Case: Department of Education OCR Title IX Investigation of Stanford University

On February 26, 2015, the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation to determine whether Stanford University had failed to respond promptly and equitably to reports and complaints of sexual violence and sexual harassment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. OCR consolidated three similar cases, and investigated five specific issues:

1) Whether the university complied with the Title IX requirements regarding development and dissemination of a notice of nondiscrimination;

2) whether the university complied with Title IX requirements regarding designation and notice of a Title IX coordinator;

3) whether the university's sexual harassment and sexual violence policies and procedures, as written, complied with Title IX;

4) whether the university provided a prompt and equitable response to incidents of sexual harassment and sexual violence of which it had notice; and

5) whether the university's failure to provide a prompt and equitable response allowed affected students to be to a sexually hostile environment.

OCR found that the university's notice of nondiscrimination failed to comply with Title IX because it did not consistently provide notice that inquiries about Title IX could be made to OCR. With regard to the designation and notice of a Title IX coordinator, OCR found that the university was in compliance, because it had designated a Title IX coordinator who was knowledgeable about the requirements of Title IX and who had received training with respect to responding to reports and complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence.

OCR analyzed four specific policies to determine whether the university's written policies complied with Title IX. With regard to the policies applying to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual violation by university students, OCR found compliance except in two respects. First, the policies did not provide a reasonably prompt timeframe for issuance of the Notice of Concern. Second, the policies provided an incorrect standard for addressing retaliation. OCR also recommended that the university update other sections of its policy to improve clarity. The university had a separate policy for student complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence against faculty, staff, and third parties. This policy had several major compliance issues. It did not provide adequate notice of how to file a complaint, did not include a reasonably prompt timeframe, and did not require notice of the outcome to be given to all parties. There were also major discrepancies between the two policies.

The individual complaints by students were also addressed by OCR. OCR found that the university was in compliance with regard to the first student's complaint, but had concerns regarding the university's response to the second student's complaint. Specifically, the university failed to enforce a stay-away order, did not timely provide the student with notice of the outcome of the investigation, and did not refer her report for consideration of whether to open an investigation under its Title IX grievance procedures. But OCR also determined that the university took prompt and appropriate progressive responsive actions after it received reports of the alleged stay-away and no-contact violations. The university agreed to voluntarily resolve the third student's grievances.

The university entered into a voluntary resolution agreement on April 6, 2018. The university agreed to update its notice of nondiscrimination, provide notice of the revisions and training to relevant personnel, and revise its internal system for receiving reports and complaints. The university also agreed to ongoing monitoring by OCR until the fulfillment of the terms of the agreement.