Principles for Handling Complaints Under Title IX and These Procedures

  • Equitable Treatment: The Institute will treat reporting parties/complainants and responding parties equitably.
  • Conflicts and Bias: The Institute requires that any Title IX Coordinator, Investigator, or Decision Maker not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against reporting parties/Complainants or responding parties generally or an individual reporting party/Complainant or responding party. Under these procedures, a Decision Maker may be the same person as the Title IX Coordinator or investigator, a supervisor or other appropriately trained Institute employee, or an appropriately trained external resource appointed by the Title IX Coordinator.
  • Presumption: The Institute presumes that the responding party is not responsible for the alleged Prohibited Conduct until a determination is made at the conclusion of these Procedures.
  • Reasonably Prompt Timeframes: The Institute will attempt to review, investigate, and adjudicate a complaint within a reasonable time period, typically within no longer than 70 business days (exclusive of any appeal) after a complaint is made, provided that the process may be extended with notification to the parties for good reason, including but not limited to, the absence of Party or a Party’s advisor (if applicable), or a witness; concurrent law enforcement activity; breaks in the academic schedule; or approved extensions. The timeframes of the major stages of the process are estimated as follows: Intake: five days; Investigation: 25 days; Evidence Review: 20 days; Determination/Adjudication: 20 days; and (if applicable) Appeal: 15 days. Both Parties will be notified simultaneously if the Institute determines the process cannot be concluded within 70 days. The notification will outline the reasons for extension.
  • Privacy: The Institute will take reasonable steps to protect the privacy of the Parties and witnesses under these procedures in accordance with the Policy. This means that Institute officials and employees who cannot guarantee confidentiality will maintain privacy to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the Institute’s obligations as employer and the need for the Title IX Coordinator to identify and address patterns and systemic issues. The Institute will limit disclosures as much as practicable, even if the Title IX Coordinator determines that a request for confidentiality cannot be honored.
  • Objectivity: The Institute will objectively evaluate all evidence that is relevant and not impermissible, including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. Credibility determinations will not be based on a person’s status as a reporting party/Complainant, responding party, or witness.
  • Advisors: In cases involving allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence or stalking, the parties will be entitled to be accompanied by an advisor of choice (provided that any cost associated with a paid advisor will be the responsibility of that party) to the extent required by the federal Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA).
  • Impermissible Evidence: The following types of evidence, and questions seeking that evidence, are impermissible (i.e., will not be accessed or considered, except by the Institute to determine whether one of the exceptions listed below applies; will not be disclosed; and will not otherwise be used), regardless of whether they are otherwise relevant:
    • evidence that is protected under a privilege as recognized by federal or state law or evidence provided to a Confidential Resource, unless the person to whom the privilege or confidentiality is owed has voluntarily waived the privilege or confidentiality;
    • a party’s or witness’s records that are made or maintained by a physician, psychologist, or other recognized professional or paraprofessional in connection with the provision of treatment to the party or witness, unless the Institute obtains that party’s or witness’s voluntary, written consent for use in the investigation and adjudication process; and
    • evidence that relates to the reporting party/complainant’s sexual interests or prior sexual conduct, unless evidence about the prior sexual conduct is offered to prove that someone other than the responding party committed the alleged conduct or is evidence about specific incidents of the alleged reporting party/Complainant’s prior sexual conduct with the responding party that is offered to prove consent.