2024 Summer Recap: Criminal Defense Wins, Military Defense, and Title IX Advocacy

/by

As a solo practicing attorney in Auburn, Alabama, this summer has been both productive and fulfilling. From securing wins in military defense cases across multiple states to providing expert Title IX training, I’m proud of the impact our work has had on our clients and the broader legal community. Here’s a recap of the key milestones from this summer.

Military Defense Success: Three Wins in Three States

May was an exceptionally strong month, with a perfect record in military defense cases across three different states. Each case presented unique challenges, but through strategic preparation and in-depth legal defense, we achieved outstanding results for our clients.

  • Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) Victory: Representing an Air Force officer facing an FEB, I was able to successfully argue for my client’s return to flight training, preserving their career in aviation.
  • Drug Use Allegation Defense: In another case, my client was accused of drug use, but after a thorough defense, the board found no basis for the allegations, and my client was returned to duty.
  • Allegations of Destruction of Electronic Records: In a complex case involving accusations of intentionally destroying electronic records and hindering the mission of the unit, most of the allegations were found without merit, allowing my client to return to duty.

These victories underscore the importance of experienced military defense counsel in protecting service members’ careers and futures.

Training the Next Generation: Air Force JAGs Trial Advocacy

In June, I spent a week in Seattle/Tacoma, training junior Air Force JAGs on trial advocacy techniques. This hands-on training allowed me to pass along vital courtroom strategies, helping to equip the next generation of military attorneys with the skills they need to succeed in high-pressure situations.

ROTC and Student Defense: Key Cases in Auburn

One of the highlights of my summer was defending a ROTC student accused of drug use. After thorough preparation and strategic representation, my client was allowed to return to his unit and continue his training. This case highlighted the importance of a strong defense for students facing serious allegations that can jeopardize their future.

Another student I represented faced a full Title IX hearing. The stakes were high, with the potential for my client to be expelled from school. After a comprehensive defense, the hearing officer determined that my client was not responsible for violating the policy, and he is now set to return to school this fall.

Criminal Defense Success in Auburn and Lee County Courts

Closer to home, I successfully defended clients in Auburn Municipal Court, where charges were dismissed against two individuals I represented. In Lee County District Court, I also secured the dismissal of charges against another client, demonstrating that persistence and a tailored defense strategy are key in achieving positive results for clients.

Title IX Training at Alabama A&M

This summer also gave me the opportunity to step into a teaching role, providing Title IX training to the entire faculty and staff at Alabama A&M University. This training was crucial in helping the university understand the latest updates to Title IX regulations and best practices for navigating these sensitive issues.

Looking Forward: Continued Advocacy in Criminal Defense, Title IX, and Military Law

As we move into the fall, my commitment to providing focused, client-centered representation remains steadfast. By limiting the number of clients I take on, I am able to offer more personalized, engaged advocacy—whether in military defense, Title IX cases, or criminal defense.

The results we achieved this summer reflect the power of this approach. I look forward to continuing to fight for my clients in Auburn, Alabama, and beyond.

Navigating the 2024 Changes to Title IX Grievance Procedures: An Overview of the new Grievance Process

/by

In 2024, significant revisions to Title IX regulations will affect how educational institutions receiving federal funding handle complaints of sex discrimination, including sex-based harassment. This guide delves deep into the specifics of Sections 106.45 and 106.46, explaining the requirements for all recipients and additional mandates for postsecondary institutions, like Auburn University.

Section 106.45: Comprehensive Grievance Procedures

General Requirements: Every institution must establish written procedures that are prompt and equitable in resolving sex discrimination complaints. These procedures must explicitly prevent any bias against complainants or respondents and maintain the presumption of innocence for the respondent until the conclusion of the grievance process.

Who Can File a Complaint?: Complaints can be made by:

  • Direct complainants of discrimination
  • Parents, guardians, or legal representatives acting on behalf of the complainant
  • The institution’s Title IX Coordinator
  • Students or employees, or any individual attempting to participate in the institution’s programs, only in cases not involving sex-based harassment

Key Procedural Requirements:

  • Objective Evidence Evaluation: All relevant evidence, whether incriminating or exonerating, must be objectively evaluated. This is to ensure that decision-makers base their conclusions on solid, unbiased evidence.
  • Evidence Restrictions: Certain types of evidence are excluded from consideration, such as privileged information or medical records, unless explicit consent is given. Importantly, evidence regarding the complainant’s sexual history is tightly restricted, reflecting the sensitivity of such information.
  • Timeliness and Transparency: Institutions must set clear, reasonable timelines for all major grievance stages and provide timely notifications to all parties involved about delays and their causes.

Section 106.46: Special Provisions for Postsecondary Institutions like Auburn University

This section builds on 106.45 by addressing specific circumstances at postsecondary institutions, especially where either the complainant or respondent is a student.

Live Hearings and Credibility Assessments: Live hearings are no longer required, but they are still permitted if the institution chooses to use them. If a live hearing is conducted, it must allow for real-time cross-examination by the parties’ advisors and not the parties themselves. This is the current process under the 2020 regulations. If there is no live hearing, institutions must still provide a process that allows for the proper assessment of credibility. This may involve the decision-maker asking relevant questions during individual meetings with the parties and witnesses. This ensures that even without a live hearing, there is a mechanism to effectively judge the credibility of all involved, crucial for fair decision-making. Importantly, if an institution chooses to do it this way without a live hearing, they must either provide a recording or a transcript of the interview to the opposing party so they can suggest follow up questions that should be asked. This process can go back and forth as long as the investigator or decision maker deems it necessary and warranted.

Detailed Notice Requirements: Before any initial interview, detailed written notice of the allegations must be provided, including:

  • The nature of the alleged sex-based harassment
  • Details about the grievance and informal resolution processes
  • Information on the presumption of innocence until the procedural conclusion
  • Rights to have an advisor, who may be an attorney

Handling Evidence: Both parties must have equal access to all relevant evidence collected during the investigation, ensuring transparency and fairness in the evidence review process. This can be in the form of a summarized report like is currently the standard. If they are provided a report, they are permitted to see the evidence forming the basis of that report. If there is NOT a report, the parties are simply provided the evidence.

Conclusion

The 2024 updates to Title IX regulations provide a robust framework intended to enhance the integrity of grievance procedures concerning sex discrimination in educational settings. For institutions like Auburn University, understanding and implementing these changes is crucial for compliance and for protecting the rights of their communities. For individuals navigating these processes, recognizing these procedural rights and protections can significantly impact the handling of their cases.

For experienced guidance on navigating these complex procedures or for support in a Title IX grievance, reaching out to a knowledgeable advisor is highly recommended.

Objective Evaluation of Evidence in Title IX Grievance Procedures: What’s New in 2024

/by

The 2024 Title IX Final Rule brings significant updates to how evidence is handled in Title IX grievance procedures. A key aspect of these updates is the objective evaluation of all relevant evidence, and according to the Department of Education, is designed to ensure fairness, reduce litigation risk, and align with established case law. Here’s what you need to know about these changes and how they may impact the parties involved in a Title IX grievance procedure.

Clear Guideposts for Evidence Evaluation

Under the new regulations, all evidence that may aid a decision-maker in determining whether the alleged sex discrimination occurred must be objectively evaluated. This includes both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, which the Department believes helps protect due process and ensures that all relevant information is considered fairly.

Defining “Relevant” Evidence

“Evidence is ‘relevant’ when it may aid a decision maker in determining whether the alleged sex discrimination occurred.” This definition clarifies that only evidence which could help in reaching a decision on the alleged discrimination should be considered. The Department of Education has stressed the importance of this clarity, ensuring that the evidence review process in grievance procedures is both reliable and impartial.

Exclusion of Impermissible Evidence

Despite the broad scope for relevance, there are strict prohibitions on certain types of evidence. The updated regulations exclude impermissible evidence regardless of its relevance. There are three main categories that the Department says must be excluded in an investigation, and they happen to be substantially the same as the 2020 regulations. They are

  1. Evidence that is protected under a privilege as recognized by Federal or State law
  2. 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 or treatment to the party or witness (this can be waived), or
  3. Evidence that relates to the Complainant’s sexual interests or prior sexual conduct, unless it is
    A. Offered to prove that someone other than the Respondent committed the alleged conduct; OR
    B. Is evidence about specific incidents of the Complainant’s prior sexual conduct with the Respondent that is offered to prove consent to the alleged sex-based harassment.

Opportunity for Contesting Relevance Determinations

Parties involved in a grievance procedure have the opportunity to respond to the evidence collected, including raising concerns about the relevance determinations. This provision ensures that all parties can contribute to a transparent evaluation process and contest decisions about what evidence is considered during the grievance procedures.

Training and Fairness

The final rule also requires that all investigators, decision-makers, and any personnel involved in implementing grievance procedures receive training on what constitutes relevant evidence. The Department believes this training is crucial for maintaining the standards of fairness and impartiality outlined in the regulations.

Impact on Colleges and Universities

Unlike some of the other changes, these changes here are less likely to have a significant impact on how Auburn University and other colleges and universities handle Title IX cases. Much of this remains the same from the 2020 regulations, with the exception of a clearly defined definition for relevance.

Conclusion

The 2024 updates to Title IX grievance procedures represent a substantial changes regarding the handling of sex discrimination cases at Auburn University and other educational settings. For students, parents, and educators, understanding these changes is crucial to navigating the grievance process effectively. If you are involved in a Title IX case or need guidance on these new regulations, reaching out for informed advice can help ensure that your rights and interests are fully protected.

The Return of the Single-Investigator Model in Title IX Cases: What It Means for Colleges and Universities

/by

In a significant shift from recent norms, the 2024 Title IX Final Rule reintroduces the option for colleges and universities to use the single-investigator model in handling complaints of sex-based harassment and discrimination. This model, which allows the same person to act as the investigator, decision-maker, and Title IX coordinator, has been a topic of substantial debate. Here’s what this change means and how it could impact the parties involved.

What is the Single-Investigator Model?

Under the single-investigator model, one individual is tasked with investigating the complaint, making factual determinations, and deciding whether the accused is responsible for violating Title IX policies. This model was previously more restricted due to concerns about fairness and bias, but has now been revisited to provide flexibility and potentially streamline the grievance process for colleges and universities.

Arguments For the Model

Supporters argued that the single-investigator model can make the grievance process:

  • More efficient: Reducing the number of people involved can shorten the time it takes to resolve complaints.
  • Less intimidating: Simplifying the process might encourage more students to come forward with complaints, as the process is less formal and potentially less daunting.
  • Cost-effective: Having one person handle multiple roles can reduce the administrative burden on institutions, especially smaller ones with limited resources.

Some also believe that individuals serving in these roles tend to have lower turnover rates and higher training levels, which might enhance the quality of investigations and decision-making.

Criticisms and Concerns

However, the model is not without its critics. Opponents raised several concerns:

  • Potential for bias: Critics argued that one person handling all aspects of the case could lead to biased outcomes, as the investigator might develop preconceived notions that could influence their decision.
  • Lack of checks and balances: With no separate roles, there’s a reduced capacity for oversight and balance in the process, potentially compromising the fairness required under Title IX.
  • Impact on due process: Some worried that combining these roles might diminish the procedural protections for the accused, such as the right to cross-examine evidence and witnesses in a live hearing setting.

Balancing Flexibility and Fairness

In response to these varied perspectives, the Department of Education supported the model, provided there are adequate checks and balances to ensure fairness and impartiality. The final regulations include provisions to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure all parties can respond to the evidence and report. Additionally, institutions are required to clearly articulate when and how the single-investigator model will be applied, maintaining transparency with their procedures.

Conclusion

The reintroduction of the single-investigator model in Title IX grievance procedures offers institutions a more flexible and potentially efficient method to handle complaints. However, it also places a significant responsibility on these institutions to safeguard the rights of all parties involved and ensure the process remains fair and unbiased. It remains to be seen how colleges and universities will implement this option. It is important to note that the regulations simply permit this to be an option. It is not a requirement. Furthermore, colleges and universities could decide only certain types of offenses can use the single investigator model whereas other types would require a separate decision maker or even a live hearing.

For students, parents, and fellow attorneys, understanding these changes is crucial. Each college and university will have its own policy describing how and when they will implement these new regulations. It is important to seek out someone who can help you understand these policies considering it is unlikely they will all be consistent with one another. If you or someone you know is navigating a Title IX grievance, it’s important to be aware of how these procedural choices might affect the case. Whether you’re seeking guidance on this new model or need support in a Title IX issue, do not hesitate to reach out for professional assistance.

Navigating the Expanded Definition of Sex-Based Harassment in Title IX: What You Need to Know

/by

As part of the 2024 Title IX Final Rule, the U.S. Department of Education has updated the definition of sex-based harassment to provide a more nuanced understanding that expands the definition by addressing both severe or pervasive conduct. This expansion is crucial for students, parents, and attorneys as it reshapes the landscape of what constitutes unlawful harassment in educational settings.

Understanding the Changes

Previously, sex-based harassment under Title IX was defined as conduct that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity. The new definition broadens this scope significantly. Now, the focus is not only on conduct that is both severe and pervasive but also on acts that are severe or pervasive. This change means that the conduct doesn’t need to be continuously pervasive if it is sufficiently severe, and vice versa, enhancing protections against single incidents that are profoundly distressing.

What Counts as Sex-Based Harassment Now?

The updated definition requires that harassment be:

  1. Objectively and Subjectively Offensive: It must be offensive both from the standpoint of a reasonable person and from the perspective of the complainant.
  2. Severe or Pervasive: The conduct can be either severe enough to be harmful on its own or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment over time.
  3. Impactful: The harassment must limit or deny the complainant’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program, although it does not require tangible proof of harm like reduced grades.

Understanding “Limit or Deny” an Educational Opportunity

A key component of the revised definition under Title IX is the condition that the conduct must “limit or deny” a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program or activity. This criterion acknowledges that harassment doesn’t need to completely block access to educational opportunities to be actionable; it needs to significantly hinder the complainant’s educational experience. Limiting might involve actions that disrupt a student’s ability to engage fully in learning activities, while denying could mean situations where a student is prevented from accessing an educational benefit altogether.

Context Matters

The Department emphasizes that the totality of the circumstances will be considered. This means looking at the context in which the harassment occurred, which could range from verbal comments to physical actions, and considering how they impact the educational environment. Importantly, isolated comments that do not contribute to a hostile environment will generally not meet this definition.

Implications for Colleges and Universities

The new regulations will likely lead to an increase in the number of complaints that educational institutions need to address. Indeed, the Department of Education estimates that there will be a 10% increase in complaint investigations compared to the current regulations. Colleges and universities will need to adapt by possibly expanding their resources for handling and investigating complaints to meet the new standards effectively.

Conclusion

The expanded definition of sex-based harassment reflects a comprehensive approach to combating discrimination in educational settings. Understanding how harassment can limit or deny educational opportunities is crucial for ensuring that learning environments are supportive and equitable. If you’re navigating these new complexities and find that your or someone else’s educational opportunities are being compromised as either a complainant or a respondent, reach out for specialized assistance. As an experienced attorney in Title IX matters, I am here to provide you with the guidance, support, and advocacy needed to address these issues effectively.

Contact me today to ensure that your educational environment is safe, respectful, and conducive to learning for all students.