On October 31, 2023, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced a resolution agreement of a sexual harassment investigation of Arcadia University in Pennsylvania (“the University”).
OCR found the University in violation of Title IX. Specifically, OCR determined that the University failed to investigate allegations of harassment against a faculty member, and later, after initiating an investigation, the University failed to complete the investigation after the professor resigned.
Students reported concerns about the professor to University administrators as early as 2018. The faculty member was accused of making sexually inappropriate comments. OCR found there was confusion about which office should do an investigation, and a senior administrator in Human Resources thought that because the sexual harassment was not physical that it did not implicate Title IX. HR also thought that they could not investigate complaints against tenured faculty members.
Allegations against the professor resurfaced in 2021, and the University promptly conducted an investigation at that time. The professor ultimately resigned for health reasons, and the formal process was not concluded; a hearing was not held, and so the University did not make a determination about responsibility. OCR’s letter indicates that the University could have had time to schedule a hearing prior to the professor’s resignation.
Recall that the current Title IX regulations permits discretionary dismissal “if at any time during the investigation or hearing . . . the respondent is no longer enrolled or employed by the recipient.” However, the current regulations were not in place at the time this prohibited conduct occurred. Accordingly, the former University policy applied to this complaint, and that policy did not address what happened to investigations when faculty or staff left the University with a matter pending. The policy did say that matters with student respondents would proceed to a hearing, even if the respondent student withdrew.
As a result of the investigation, OCR is requiring the University to:
Complete its investigation of the complaint against the professor, including retaliation claims by the complainants;
Update its policies and procedures to clarify how Title IX applies to faculty;
Conduct an assessment to understand equity in its case processing, including reviewing prior case files, previous complaints against the professor, and a regular review of cases going forward the next two years.
This resolution agreement is not binding on other schools or institutions, but its content can include important takeaways or reminders, especially as trends continue to develop in OCR’s reviews. Consider the following:
Are administrators who are likely to receive complaints trained to recognize the range of behaviors that may constitute sexual harassment?
Does your institution’s recordkeeping system allow for tracking the type of data requested by OCR in these case reviews?
What factors does your institution consider when determining whether to dismiss a complaint when the respondent is no longer enrolled or employed at the institution?
OCR’s letter to the District is here, and the resolution agreement is here.