The Catholic University of America



Non-Discrimination with Respect to Students

 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; 28 C.F.R. § 42.201 et seq.,

34 C.F.R. § 106.1 et seq., 45 C.F.R. § 86.1 et seq.

Purpose: Prohibits gender discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal funds. Independent undergraduate programs may be single-sex programs, and an exemption is contained for religiously affiliated colleges if a conflict exists between Title IX and their religious tenets. An application for a waiver must be submitted. Sexual harassment of students is also prohibited by Title IX. 

A pre-admission Miss/Mrs. inquiry or any inquiry as to marital status is expressly prohibited. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.21(c)(4). Forms should be revised where necessary to ask only for Mr. or Ms., and delete the choice of Mrs. or Miss.

Actions Necessary: Requires the adoption and publication of grievance procedures to resolve employee and student complaints, as well as the designation of a responsible employee to coordinate compliance and notification to all students and employees of the name, address, and phone number of the responsible employee. Requires dissemination of a notice of non-discrimination on the basis of sex. The notice must be included in each announcement bulletin, catalog and application form and posted on the school's website, and OCR suggests sending electronically as well.  OCR recommends that the non-discrimination policy state that prohibited sex discrimination covers sexual harassment, including sexual violence, and that the policy include examples of the type of conduct that it covers.

See this link for a summary of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization on the Campus Security Act web page. 

Title IX Proposed Rules, Nov. 16, 2018, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education*

See Inside Higher Ed for a summary of the proposed rules. The DOE has posted a Section by Section Summary  and a one page fact sheet Colleges may set their own evidentiary standard, are only responsible for misconduct that occurred within a college's own programs, and makes mandatory the ability of accused students to cross examine their accusers, but only advisers, not students themselves, could ask questions of the other party. The rule also narrows the definition of sexual harassment. The rule also narrows the definition of sexual harassment. See the Chronicle of Higher Education, What you Need to Know about the Proposed Title IX Regulations. See also the ACE Resource Page on the Proposed Regulation. 


 OCR Instructions to the Field re Scope of Complaints, June 15, 2017

Internal memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to Office for Civil Rights (OCR) regional directors on conducting investigations for alleged violations of civil rights laws. Scope of investigations now case by case, and OCR won't be required to go back for three years of complaint data. 

Dear Colleague Letters


DCL April 24, 2015 on role of Title IX Coordinators, as well as letter to Title IX Coordinators, and a new Title IX Resource Guide. (this document remains in place)

  • Clarifies that Coordinator should report directly to Senior Leadership, such as the President.
  • States a preference for a full time Title IX Coordinator dedicated to that role.
  • Title IX Coordinator should be involved in drafting and revision of policies.
  • The website must reflect complete and current information about the School's Title IX Coordinator.
  • There should be a link to Title IX page from University homepage.
  • Title IX Coordinators must be provided with training

See ACE Issue Brief on the New Guidance.


DCL June 25, 2013 on Supporting the Academic Success of Pregnant and Parenting Students Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, June 25, 2013. See the pamphlet published by DOE. Generally directed to K-12 but also applicable to IHEs. See US Officials Clarify Colleges' Duites to Pregnant and Parenting Students in the Chronicle on June 26, 2013.

Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Violence, April 4, 2011 (this subregulatory guidance has now been withdrawn)
This letter clarifies sexual violence is a form of harassment prohibited by Title IX. The letter notes that Title IX coordinators should not have other job responsibilities that create a conflict of interest. Title IX coordinators and the school's law enforcement unit employees should all receive training on Title IX grievance procedures. Grievance procedures should be clarified to note that mediation is not appropriate in sexual assault cases. The letter restates/clarifies what is involved in providing a prompt and equitable resolution of a complaint, as follows: 

  • Notice to students and employees of the grievance procedures, and where the complaint may be filed;
  • Application of the procedures to complaints alleging harassment carried out by employees, other students, or third parties;
  • Adequate, reliable and impartial investigation of complaints, including the opportunity (for both parties) to present witnesses and other evidence;
  • Designated and reasonably prompt time frames for the major stages of the complaint process;
  • Notice to parties of the outcome; and
  • An assurance that the school will take steps to prevent recurrence of any harassment and to correct its discriminatory effects on the complainant and others, if appropriate.

    Schools should not wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings to begin their own Title IX investigation, and if needed, should take immediate steps to protect the student in the educational setting. Any MOU with local police should include clear policies on when a school will refer the matter to local law enforcement. The letter clarifies that a *preponderance of the evidence* standard should be used in place of the higher *clear and convincing evidence* standard which is inconsistent with the standard of proof required for violations of civil rights laws. Schools must maintain documentation of all proceedings, which may include written findings of facts, transcripts, or audio recordings. All persons involved in implementing grievance procedures must have training or experience in handling complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence, and in the grievance procedures and related confidentiality requirements.

    Schools should take proactive measures to prevent harassment and violence, including preventive education programs and victim resources.  OCR recommends that schools inform students that the IHE's primary concern is student safety, and that any other rule violations (such as alcohol or drugs) will be dealt with separately. The complainant shoudl be given options to avoid contact with the alleged perpetrator.  



Cases and Resolution Agreements

Note: In a number of cases, the respondents in Title IX cases are suing the colleges and universities, claiming lack of due process, gender bias, breach of contract as a result of disciplinary actions (often expulsion) taken against the male respondents. This page will not have an exhaustive list of these cases. 

State of Texas et al. v. United States, Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-00054-O (Dist. Ct. N. Dist. Texas) (August 21, 2016)

Plaintiff State of Texas plus 12 other states and various state agencies sued the U.S Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Justice, the Dept. of Labor, the EEOC, and various agency officials seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the May 13, 2016 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on transgender bathroom access, as well as other guidelines purporting to interpret Title VII and Title IX. (See footnote # 4 in the opinion for a list)

Plaintiffs challenge the regulatory procedure (issuing a DCL rather than utilizing the Administrative Procedure Act) chosen by the federal government in seeking to require schools to allow students access to bathrooms and locker rooms in accord with their gender identity rather than their biological sex. Plaintiffs assert the plain language of 34 CFR 106.33 refers to the traditional biological meaning of male and female, and that causing the states to interpret differently will cause Plantiffs irreparable harm. 

Defendants argue the DCL is consistent with Title IX and that the DCL is merely an expression of the agencies' views and it is not legally binding and does not expose Plaintiffs to new liability or legal requirements. The court summarized the positions taken by the parties as follows:  

Plaintiffs argue that: (1) Defendants skirted the notice and comment process—a necessity for legislative rules; (2) the new mandates are incompatible with Title VII and Title IX and the agencies are not entitled to deference; (3) the mandates violate the clear notice and anti-coercion requirements which the federal government may attach to spending programs; and (4) nationwide relief is necessary to prevent the irreparable harm Defendants will cause Plaintiffs.

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction because: (1) Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring their claims; (2) this matter is not ripe for review; (3) Defendants’ Guidelines do not violate the APA; (4) Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate irreparable harm and they have an alternative remedy; (5) Defendants did not violate the Spending Clause; (6) and an injunction would harm Defendants and third parties. . Defendants allege that should an injunction be granted, it should be implemented only to Plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit. 

Plaintiffs pointed to various resolution agreements and litigation against the state of North Carolina brought by federal agencies to enforce the rule set forth in the DCL and designed to force compliance by states or place federal funding in jeopardy. 

The court found that the Guidelines as issued and enforced would force the Plaintiffs to take steps to come into compliance, creating injury in fact. The court noted an agency action is final if the agency's action is the consummation of the agency's decision making process and one by which rights are to be determined, or from which legal consequences will flow. 

The court found the rules in question to be legislative and substantive rather than merely interpretive, as the agency had "drawn a line in the sand", and the court noted post-guidance events proved the rule to be "compulsory in nature". The court found Plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits that the Defendants violated the notice and comment period of the Administrative Procedure Act, as there was no process under the APA.  

Further, the court rejected the Agencies argument that the regulation in question was ambiguous and thus found the agency interpretation was not entitled to deference. Because the DCL would likely require the States to ignore their own statutes enacted by state representatives, the Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of irreparable injury. The court noted Plaintiffs threatened harm outweighed Defendants, especially since a decision from the Supreme Court might obviate the issue. This was in reference to the August 3, 2016 stay issued by the Supreme Court in the 4th Circuit case of Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm.  In that order, the Supreme Court placed a hold on enforcement of a 4th Circuit Ruling requiring transgender bathroom/locker room access. 

The court ordered a preliminary injunction to be issued nationwide preventing the federal government from enforcing the DCL against Plaintiffs and their schools and institutions, or from initiating, continuing or concluding any investigation based upon Defendants' interpretation that the definition of sex includes gender identity as part of Title IX's prohibition against discrimination based upon sex. 

Occidental College Resolution Agreement with OCR, dated June 8, 2016. See also the June 9, 2016 OCR letter to Occidental

Different from some other cases in that Occidental was able to resolve the investigation to the satisfaction of OCR before the OCR had completed its review. 

 OCR Resolution Agreement with University of Virginia dated Sept. 17, 2015

In addition to a number of other steps (similar to what many schools are doing-expanded Title IX personnel, bystander training, new policy and procedures and updated web page) the University hire an Equity Consultant to advise on Title IX issues. In Section IV. 3 the agreement notes the Title IX Coordinator will have ultimate responsibility for "adjudication of whether sexual harassment or violence has occurred in individual cases". Section VI E is very explicit about training (regular mandatory) for all students, including graduate and professional students. Section IX contains a number of specific terms for the climate survey, including formation of a student campus climate committee. See UVA Today dated Sept. 21, 2015 for a summary by UVA of the OCR findings.

OCR Sept. 1, 2015 Letter (42 pages) to Michigan State on handling of two cases under Title IX. This follows a 28 page Resolution Agreement signed by the University and OCR on August 28, 2015.

Suny Resolution Letter, October 2013, along with copy of the agreement with OCR, and press release from Dept. of Education.

Press Release Announcing Settlement Agreement with University of Montana on Sexual Assault and Harassment, May 9, 2013. This page also contains the Resolution Agreement (DOJ DJ Number 169-44-9 OCR Case No. 10126001 as well as the Letter of Findings dated 

 Banzhaf v. Garvey;  DC Office of Human Rights.Docket No. 11-343-EI 11/29/11

Professor John Banzhaf III, a law professor at George Washington University, filed a complaint of discrimination on July 8, 2011 against President John Garvey, President of The Catholic University of America, in his individual capacity. The complaint alleged that eliminating mixed gender dorms on the CUA campus and requiring students to live in single sex dorms constituted gender discrimination under the DC Human Rights Act. Respondent  requested dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the University had not engaged in or aided and abetted unlawful sex discrimination by institution of the single sex dorm policy. Respondent also asserted that Title IX allows for same sex dormitories.  The University also asserted that the policy was implemented for legitimate reasons, including to advance the University's religious mission.

The DC Office of Human Rights granted Respondent President Garvey's motion to dismiss, and stated as follows: 

After examining the legislative history of the Act, District case law, Title IX, and other
applicable federal precedent, OHR finds that Complainant fails to state a claim for which relief
can be granted under the Act because same-sex dormitories do not constitute unlawful
discrimination. We hold that the DCHRA does not forbid colleges and universities from making
sex-based distinctions between students. We agree that to follow Complainant's reasoning would
include a prohibition on same-sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams, which would lead
to absurd results. ****

Finally, we heavily base our decision on Title IX. This law specifically states that same-sex
housing policies on college campuses do not constitute "discrimination" on "the basis of sex."
See 20 U.S. C.§ 1686.

Title IX Resolution Agreement with Xavier University, OCR Docket Number 15-12-Z048, 7-23-12

Resolution Agreement: OCR and The University of Notre Dame: June 2011. 

This agreement is instructive as to how OCR will deal with investigations post issuance of the April 4, 2011 Dear Colleague Letter. See the Chronicle article dated July 1, 2011 and titled U.of Notre Dame to Clarify Sexual Harassment Policies in Settlement with Education Department. A "preponderance of evidence" standard was adopted. The OCR investigated Notre Dame after a student from St. Mary's College committed suicide after filing a sexual assault complaint against a Notre Dame football player.See the July 1st press release from Notre Dame, as well as the June 30, 2011 OCR letter to the University.


Selected Case Law (archived on another web page)


Q: Does an applicant who was denied admission to a graduate program have standing to file a complaint of discrimination through the institution's internal complaint process that is applicable only to complaints made by employees and students of the institution or is that person limited to file a complaint through state and/or federal agencies?

A.OCR's 504 regulation at 34 CFR 104.7, requiring schools to have grievance procedures, includes this: "Such procedures need not be established with respect to complaints from applicants for employment or from applicants for admission to postsecondary institutions." The Title IX regulation at 34 CFR 106.8 requires grievance procedures for the "resolution of student and employee complaints." The ADA regulations for Title II doesn't expressly include that limitation. OCR's Title VI regulations don't include a requirement for grievance procedures.



NACUANOTES Key Aspects of the Title IX 2017 Q&A (March 2018)

NCAA Sexual Violence Prevention Toolkit Sept. 2017

Dear Colleague Letter of February 22, 2017 from the Dept.of Education withdrawing the May 13, 2017 DCL on Transgender students. 

NACUANOTES  Practical Considerations in Developing and Implementing Title IX Campus Climate Surveys by Justin H. Smith, June 23, 2016 

DCL Letter from Department of Education OCR  on Voluntary Youth Organizations, Dec. 15, 2015

Generally schools are allowed to assist single sex youth organization w/o violating Title IX.

August 2015: New Resource: The Center for Changing Our Campus Culture, announced by the Department of Justice.

Sample Language for Title IX Coordinator’s Role in Sexual Misconduct Policy


April 4, 2011 DCL Related Articles and Guidance based on 4-4-11 letter

 Sample Language and Definitions of Prohibited Conduct for Sexual Misconduct Policies

Sample Language for Interim and Supportive Measures ***

 Checklist for Campus Sexual Misconduct Policies 

NACUANOTES: January 17, 2012: "Dear Colleague" Letter on Title IX and Sexual Violence - Training Obligations

NACUANOTES: January 11, 2012: "Dear Colleague" Letter on Title IX and Sexual Violence - First Steps for Compliance 

NACUANOTES Vol. 12, No. 1 - Policing the Police: The DOJ's Agreement with the University of Montana's Office of Public Safety October 25, 2013

NACUANOTES Vol. 11, No. 12 - The Impact of the May 2013 Montana “Blueprint” on the Sexual Harassment-Related Obligations of Colleges and Universities June 14, 2013

December 2, 2015: NACUANotes: Behind the Scenes: A Closer Look at the Title IX Resolution Letters and Agreements of 2014

AGB Advisory Statement on Sexual Misconduct: Produced in conjunction with NACUA, fall 2013. Designed to give Boards guidance on fiduciary duty and responsibilities on collaboration with leadership on issues related to sexual misconduct.


 Dear Colleague Letter on Activities Counted for Title IX Compliance, Sept. 17, 2008
If schools are members of an intercollegiate athletic org, such as NCAA or NAIA, or state high school associations with organizational requirements, they will often satisfy Title IX if the required factors have been built in to the organizational requirements. If not, then there is a case by case analysis that involves looking at items like program structure and administration and team preparation and competition. This letter expounds on those factors.

April 2010 Policy Clarification: The Dept. of Education will no longer allow universities to rely upon a a survey alone to prove Title IX compliance. See Rule Change Takes Aim at Loophole in Title IX published April 20th, 2010 in the New York Times. See also the April 20, 2010 Policy Clarification. This Dear Colleague letter withdraws the 2005 Additional Clarification which allowed reliance upon student survey results to prove interest in a sport and thus meet Part Three of the Three Part test.

Part Three of the three part test states as follows: "The institution is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex." 

The 1996 Clarification of the Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance is still in effect, along with the July 2003 Further Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance Regarding Title IX. See the Q and A regarding the Dear Colleage Letter. 

The Dear Colleague letter sets out the multiple indicators OCR evaluates to determine whether there is unmet athletic interest and ability among students who are members of the underrepresented sex in an institution's athletics program. The letter also provides technical assistance on effective procedures for collecting, maintaining, and evaluating information on students' athletic interests and abilities, and the nondiscriminatory design and implementation of surveys as one assessment technique under Part Three of the three-part test. OCR evaluates the overall weight it will accord the results of a survey by examining the following factors, among others: content of the survey; target population surveyed; response rates and treatment of nonresponses;confidentiality protections; and frequency of conducting the survey.

OCR Dear Colleague Letter dated June 25, 2007 re Pregnant Athletes: This letter reminds schools that terminating or reducing financial assistance on the basis of pregnancy or a related condition is prohibited under Title IX and also reiterates this language from 34 C.F.R.§ 106.40(b)(l).

[a] recipient shall not discriminate against any student, or exclude any student from its education program or activity, including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student's pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom, unless the student requests voluntarily to participate in a separate portion of the program or activity of the recipient.

Institutions may require pregnant student athletes to obtain a physician's certification of fitness to continue in an educational program or activity, but only if such certification is required of all students for other physical or emotional conditions requiring physician treatment.

NACUANOTES: June 22, 2010: Title IX Implications of Eliminating An Intercollegiate Sports Team by William Thro, University Counsel and Associate Professor of Government, Christopher Newport University  

US Commission on Civil Rights Report Title IX Athletics: Accommodating Interests and Abilities (Feb. 2010) A 208 page report that concludes the best method for attaining compliance with the three part test is to used the Model Survey instrument to measure student interest in participating in intercollegiate sports. (Now outdated given OCR 4/20/10 announcement on discontinuing use of survey. See above.) 

Addressing Sexual Assault and Interpersonal Violence NCAA guide released September 3, 2014.

Equity in Athletics, Inc. v. Department of Education, et al. (4th Cir. Court of Appeals) March 9, 2011.the court found no violation of Title IX or state law by James Madison University when it eliminated mens' sports teams to attempt to achieve substantial proportionality.

Consent Decree Biedinger v. Quinnipiac University, entered 4/26/13.This is a recommittment to the women's volleyball team for the next three years. See the Quinnipiac Chronicle for a summary and the history of the case below. Additional items were agreed to by the University.

Biedinger v. Quinnipiac University, Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Life Injuction, Case No: 3:09-cv-621 (U.S. D.Ct. Conn.) March 4, 2013. Lengthy (almost 100 pages) overview of Title IX as it relates to women's athletic opportunities. e University brought the present action to lift the injunction, claiming that changes to its athletic program over the last two years brought the institution into compliance with Title IX. The court denied the motion, finding that while the University “is making substantial progress toward Title IX compliance,” the university has not demonstrated a significant change in its allocation of athletic opportunities for women such that the continued enforcement of the injunctive order is no longer equitable.

Biedinger v. Quinnipiac University, (C.A. 2) August 7th, 2012. Docket No. 10-3302-cv
Affirmed lower court ruling. (See below) Quinnipiac University appealed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) from a permanent injunction ordered on July 22, 2010, by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill, Judge), after a bench trial at which Quinnipiac was found to have violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX") by failing to afford equal participation opportunities in varsity sports to female students.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held as follows:

(1)policy clarification and letters issued by Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) were entitled to substantial deference;
(2) university's women's running teams represented 67, rather than 78, genuine athletic participation opportunities;
(3) competitive cheerleading participants could not be counted under Title IX; and
(4) university failed to afford female students varsity athletic opportunities substantially proportionate to their enrollment.

Biediger et al v. Quinnipiac University, No. 3:09cv621 (US Dist. Court. Conn.) July 21, 2010
 The Judge in this case on cheerleading concluded the University's competitive cheerleading team does not qualify as a competitive sport for the purpose of Title IX. At the present time the activity is "too underdeveloped and disorganized to be treated as offering genuine varsity athletic participation opportunities for students."

In relevant part the court noted as follows at page 30: 

Despite its athletic elements, however, competitive cheer is not recognized as a sport by the NCAA.
Nor does the NCAA recognize competitive cheer as an “emerging sport,” a provisional designation that allows a university to count the activity toward NCAA revenue distribution and minimum sports sponsorship requirements. 2009-10 NCAA Division I Manual (Def. Ex. EP) §, at 298. Furthermore, the Department of Education has not recognized competitive cheerleading to be a sport. Indeed, schools reporting their athletic participation data to the Department of Education under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (“EADA”) are instructed to report their cheerleading team rosters only if they have received a letter from OCR determining that their cheerleading squads are legitimately engaged in sport.

 And at page 42: 

 For the 2009-10 season, Quinnipiac never sought a letter from OCR determining that its
competitive cheer members were athletic participants for the purpose of Title IX. The University
did not seek the letter despite a requirement set forth on the EADA reporting forms, which states
that a school may not count cheerleading as a varsity sport without an OCR determination letter;
instead of requesting the letter, Quinnipiac chose not to include its competitive cheer data on its
EADA disclosure. 

The court also noted that since 2000 OCR has never held an intercollegiate varsity cheerleading team program to be a sport for Title IX purposes. The court mentioned four ways in which the sport feel short, and relied upon three of them in issuing a ruling:  (opinion at pages 68-69)

First, the fact that the team did not – and could not – engage in any off-campus
during the season marks a significant departure from what would be expected of any
other competitive Division I varsity team. Although the women on the Quinnipiac competitive
cheer team were athletically able, they would have been all the more talented had Powers been
able to seek out the best competitive cheerleaders around the country, as any other varsity coach
would have been able to do.

Second, the Quinnipiac regular season was inconsistent in terms of the rules governing
the team’s competitions and the types and quality of its opponents. Two basic features of any
other collegiate varsity program are the application of a uniform set of rules for competition and the restriction of competition to contests against other varsity opponents.
 Those features ensure that play is fair in each game, that teams’ performances can be compared across a season, and
that teams can be distinguished in terms of quality. Those touchstones of a varsity program are
absent from the University’s competitive cheer 2009-10 regular season.

Third, the Quinnipiac post-season fell short of what would be expected of any other
varsity team
. Quinnipiac participated in an open invitational that made no distinctions among the
relative strengths of the entrants and required the teams to engage in forms of competition
associated with sideline, and not competitive, cheerleading. Most other varsity sports would
have used some system to separate teams and competitors in terms of quality, and would haveranked, seeded, or excluded teams on the basis of their performances during the regular season.
Moreover, any other varsity sport would not have imposed new rules of competition in the postseason
that teams did not follow during the regular season.

Finally, I note that, although the competitive cheer team received many benefits and
services associated with a typical varsity sport, there were some items that Quinnipiac did not
offer, such as locker space, and the NCAA refused to insure the team members. 
These are
relatively minor differences between the competitive cheer and other Quinnipiac varsity teams,
however, and they do not weigh heavily in my analysis.

On the facts of the 2009-10 season, I find the Quinnipiac competitive cheer team’s inability to recruit off campus, its inconsistent regular season, and its aberrant post-season sufficient to conclude that the women’s competitive cheer team was not a varsity sport under Title IX. Although I have only identified three areas where the University falls short, those areas are highly important, if not essential, to the experience of participating on an intercollegiate varsity team.Without proper recruiting, team participants can never feel secure that they are surrounded by the best available talent, or at least the quality of talent that would be typical of other Division I varsity teams. Without a consistent schedule, athletes can never know just how good their team is and whether they have distinguished themselves from their opponents over the course of the season. And without a legitimate postseason, it can never be confirmed who deserves to be crowned a champion.



Dear Colleague Letter on Bullying and Discriminatory Harassment, October 26, 2010
This letter addresses the ongoing obligation of schools to launch a comprehensive response to instances of bullying and harasmment, including cyber harassment. Harassment on the basis of gender is covered, even when the harasser is the same sex as the person being harassed. The guidance includes post secondary in its purview and is clearly intended to put the burden on schools to respond to hostile environments created when students are bullied based upon their sexual orientation. The example used shows Title IX is read broadly to cover a situation where the harasser harasses someone simply because he/she believes the victim is not acting as someone of their gender should act.A fact sheet is included.

Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students By School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties: Title IX was issued by the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights on January 19, 2001. The guidance is intended to clarify how the Department will approach sexual harassment cases after the Supreme Court's decisions in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998) and Davis v Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (summarized above). The guidance distinguishes the standards applicable to a case for monetary damages, and a case or situation that is addressed pursuant to the regulatory authority of the Department of Education. The Department is basically reiterating its position that the narrower definition of liability set forth in the case law will not prevent the Department of Education from acting on its own interpretation of the law, as set forth in the guidance.


Transgender Guidance

Resources for Gender Non-Conforming Students 
Internal Memo by OCR on Title IX and Transgender Students

Feb. 22, 2017 DCL Letter withdrawing May 13, 2016 DCL on Transgender Students

DCL May 13, 2016 Letter on Transgender Students*(now withdrawn) 

updated 11-27-18