, interviews with parties and witnesses, site visits, 
methods used to gather other evidence, and hearings held;
    (C) Findings of fact supporting the determination;
    (D) Conclusions regarding the application of the recipient's code 
of conduct to the facts;
    (E) A statement of, and rationale for, the result as to each 
allegation, including a determination regarding responsibility, any 
sanctions the recipient imposes on the respondent, and any remedies 
provided by the recipient to the complainant designed to restore or 
preserve access to the recipient's education program or activity; and
    (F) The recipient's procedures and permissible bases for the 
complainant and respondent to appeal, if the recipient offers an 
appeal.
    (iii) The recipient must provide the written determination to the 
parties simultaneously. If the recipient does not offer an appeal, the 
determination regarding responsibility becomes final on the date that 
the recipient provides the parties with the written determination. If 
the recipient offers an appeal, the determination regarding 
responsibility becomes final at either the conclusion of the appeal 
process, if an appeal is filed, or, if an appeal is not filed, the date 
on which an appeal would no longer be considered timely.
    (5) Appeals. A recipient may choose to offer an appeal. If a 
recipient offers an appeal, it must allow both parties to appeal. In 
cases where there has been a finding of responsibility, although a 
complainant may appeal on the ground that the remedies are not designed 
to restore or preserve the complainant's access to the recipient's 
education program or activity, a complainant is not entitled to a 
particular sanction against the respondent. As to all appeals, the 
recipient must:
    (i) Notify the other party in writing when an appeal is filed and 
implement appeal procedures equally for both parties;
    (ii) Ensure that the appeal decision-maker is not the same person 
as any investigator(s) or decision-maker(s) that reached the 
determination of responsibility;
    (iii) Ensure that the appeal decision-maker complies with the 
standards set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section;
    (iv) Give both parties a reasonable, equal opportunity to submit a 
written statement in support of, or challenging, the outcome;
    (v) Issue a written decision describing the result of the appeal 
and the rationale for the result; and
    (vi) Provide the written decision simultaneously to both parties.
    (6) Informal resolution. At any time prior to reaching a 
determination regarding responsibility the recipient may facilitate an 
informal resolution process, such as mediation, that does not involve a 
full investigation and adjudication, provided that the recipient--
    (i) Provides to the parties a written notice disclosing--
    (A) The allegations;
    (B) The requirements of the informal resolution process including 
the circumstances under which it precludes the parties from resuming a 
formal complaint arising from the same allegations, if any; and
    (C) Any consequences resulting from participating in the informal 
resolution process, including the records that will be maintained or 
could be shared; and
    (ii) Obtains the parties' voluntary, written consent to the 
informal resolution process.
    (7) Recordkeeping. (i) A recipient must create, make available to 
the complainant and respondent, and maintain for a period of three 
years records of--
    (A) Each sexual harassment investigation including any 
determination regarding responsibility, any disciplinary sanctions 
imposed on the respondent, and any remedies provided to the complainant 
designed to restore or preserve access to the recipient's education 
program or activity;
    (B) Any appeal and the result therefrom;
    (C) Informal resolution, if any; and
    (D) All materials used to train coordinators, investigators, and 
decision-makers with regard to sexual harassment.
    (ii) A recipient must create and maintain for a period of three 
years records of any actions, including any supportive measures, taken 
in response to a report or formal complaint of sexual harassment. In 
each instance, the recipient must document the basis for its conclusion 
that its response was not clearly unreasonable, and document that it 
has taken measures designed to restore or preserve access to the 
recipient's educational program or activity. The documentation of 
certain bases or measures does not limit the recipient in the future 
from providing additional explanations or detailing additional measures 
taken.

[FR Doc. 2018-25314 Filed 11-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P