Tag Archive for: Title IX

Defending Against Sexual Harassment Claims Under Title IX at Auburn University

/by

The email arrived unexpectedly, a digital missive bearing the ominous title: Notice of Investigation: Title IX Sexual Harassment Complaint. For a student at Auburn University, these words are a harbinger of dread and uncertainty, casting a long shadow over their academic journey. The mere accusation of sexual harassment can trigger a seismic shift in a student’s life, disrupting their studies, relationships, and emotional well-being.

The potential consequences of such an accusation are nothing short of devastating. A Title IX investigation can result in a range of disciplinary actions, from suspension to expulsion, leaving an indelible stain on a student’s academic record. Beyond the immediate academic repercussions, the damage to a student’s reputation can be irreparable. 

Defining Sexual Harassment Under Title IX

Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational settings. Within this broad mandate, sexual harassment is a serious violation. At Auburn University, as at all institutions receiving federal funding, sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. This conduct can take various forms, broadly categorized as:

  • Quid Pro Quo Harassment: This involves conditioning an educational benefit (like a grade, a recommendation, or participation in a program) on submission to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors. Essentially, it’s “this for that” – a power dynamic where someone in authority uses their position to coerce sexual activity.
  • Hostile Environment Harassment: This is more complex. It involves unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. This means the conduct must be more than just occasional or mildly offensive. It must be so significant that it creates an environment that interferes with a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from their education. Examples could include repeated, unwanted sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or displays of sexually suggestive material.

It’s important to note that “unwelcome” is a key element. What one person considers a harmless joke, another might find deeply offensive. The standard is generally assessed from the perspective of a “reasonable person” in the complainant’s position.

Common Challenges in Defending Against Sexual Harassment Claims

Defending against Title IX sexual harassment allegations presents some unique challenges:

  • “He Said, She Said” Situations: Many cases lack corroborating witnesses, relying heavily on the accounts of the complainant and the respondent. This makes credibility assessments essential.
  • Subjectivity of “Unwelcome” Conduct: As mentioned earlier, what constitutes “unwelcome” conduct can be subjective. The “reasonable person” standard is applied, but interpretations can vary.
  • Misunderstandings and Misinterpretations: Innocent actions or words can be misconstrued, especially in social situations or within the context of evolving relationships.
  • The Role of Alcohol and Drugs: Intoxication can significantly complicate the assessment of consent and intent, making it difficult to determine what actually happened.
  • Social Media and Digital Evidence: Online interactions, often taken out of context, can be misinterpreted or used to create a misleading narrative.
  • Pressure to Believe the Complainant: While a noble sentiment, a rush to believe the allegation may result in an oversight of justice.

Understanding Consent and Incapacitation in Auburn University Sexual Harassment Cases

Consent – or the lack thereof – is often the central issue in sexual harassment cases, particularly those involving allegations of sexual assault or misconduct. Auburn University, in accordance with Title IX and best practices, defines consent as informed, voluntary, and active. 

This means:

  • Informed: knowingly giving consent. 
  • Voluntary: Consent must be freely given, without coercion, intimidation, or force.
  • Active: Consent must be actively and clearly communicated. Silence or the absence of resistance does not equal consent.

Incapacitation is a critical concept in sexual harassment cases, and it goes far beyond simple intoxication. While alcohol or drugs can contribute to incapacitation, a person isn’t automatically incapable of consent just because they’ve been drinking. Auburn University defines incapacitation as a state where someone cannot make rational, reasonable decisions because they lack the capacity to understand the “who, what, when, where, why, or how” of the sexual interaction. This is a significantly higher threshold than merely being drunk or intoxicated.

Determining incapacitation isn’t always easy, but one should look for common warning signs. These might include slurred or incomprehensible speech, difficulty walking or standing, combativeness, extreme emotional volatility, vomiting, incontinence, or unconsciousness. A person who is incapacitated may struggle to understand basic questions about their location, how they got there, what’s happening, or who they are with. These signs indicate a person may be unable to give informed, voluntary, and active consent.

Auburn University evaluates consent in potential incapacitation cases by asking: Did the person initiating sexual contact know the other person was incapacitated, or should a sober, reasonable person in the same situation have known? If either answer is yes, consent wasn’t possible. 

My Approach to Defending Against Sexual Harassment Allegations at Auburn

My approach to defending students facing Title IX sexual harassment allegations is proactive, meticulous, and always client-centered. I understand that you’re not just fighting for your academic record; you’re fighting for your reputation and your future. 

My experience working within Auburn University’s Title IX office gives me a unique understanding of the internal processes and procedures. I know how the university investigates these cases, and, importantly, I know how to identify weaknesses and effectively challenge their findings.

Here’s how I work to protect your rights:

  • Immediate Action: From the moment I’m retained, I take immediate action. I advise my clients to not speak with investigators or university officials without my presence. Anything you say can be used against you, even seemingly innocuous statements.
  • Evidence Preservation: I guide my clients to preserve all potentially relevant evidence. This includes text messages, emails, social media posts, photos, videos, and any other communication that could shed light on the situation. This digital footprint can be crucial in establishing context and challenging the complainant’s narrative.
  • Witness Identification: I actively seek out and interview potential witnesses who can corroborate my client’s version of events or provide information about the complainant’s credibility or motives.
  • Challenging the “Unwelcome” Element: I meticulously analyze the alleged conduct to determine whether it meets the legal definition of sexual harassment under Title IX and Auburn University policy. 
  • Exploring Alternative Explanations: I explore all plausible explanations for the alleged conduct. Was there a misunderstanding? Were the actions or words taken out of context?
  • Attacking Credibility: If the complainant’s credibility is questionable, I will vigorously challenge their account. This might involve highlighting inconsistencies in their statements, demonstrating bias or motive to lie, or presenting evidence of past untruthfulness.
  • Negotiating Resolutions: In some cases, it may be possible to negotiate an informal resolution with the university. I explore all avenues for resolution, always prioritizing my client’s best interests.
  • Preparing for Hearings: If a formal hearing is necessary, I thoroughly prepare my clients. I help them understand the process, anticipate likely questions, and present their case clearly and persuasively. I am prepared to cross-examine witnesses and challenge the evidence presented by the university.
  • Leveraging Auburn-Specific Knowledge: As mentioned earlier, my prior experience within Auburn University’s Title IX office is a significant advantage. I understand the internal dynamics and the university’s interpretation of Title IX policy. This inside knowledge allows me to navigate the system more effectively and anticipate potential challenges.
  • Expert Witnesses If the situation requires expert testimony, I can call on professionals to explain the important concepts to a panel.

The Importance of Due Process

In all Title IX proceedings, I am committed to upholding the principles of due process. I firmly believe that every student accused of a Title IX violation has the inalienable right to a fair and impartial investigation. This includes the right to be fully informed of the specific allegations against them, the right to present evidence and witnesses on their behalf, and the right to challenge and appeal any adverse findings or sanctions.

Work with a Seasoned Auburn, AL Title IX Defense Lawyer

Facing a sexual harassment allegation under Title IX at Auburn University is a serious matter with potentially life-altering consequences. It’s a complex process, and you need an experienced advocate on your side. I am committed to protecting students’ rights, reputations, and futures. If you’re facing a Title IX allegation at Auburn University or another Lee County school, don’t face it alone. Contact me today for a confidential consultation. I will listen to your story, explain your options, and fight vigorously to protect your interests.

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.