Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

U.S. Department of Education 

Offce for Civil Rights 

Kimberly M. Richey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

January 2021 

This report is submitted under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, 

Pub. L. No. 96–88, which provides: “The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights shall make an annual report to the 

Secretary, the President, and the Congress summarizing the compliance and enforcement activities of the Offce 

for Civil Rights and identifying signifcant civil rights or compliance problems as to which such Offce has made a 

recommendation for corrective action and as to which, in the judgment of the Assistant Secretary, adequate progress 

is not being made.” 20 U.S.C. § 3413(b)(1). 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. 

The report’s citation should be: 

U.S. Department of Education, Offce for Civil Rights 

Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress 

Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act, FY 2020, Washington, DC. 

This report is also available on the Offce for Civil Rights website at http://www.ed.gov/ocr. 

Any updates to this report will be available at this website. 

2 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

Table of Contents 

Message from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights..............................................................4 

Executive Summary and Report Highlights........................................................................................6 

The Offce for Civil Rights: Overview................................................................................................. 8 

OCR’s Caseload.............................................................................................................................. 10 

Major Feature: COVID-19 Response...............................................................................................14 

Major Feature: Signifcant Strides to Combat Sexual Violence in Schools..........................................16 

Major Feature: The Religious Liberty and Free Inquiry Final Rule......................................................20 

Title IX: Discrimination Based on Sex................................................................................................21

Issue Spotlight: OCR’s Commitment to Protecting Women’s and Girls’ Athletics............................26 

Title VI: Discrimination Based on Race, Color, or National Origin..........................................................29

Issue Spotlight: Use of Race in Admissions and Scholarships or Financial Aid...............................34 

Section 504 and Title II: Discrimination Based on Disability.................................................................36 

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001............ 41 

The Civil Rights Data Collection........................................................................................................42 

Freedom of Information Act Requests............................................................................................... 44 

Looking Ahead................................................................................................................................45 

Endnotes........................................................................................................................................47 

3 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

Message from the Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

Protecting all students in our nation’s schools is a responsibility that requires unparalleled commitment. 

It is my belief that the U.S. Department of Education’s Offce for Civil Rights (OCR) must be resolute 

in justly and impartially enforcing the law and ensuring justice for students who have experienced 

discrimination. Over the last four years, OCR has discharged this imperative in a way that has bolstered 

educational opportunities for students and provided tangible relief for students, parents, and families 

across our country. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with the dedicated staff of OCR, and I 

am pleased to present the Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress for Fiscal 

Year 2020. 

Under the Trump Administration and the leadership of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, OCR has 

prioritized reorienting its function as a neutral civil rights law enforcement agency, dedicated to full and 

faithful execution of the law. OCR’s enforcement data over the last four years demonstrate that this 

approach successfully secures compliance in schools and positive results for students and families. 

Thanks to the hard work of OCR’s talented staff, we have achieved remarkable accomplishments, 

including resolving thousands of civil rights complaints with change and greatly reducing OCR’s 

burdensome backlog. 

In OCR’s most recent Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress for Fiscal Years 

(FYs) 2019, OCR demonstrated how it achieved signifcant improvement in civil rights enforcement. 

During the frst two fscal years of the Trump Administration, OCR nearly doubled the number of 

complaints resolved per year and achieved a 60 percent increase in complaints resolved with change, compared to the previous eight years under the 

prior administration. In this year’s Report, it is evident that we have built on those signifcant successes. 

During the last four years, we achieved historic results and resolved more discrimination complaints than either of the previous two administrations did in 

any previous single term: 52,700 resolutions to be exact. In addition, under the Trump Administration, OCR’s complaint resolutions outpaced the number 

of complaints received during each of the four years of the term. Specifcally, this administration resolved complaints at a pace that allowed OCR to keep 

up with the 10,000–12,000 complaints fled each year and prioritize the backlog of complaints inherited by the prior administrations. During the eight 

years of the previous administration, OCR’s resolutions unfortunately failed to keep pace; in only two of the eight years did OCR resolve more complaints 

than it received. In fact, under the previous administration, OCR’s complaint backlog more than tripled. As a result, too many students and families were 

forced to wait years for justice. 

During the Trump Administration, OCR has achieved success in complaint resolution and in requiring schools to take corrective action to address civil 

rights violations. In fact, more than 6,000 of the record number of complaints were resolved with the school being required to make substantive changes 

to better protect their students’ civil rights, which also far outpaced any previous administration. Under this administration, OCR achieved a 20-year 

record in the number of complaint resolutions with change per year. 

In addition to this convincing enforcement record, OCR has also provided important technical assistance to schools and implemented signifcant policy 

changes that protect students, hold schools accountable, and restore fundamental fairness to the agency’s investigative process. OCR accomplished 

several signifcant milestones during FY 2020: 

n OCR announced a comprehensive Title IX enforcement initiative to address the disturbing increase in sexual assault in K-12 public schools. 

The initiative was developed to enhance OCR’s enforcement of Title IX and its ability to determine how schools handle sexual assault reports, 

through nationwide compliance reviews and Data Quality Reviews of sexual assault and sexual offenses data submitted by school districts. 

n OCR announced its Title IX Final Rule, a historic action to strengthen Title IX protections for survivors of sexual harassment, and to restore due 

process on campus during proceedings to help ensure that all students can pursue an education free from sex discrimination; 

n OCR resolved a directed investigation requiring the University of Southern California to make sweeping reforms to the way it responds to and 

addresses sexual harassment, in light of its mishandling of sexual misconduct by Dr. George Tyndall; 

n OCR completed one of its largest comprehensive compliance reviews ever into systemic sexual assault problems at Pennsylvania State 

University, requiring the University to signifcantly revise its handling of reports of sexual harassment; 

n OCR established the Outreach, Prevention, Education, and Non-discrimination (OPEN) Center, focused on strengthening civil rights compliance 

through voluntary, proactive, and targeted outreach; 

4 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

 

 

n OCR released the 2017–18 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), encompassing self-reported civil rights data from 17,604 public school 

districts and 97,632 public schools and educational programs; 

n OCR fnalized changes to the 2020–21 CRDC, which now requires public schools at the elementary and secondary level to report on incidents 

of rape, attempted rape, and/or sexual assault involving students and school staff members. These changes to the CRDC make it the only data 

collection to collect such data systemically, by school. In addition, OCR will now require schools to report disaggregated data on incidents of 

harassment or bullying on the basis of religion to the CRDC; and 

n OCR accomplished major regulatory reform by releasing the Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and 

Universities Final Rule, building on President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order 13684. 

This Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress for Fiscal Year 2020 recaps OCR’s achievements and signifcant accomplishments 

both for fscal year 2020 and over the past four years, highlighting how OCR worked tirelessly to safeguard individual rights that are guaranteed to 

all students under federal law throughout the past four fscal years of the Trump Administration. The report establishes and exemplifes how OCR has 

considerably reduced the extensive backlog of pending complaints inherited from the prior administration while resolving signifcantly more complaints 

with change than the previous administration. During FY 2020 alone, OCR: 

n Resolved a total of 10,185 complaints, which is more than the 9,711 complaints that OCR received; 

n Resolved over 2,000 total allegations of discrimination by requiring corrective action protective of students’ civil rights; 

n Continued to reduce the backlog of 7,854 unresolved civil rights complaints that the Trump Administration inherited when it took offce, down 

to 4,246; and 

n In each of its 12 regional offces, OCR reduced the number of complaints older than 365 days, for the frst time in at least the last 12 years. 

This Report’s conclusion addresses the future of OCR, as well as additional achievements from fscal year 2020 that have advanced the enforcement of 

federal civil rights laws. In the years ahead, OCR must continue to dedicate its efforts to ensure that the backlog of cases does not re-emerge, and that 

families continue to receive timely resolutions of their cases. OCR must remain committed to ensuring that all students, regardless of race, color, national 

origin, sex, disability, or age, receive equal access to a high-quality education. As a part of this commitment, OCR must continue to maintain the fair and 

impartial enforcement of civil rights laws as its primary focus. This means vigorously enforcing civil rights laws on behalf of all students and building 

upon the important work that OCR has prioritized for the last four years. As part of these vital enforcement efforts, some of OCR’s most important 

priorities moving forward must continue to include: 

n The faithful enforcement of the Department’s Title IX regulations, which strengthens protections for survivors of sexual misconduct and 

restores due process to ensure that all students can pursue an education free from sexual discrimination. The rule enshrines protections from 

sexual harassment for the frst time carries the full force of law, and holds recipient schools accountable for their response to allegations of 

sexual assault; 

n Vigorous enforcement of Title VI to combat anti-Semitism and the adoption of race-exclusionary policies and practices promoting and 

advocating the categorization of students by race; 

n The commitment to maintain OCR’s proactive enforcement initiatives to address issues of access to online and web-based learning for 

students with disabilities, sexual harassment and sexual assault in K-12 schools, and the possible inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion 

on students with disabilities; and 

n The support of local education leaders and schools during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that schools continue to meet their civil rights 

obligations and continue to provide meaningful access to quality education for all students, including children with disabilities. 

After refecting on OCR’s achievements this past year and over the last four years during the Trump Administration, I strongly believe that OCR’s future 

is bright. I am immensely proud of the role we have taken as an unbiased arbiter of federal civil rights laws. OCR must continue to dutifully ensure 

that we do not use our enforcement powers to prioritize certain investigations above all others, and it must instead focus instead on conducting legally 

appropriate and thorough investigations to obtain necessary and expedient relief for students experiencing discrimination in schools. When executed 

correctly, civil rights enforcement results in conducting investigations that root out discriminatory conduct to protect all students, but it requires the 

objective review of facts, allegations, and evidence, and a determination, as an independent fact fnder. By applying these principles at OCR, we have 

made tangible, positive differences in the lives of students. This Report demonstrates that OCR has not only operated more effciently and effectively 

under the Trump Administration, but has in fact achieved better results for our nation’s children, while establishing a framework for success in the years 

to come. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Kimbely M. Richey

Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

5 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

Executive Summary and 

Report Highlights 

In fscal year (FY) 2020, the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department’s) Offce for Civil Rights (OCR) built upon the Trump 

Administration’s previous efforts to strengthen civil rights enforcement; alleviate unnecessary, outdated, or ineffective regulatory burdens 

through regulatory reform; and bolster civil rights enforcement through proactive technical assistance. During the last year, OCR launched 

its third nationwide compliance initiative in three years; continued to dedicate resources toward improving the quality of data submitted 

and reported by the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC); and issued two historic regulations—the Title IX regulation and the Religious 

Liberty and Free Inquiry Final Rule. At the same time, OCR further reduced the backlog of unresolved civil rights complaints, continued to 

strengthen resolutions of new complaints, and recommitted to supporting local education leaders through a newly established team of 

OCR attorneys focused on the provision of timely, accurate, and consistent technical assistance. 

In accordance with its duty to enforce Title IX, OCR continued to dedicate substantial resources to the regional offces and their 

investigations of sexual harassment at our nation’s postsecondary institutions and in elementary and secondary schools.1

 On February 26, 

2020, the Department announced a major Title IX enforcement initiative, led by OCR, to combat the troubling rise of sexual assault in K-12 

public schools. This ongoing initiative examines schools’ handling of reports of sexual assault through nationwide compliance reviews, 

opens Data Quality Reviews of the sexual assault/offenses data submitted by school districts through the CRDC, and raises awareness of 

the issue of sexual assault in K-12 schools through public education and technical assistance. During FY 2020, OCR enforcement offces 

also resolved another two major sexual violence investigations at Pennsylvania State University and the University of Southern California 

with resolution agreements that require the schools to provide remedies to past victims of sexual misconduct, to revise their reporting 

structures, and to overhaul their Title IX grievance procedures. 

Additionally, on May 6, 2020, the Department announced its new Title IX 

Final Rule, a historic action to strengthen Title IX protections for survivors 

of sexual harassment and to restore due process in campus proceedings 

to help ensure that all students can pursue an education free from sex 

discrimination. The Title IX Final Rule enshrines in regulations, for the frst 

time, that sexual harassment is sex discrimination, and it holds schools 

accountable for failure to appropriately respond to reports of sexual 

harassment. The regulations also mandate that schools offer supportive 

measures to survivors and require schools to employ an adjudication 

process that is fair to all students. The long-awaited Title IX Final Rule 

went into effect on August 14, 2020, and is the result of years of wideranging research, careful deliberation, and critical input from various 

stakeholders and the American people, including over 124,000 

public comments. 

“This new regulation requires 

schools to act in meaningful ways 

to support survivors of sexual 

misconduct, without sacrificing

important safeguards to ensure a 

fair and transparent process.” 

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos 

On September 9, 2020, the Department delivered on its promise to 

protect free inquiry and religious liberty on campus, by publishing the Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges 

and Universities Final Rule (Religious Liberty and Free Inquiry Final Rule). This regulation builds on President Donald J. Trump’s Executive 

Order 13684, Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities, by ensuring that public institutions 

uphold fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, by requiring the equal treatment and constitutional rights of religious 

student organizations at public institutions, and by providing clarity to faith-based institutions with respect to their non-discrimination 

duties under Title IX. 

6 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

On January 21, 2020, OCR took the major step of launching a new center: the Outreach, Prevention, Education, and Non-discrimination 

(OPEN) Center. The OPEN Center focuses on strengthening civil rights compliance through voluntary, proactive, and targeted outreach. The 

OPEN Center provides technical assistance to schools, educators, families, and students to ensure better awareness of the requirements 

and protections of federal non-discrimination laws. In addition to providing technical assistance on the laws enforced by OCR, the OPEN 

Center worked proactively with recipients during FY 2020 to ensure that recipient institutions were aware of their continuing civil rights 

obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the efforts of the OPEN Center, OCR’s National Digital Access Team, established 

in 2019, provided important resources and technical assistance on issues of online accessibility, when more and more schools across the 

nation shifted to distance learning in response to the unprecedented national emergency. 

In October 2020, OCR released the 2017–18 CRDC. The 2017–18 CRDC encompasses data covering a broad array of civil rights topics, 

and was self-reported by 17,604 public school districts and 97,632 public schools and educational programs. Importantly, the 2017–18 

CRDC was improved over past collections through specifc efforts focused on addressing statistical anomalies and increasing postcollection outreach to give school districts an opportunity to submit amended, accurate data. With the release of the 2017–18 CRDC, OCR 

also released two issue briefs highlighting national data on signifcant, ongoing OCR initiatives: the possible inappropriate use of restraint 

and seclusion on students with disabilities and incidents of sexual violence in K-12 schools. During FY 2020, OCR also proposed changes 

to the next CRDC. The proposal refects the requirements of the Department of Education Organization Act (20 U.S.C. 3413[c][1]), which 

authorizes OCR to collect data that are necessary to ensure compliance with civil rights laws within its jurisdiction; it follows Executive 

Order 13777 which requires OCR to reduce regulatory burdens whenever possible, including the burdens of collecting and reporting civil 

rights data, while also furthering OCR’s important mission of protecting students’ civil rights. 

During FY 2020, OCR continued its focus on improving the effciency of case processing and the effectiveness of case resolutions. In 

August, OCR issued a revised Case Processing Manual, which built upon previous efforts to increase transparency and provide for greater 

due process protections in the conduct of OCR investigations. As a result of the Trump Administration’s approach to case processing, 

OCR has achieved better results for students. FY 2020 was the fourth consecutive fscal year in which the number of case resolutions 

outpaced the number of complaints received. Over the course of FYs 2017–20, OCR received a total of 44,979 complaints and resolved a 

total of 52,700 complaints—over 15,000 more complaints than the previous administration resolved during its last four years combined. 

Of those complaints resolved during the past four years, 6,018 complaints were resolved with change—over 1,500 more complaints 

resolved with change than the previous administration achieved during its last four years in offce. Further, OCR initiated and resolved an 

unprecedented number of proactive investigations—with 748 proactive investigations initiated and 413 proactive investigations resolved 

in four years. 

7 
















Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

summer of 2018, and to extend to the complainant a written offer for 

immediate readmission. In addition, the agreement requires the college 

to extend to both the complainant and the female student written offers 

to provide, within 30 calendar days, any additional information, including 

written statements for themselves and/or any witnesses relevant to the 

complaint before it re-adjudicates the complaint against the complainant. 

The college also agreed to ensure that any college staff assigned to 

participate in any stage of the re-adjudication of the female student’s 

complaint had not previously participated in any stage of the college’s 

previous adjudication against the complainant and that the investigative 

report that was prepared in the previous adjudication shall not be 

considered in the re-adjudication. Finally, the agreement requires the 

college to provide training to all staff directly involved in processing, 

investigating, adjudicating, and/or resolving complaints of sexual 

harassment or assault. 

Case 2: OCR investigated a complaint that alleged, in part, that a district 

subjected a student to discrimination on the basis of sex when it failed 

to provide an appropriate response to a parent’s report that a student 

(her daughter) had been sexually assaulted in the girls’ restroom by 

a biologically male student who identifed as “gender fuid,” and who 

was permitted access to use the girls’ restroom pursuant to the district 

policy that permits students access to facilities, including restrooms, that 

correspond to their “gender identity,” which meant that a biological male 

student was permitted to use the girls’ restroom at those times when 

the student identifed as a female. OCR found that the district’s response 

to the parent’s report of sexual assault violated Title IX. Specifcally, 

OCR determined that the district took no further steps to determine 

what occurred, and instead deferred to a safety resource offcer and 

an investigation by the state’s Division of Family and Children Services. 

After the safety resource offcer indicated that there would be no further 

criminal inquiry, the district did not resume its investigation. The district 

failed to ascertain anything from the Division of Family and Children 

Services investigation concerning the alleged incident and, aside from 

a general public announcement, never communicated the outcome of 

any investigation to the parents of the students involved. Finally, OCR 

concluded that the district had knowledge of, but likely failed to respond 

to, at least two other reported incidents of harassment in the bathrooms 

involving the same biologically male student. 

To address the violations, the district entered into a resolution agreement 

with OCR, in which the district agreed to develop a grievance process to 

ensure that it responds to each complaint alleging any action that violates 

or may violate Title IX, maintain complete and accurate records of each of 

such complaints, and inform the district’s Title IX Coordinator of all such 

complaints, including those complaints that the district refers to another 

entity. The district also agreed to provide OCR copies of all records of Title 

IX complaints that the district receives during the following school year 

and to solicit information from parents or guardians, teachers, counselors, 

and administrators regarding any alleged incidents of sexual harassment 

of students in school bathrooms. Finally, the district agreed to offer to have 

a qualifed counselor meet with the female student to determine whether 

any inaction by the district in responding to the alleged incident resulted 

in harm to her apart from the incident itself, and to identify what services 

may be offered to her to address any such harm. 

Case 3: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a college discriminated 

against a student on the basis of sex by failing to provide an appropriate 

response to the student’s report of sexual harassment. The complainant 

alleged, in part, that the college failed to provide her daughter (the 

student) with a prompt and equitable response to her daughter’s report 

that another female student subjected her to unwanted touching and 

comments based on sex. Based on evidence that the school did not 

conduct an adequate inquiry to reliably determine what had occurred, OCR 

found that the college’s response to the student’s report was inadequate 

and constituted a violation of Title IX. The college’s investigation primarily 

consisted of a fve-minute conversation with the student accused of the 

conduct at issue, and there was no evidence that the college attempted to 

corroborate the student’s allegations with eyewitness testimony. OCR also 

had concerns that the college lacked adequate grievance procedures and 

failed to consider whether the student needed interim supports while her 

complaint was being evaluated and make any fndings concerning whether 

the alleged harassment occurred. The college entered into a resolution 

agreement with OCR that required it to arrange for its staff to receive 

adequate Title IX training, issue guidance to its staff on its revised Title IX 

policies and procedures, and adopt and publish grievance procedures that 

comply with Title IX. 

24 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

Case 4: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a college discriminated 

against a student on the basis of sex when the college failed to respond 

appropriately to allegations that the student sexually assaulted another 

student. Specifcally, the complainant alleged that his son, the accused 

student, was treated unfairly during the adjudication of a sexual 

misconduct complaint fled against him by another student. While OCR’s 

preliminary investigation found that the college responded promptly to 

the allegations, OCR had concerns that the student may not have been 

provided an adequate opportunity to respond to the evidence upon 

which the college’s determination was based and that the college failed 

to properly consider many points the student raised on appeal. Before 

the completion of OCR’s investigation, the college expressed an interest 

in resolving the complaint through a voluntary resolution agreement. 

Pursuant to that agreement, the college agreed to inform the parties 

of its intention to reopen the internal Title IX investigation if either party 

expressed interest. The college also agreed to meet with the student to 

discuss the points raised in his appeal, discuss the evidence the college 

allegedly overlooked, and offer the student a prompt and equitable 

investigation of his concerns. 

Ensuring Equal Opportunities for Members of Both Sexes in 

Programs and Activities, Including Athletics 

Case 1: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a university discriminated 

against boys when it hosted its annual Science, Technology & Engineering 

Preview Summer (STEPS) Camp for Girls, a girls-only summer program 

that excluded boys from participation. The evidence that OCR obtained 

from the university indicated that the STEPS Camp, as described by the 

university’s website at that time, was “a day-camp preview of science, 

engineering, and technology for young ladies between the 6th and 7th 

grades”—i.e., that the camp engaged in sex discrimination because it 

was exclusively for girls. Prior to the completion of OCR’s investigation, 

the university voluntarily agreed to end its discriminatory practices and 

to enter into a resolution agreement to resolve the complaint. Pursuant 

to the resolution agreement, the university agreed to ensure that the 

camp was open to both sexes and to make the necessary changes to the 

promotional materials, any content on the website advertising the camp, 

and the operation of the camp so that a reasonable person would infer 

that the camp was open to members of both sexes. OCR has completed 

its monitoring of the university’s implementation of the agreement. 

Case 2: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a school district 

discriminated on the basis of sex by failing to provide female students 

in the high school’s athletics program with equal athletic opportunities. 

Specifcally, the complaint alleged that the district offered only four sports 

for female students at the high school, but fve sports for male students; 

that female softball athletes have fewer games scheduled than the number 

allowed by the state high school athletics authority, while male athletes 

on the baseball team play more games; that softball athletes practice less 

often than baseball athletes ahead of a new season; that members of the 

female softball team are not permitted to be enrolled in athletics during 

the offseason, but that male athletes on the baseball team are allowed 

to remain in athletics during the offseason; that female athletes have to 

schedule their practice times around the male athletes’ practice schedule; 

and that female athletes do not have access to their own weightlifting 

facility, but male athletes have access to weights and indoor training. 

OCR’s investigation revealed that despite making up 52 percent of the 

enrollment at the high school in question, female students were only 

offered 45 percent of the athletic opportunities. In addition, OCR found that 

girls’ athletics teams practiced during second period each day, while boys’ 

athletics teams practiced during their athletics period, indicating that the 

school favored male athletes with regard to the time of day that practices 

were scheduled. Based on the foregoing, OCR had compliance concerns, 

and the district expressed an interest in voluntarily resolving the complaint 

through a resolution agreement. Pursuant to the resolution agreement, 

the district agreed to evaluate the number of full-time enrolled students in 

grades seven through 12 by sex to comply with Title IX, create a corrective 

action plan that includes a description of interim steps to be taken during 

the school year, conduct an assessment of the scheduling of games and 

practice time by sport and by sex, and provide equivalent benefts and 

opportunities to female and male students with respect to the provision of 

locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities. 

Case 3: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a university discriminated 

against middle school male students on the basis of sex by hosting a Girls 

Math & Technology Program that was restricted to female participants. 

Based on OCR’s review of the information submitted by the parties, OCR 

had compliance concerns based on the fact that the promotional and 

recruitment materials for the program, including the title of the program, 

used the term “girls” when referring to participants or registrants, 

indicating potential exclusion of male students from the program and 

discouraging males from applying and/or participating in the program. 

Prior to the completion of OCR’s investigation, the university expressed 

an interest in voluntarily resolving the complaint through a resolution 

agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the university agreed to change 

the name of the program to eliminate any suggestion that it is for only 

one of the sexes, and to modify its registration process and recruitment 

activities for the program to ensure that all materials clearly communicate 

that the program is open to males and female students regardless of sex. 

25 






Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

revise its non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy to prohibit 

discrimination on the basis of shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics, 

including anti-Semitism, as refected in Executive Order 13899; issue 

a statement to all university students, faculty, and staff stating that 

the university does not tolerate acts of discrimination or harassment 

on the basis of shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics, including 

anti-Semitism, and that the university will take all necessary actions to 

address and ameliorate such discrimination; host town hall meetings to 

inform students, faculty, and staff of the university’s commitment to take 

all necessary actions to address discrimination and harassment based on 

shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; provide training to relevant staff 

and administrators responsible for responding to reports of anti-Semitism; 

and include a component on national origin discrimination and harassment 

in each of the university’s new training modules and orientation sessions 

for students, faculty, and staff. 

Case 2: OCR resolved a complaint that alleged that a school district 

discriminated against the complainant’s son (the student) and other 

minority students on the basis of race by failing to take prompt and 

effective action to address a racially hostile environment at a district 

school. Specifcally, the complaint alleged that repeated incidents of 

racial harassment —including at least one incident in which a peer 

directed a racial slur at the student, as well as various student displays 

of Confederate fags, among other incidents, created a racially hostile 

environment at the school. Consistent with the First Amendment, OCR 

has recognized that the offensiveness of a particular expression (e.g., 

the Confederate fag), standing alone, is not a legally suffcient basis 

to establish a hostile environment under the statutes enforced by OCR, 

including Title VI. However, OCR had compliance concerns based on 

evidence suggesting that, on certain occasions, the district failed to 

consider whether individual students were subjected to a racially hostile 

environment and needed additional remedies, such as counseling or 

educational supports. Also, given the number of incidents at the school 

in one year, the severity of many of the incidents, and the commonality 

of the incidents (including repeated incidents involving the use of racial 

slurs), OCR was concerned that the district may have failed to consider 

whether the incidents collectively created a racially hostile environment 

at the school and, as such, required broader corrective actions. Prior to 

the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, the district requested to resolve 

the allegations in the complaint with a resolution agreement. Under this 

resolution agreement, the district agreed to evaluate harassment reports 

and, given the number and severity of incidents, administer a climate 

survey to determine whether a racially hostile environment existed at 

the school, which might necessitate further remedies or corrective 

actions. The agreement also requires the district to take steps to ensure 

that students and other stakeholders are aware of the district’s policies 

pertaining to harassment, and to conduct a refresher training for school 

administrators on the district’s policies that must include appropriate 

consideration to the requirements and limitations of the First Amendment. 

Case 3: OCR resolved a complaint that alleged that a school district failed 

to respond in a reasonable, timely, and effective manner to repeated 

incidents of racial harassment of a student by a classmate, including 

derisive comments about the student’s “brown skin color.” Before the 

conclusion of OCR’s investigation to determine whether the conduct was 

suffciently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile environment, the 

district expressed a willingness to resolve the complaint with a resolution 

agreement. As a result of OCR’s investigation, OCR had concerns that the 

information gathered to date indicated that the district did not consider 

whether these incidents constituted racial harassment or investigated 

the impact of the classmate’s comments on the student or any other 

students; did not interview relevant witnesses, including the student; and 

did not notify the complainants whether either alleged incident had been 

substantiated, or whether the district was taking any remedial measures 

in response, including measures to remedy the effect of the harassment 

on the student. More generally, OCR had concerns that the district’s 

training, as well as the district’s response to each incident, focused on 

compliance with the district’s anti-bullying policy and failed to consider 

whether prohibited forms of racial discrimination had occurred under Title 

VI. In addition, OCR was concerned that the district’s documentation and

record-keeping of these incidents was insuffcient with regard to the racial

nature of the conduct, which could have hindered the district’s ability

32 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

to track incidents based on race and to assess whether such incidents 

create a hostile environment. OCR negotiated a resolution agreement 

under which the district agreed to review the alleged incidents and assess 

whether remedial action is required to prevent and/or redress a racially 

hostile environment as required by Title VI; invite the family to meet with 

the superintendent to discuss how the district may support the student’s 

ongoing education; enhance its record-keeping systems to better track 

alleged incidents of racial harassment; and provide Title VI-specifc training 

to certain staff. 

Ensuring English Learner Students Have Equal Access to a 

High-Quality Education 

Case 1: OCR resolved a complaint that alleged, in part, that teachers 

at a school in a district were not providing English learner (EL) students 

with educational services that were designed to teach them English 

until they were fully profcient in the language. During the course of its 

investigation, OCR had compliance concerns based on evidence that the 

school had no articulated program design for EL students who were not 

making adequate progress; that there were insuffcient interventions for EL 

students, including potential or actual long-term English learner students 

(LTELs); and that there was insuffcient monitoring of EL students, LTEL 

students, and reclassifed fully English profcient (RFEP) students. Prior 

to the completion of OCR’s investigation, the district voluntarily agreed 

to enter into a resolution agreement with OCR to resolve the complaint. 

Under the resolution agreement, the district agreed to revise its master 

plan to describe EL-specifc interventions, including interventions for 

LTEL students and potential LTEL students in upper elementary grades, 

and to describe in detail its catch-up plan. The district also committed to 

providing training to teachers and administrative staff at the school on 

monitoring and interventions for EL and RFEP students. 

Case 2: OCR resolved a complaint against a state department of 

education alleging that the department discriminated against students 

with disabilities whose parents are limited English profcient (LEP) by 

failing to translate special education-related documents and notices into 

the parents’ native languages and failing to provide neutral, qualifed 

translators or interpreters at special education-related meetings and due 

process hearings. After the investigation, OCR determined that translation 

and interpretation services were not provided during special education 

meetings at schools identifed by the complainants. The department 

entered into a resolution agreement to address OCR’s compliance 

concerns. Pursuant to the agreement, OCR required the department to, 

among other things, include in the fle/record of each student with a 

current Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Section 504 plan (and 

each student who has been referred for an evaluation, to determine 

whether the student is a student with a disability) information regarding 

the preferred oral and written language of the student’s parent(s); identify 

in IEPs and Section 504 plans the preferred spoken language of each 

student’s parent; provide LEP parents of students with disabilities with 

translated notices of meetings, notices seeking consent, and prior written 

notices; require schools or the department to provide, upon request 

from an LEP parent, translation of IEPs, Section 504 plans, and/or 

evaluation reports that have been paid for by the department; and offer to 

provide interpreters for parents at social history meetings, IEP meetings, 

and Section 504 meetings (e.g., annual review meetings, impartial 

hearings, manifestation determination review meetings, and meetings 

regarding behavior intervention plans). The agreement further requires 

the department to implement a system to track requests for translation 

of IEPs, Section 504 plans, and evaluation reports and requests for 

interpretation and provision of interpretation services at special 

education meetings. 

33 


Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

Section 504 and Title II: 

Discrimination Based on 

Disability 

OCR protects the rights of persons with disabilities, including students and 

parents, pursuant to its jurisdiction under two federal laws. Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination based on disability 

in any program or activity operated by recipients of federal funds. It states: 

“No otherwise qualifed individual with a disability in the United States 

... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the 

participation in, be denied the benefts of, or be subjected to discrimination 

under any program or activity receiving Federal fnancial assistance 

...” Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability 

by public entities, regardless of whether they receive federal fnancial 

assistance. Title II states, “[N]o qualifed individual with a disability shall, 

by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied 

the benefts of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be 

subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 

Key Facts 

In FY 2020, OCR received 4,515 complaints alleging a total of 6,950 

individual violations of Section 504 and/or Title II. OCR resolved 5,367 

complaints containing 8,704 allegations of discrimination based on 

disability. Of these resolutions, 1,445 Section 504/Title II allegations in 

BY THE NUMBERS 

In FY 2020, OCR 

n Received 4,515 Section 504/Title II complaints 

n Resolved 5,367 Section 504/Title II complaints 

n Resolved 1,445 Section 504/Title II allegations in 1,042 

complaints with change 

1,042 complaints were resolved with change. The largest numbers of 

these allegations involved claims that a school failed to provide a student 

with a disability with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), 

treated students with disabilities differently from other students, retaliated 

against individuals who asserted their Section 504/Title II rights or those 

of others, or failed to make programs or activities accessible to students 

with disabilities. See fgure 23 for more detailed information on the variety 

of Section 504/Title II allegations received and resolved by OCR during 

FY 2020. OCR also initiated 19 Section 504/Title II directed investigations 

in which OCR raised 21 individual disability issues, and resolved 305 

directed investigations in which OCR raised individual 509 disability 

issues, 132 of which were resolved with change. 

During FYs 2017–20, OCR achieved signifcant increases in both the 

number of Section 504/Title II allegations resolved and resolved with 

Figure 23: Section 504/Title II Allegations Received and Resolved in FY 2020 

36 

Free appropriate public education 

Different treatment/exclusion/denial of benefts 

Retaliation 

Academic adjustments/auxiliary aids 

Disability harassment 

Accessibility (programs and facilities) 

Discipline 

Restraint and seclusion 

Employment 

Treatment of postsecondary students 

Non-academic services 

Grievance procedures 

Service animals 

Effective communication (Title II) 

Admissions 

Accessibility (technology) 

Testing 

Modifcations of policies and procedures (Title II) 

15 Housing 12 

9 Resource comparability 5 

6 Designation of responsible employee 7 

5 Direct threat (Title II) 5 

3 Location and notifcation 5 

303 Other 236 

22 

2,860 

1,443 

1,433 

780 

696 

250 

234 

118 

103 

95 

92 

57 

54 

38 

35 

27 

26 

2,192 

1,204 

1,123 

693 

520 

197 

156 

92 

109 

89 

74 

39 

38 

34 

37 

35 

23 

25 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 

Resolved Received 


Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

at the middle school—because of the student’s disability. Further, the 

complainant alleged that the district denied the student’s transfer to a 

separate high school on the basis of disability for the 2017–18 school 

year in retaliation for a February 2017 complaint of discrimination. At the 

conclusion of its investigation, OCR found that the district failed to ensure 

that the student had an equal opportunity to participate in the art club 

because of the student’s disability. Specifcally, OCR determined that the 

district’s denial of the student’s request for an accommodation—without 

engaging in an individual inquiry or offering an alternative accommodation 

or any type of assurance that the student would have an equal opportunity 

to participate—effectively excluded the student from participation in the 

art club. Pursuant to a resolution agreement, OCR required the district 

to publicly state on its website that when a school offers after-school 

activities, it must do so in a manner that affords qualifed students 

with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation, which means 

making reasonable modifcations and providing reasonably necessary 

aids and services to ensure an equal opportunity for qualifed students 

with disabilities to participate. OCR also required the district to update 

procedures for OCR’s review and approval to ensure that when the district 

offers after-school activities, it must do so in a manner that affords 

qualifed students with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate; to 

adopt and implement the procedures once approved by OCR; and to issue 

a memorandum to notify recipients of the district’s newly 

implemented procedures. 

Ensuring the Provision of Free and Appropriate Education 

and Related Services 

Case 1: OCR resolved a complaint that alleged that a district discriminated 

against a student by failing to consider whether the student’s pending 

evaluation to determine her eligibility for special education or related 

services, which was initiated before the pandemic-related school closure, 

could be completed during the period of school closure. During the course 

of the investigation, the district notifed OCR that it had begun to provide 

in-person evaluations again and would proceed with its evaluation of the 

student. The district then requested to voluntarily resolve the complaint 

pursuant to OCR’s Rapid Resolution Process, which resulted in a resolution 

agreement. Under the resolution agreement, the District agreed to 

complete its evaluation of the student and, after providing proper written 

notice to the student’s parent/guardian and making all reasonable efforts 

to include the foster parent and legal guardian, convene a group of 

persons knowledgeable about the student and the evaluations conducted 

to determine whether she is eligible for special education or related aids 

and services. The district also agreed to develop an IEP designed to meet 

the student’s individual disability-related needs if she is determined to be 

eligible. OCR is monitoring the district’s implementation of the agreement. 

Case 2: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a school district denied 

an elementary student a FAPE by failing to implement accommodations 

listed in the student’s Section 504 plan related to his allergies (i.e., a 

nut-free classroom) and failed to adequately and impartially investigate the 

internal grievance alleging discrimination against the student. During the 

course of its investigation, OCR identifed additional issues to investigate 

related to the district’s compliance under Section 504 and Title II, including 

whether the district failed to carefully consider suffcient individualized 

evaluation data in designing regular or special education and related aids 

and services to meet the student’s individual educational needs; whether 

the district unreasonably denied the complainant’s request that the district 

copy her sister on all correspondence from the district as a modifcation 

of the district’s policies, practices, and procedures; and whether the 

district failed to disseminate an adequate notice of non-discrimination. 

OCR found evidence of a violation of Section 504 and Title II regarding 

39 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

each of these issues, which the district eventually agreed to resolve 

via a resolution agreement pursuant to CPM Section 303(b). Under the 

resolution agreement, the district agreed to revise its Section 504 and 

Title II grievance procedure and Section 504 notice of non-discrimination; 

create a written procedure for processing requests for the district to 

make reasonable modifcations to its policies, practices, or procedures 

to provide individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate 

in district programs, activities, and services; conduct Section 504 and 

Title II training for certain district employees; reimburse the complainant 

parent for expenses she incurred in transporting the student to a new 

school; and take certain additional steps if the complainant informed the 

superintendent that she intends to re-enroll the student in the district 

during the 2019–20 or 2020–21 school years. 

Case 3: OCR resolved a complaint against a school district alleging that 

the district discriminated against her son on the basis of his disability by 

failing to provide him with speech/language therapy (SLT) as required 

by the student’s Section 504 plan during the 2019–20 school year. 

The complainant also alleged that the district discriminated against 

other students at the school on the basis of their disabilities by failing 

to provide students with mandated SLT as a related aid and/or service 

during the 2019–20 school year. Prior to OCR completing its investigation, 

the district expressed a willingness to voluntarily resolve the complaint. 

Under the resolution agreement, the district is required to convene a 

group of persons knowledgeable about the student and other students 

at the school, such as the Section 504 committee or Committee on 

Special Education, to determine whether all of these students require 

any compensatory SLT services as a consequence of the district not 

providing them with the requisite number of SLT sessions mandated by the 

students’ Section 504 Plans or IEPs. The agreement also requires that if 

the group of knowledgeable persons determines that any of the students 

require compensatory services, the district will develop a plan for providing 

such services to each student. In addition, the agreement requires the 

district to provide training to staff members and administrators at the 

school who were responsible for implementing the students’ Section 504 

plans or IEPs during the 2019–20 school year regarding the requirements 

of Section 504 as it pertains to the provision of related aids and services. 

Ensuring Effective Accommodations 

Case 1: OCR resolved a complaint that alleged that a college failed to 

provide a student with the accommodations necessary to ensure that the 

student had an equal opportunity to participate in a disciplinary hearing in 

a non-discriminatory manner. Specifcally, the complaint alleged that the 

college did not permit the student to attend the hearing telephonically as 

an accommodation for his autism and social anxiety disorder. OCR had 

compliance concerns with respect to whether the college appropriately 

responded to the student’s requests for accommodations, including 

whether the college denied these requests without engaging in an 

appropriate process with the student, whether the college provided an 

explanation as to why the requests for accommodations were being 

denied, and whether the student was given the opportunity to provide 

additional information or an explanation concerning the necessity of 

the accommodations. Prior to the completion of OCR’s investigation, 

the college voluntarily agreed to enter into a resolution agreement with 

OCR to resolve the complaint allegations and address OCR’s compliance 

concerns. In the resolution agreement, the college agreed to develop 

written procedures for providing accommodations to students with 

disabilities in disciplinary hearings and to provide the student with 

an opportunity to request a new hearing under the newly developed 

procedures. 

Case 2: The complainant alleged that a college’s service animal policy 

violated Section 504 and Title II because it required that each owner 

of a service animal register it with the college, obtain a photo ID for it, 

ensure that the photo ID was visible on it at all times, and ensure that 

it completes obedience training. OCR found that the college violated 

the above laws because its policy included additional requirements not 

permitted by law. Specifcally, OCR noted that the college is only legally 

permitted to ask an individual accompanied by an animal two questions 

to determine if the animal qualifes as a service animal: (1) if the animal 

is required because of a disability and (2) what work or task the animal 

has been trained to perform. The college agreed to remedy this violation 

by eliminating the unlawful requirements from its service animal policy, 

and any document that refers to that policy (e.g., its student catalog), 

notify the college community of the revised policy, and provide training for 

all college administrators on the revised policy and the requirements of 

Section 504 and Title II relating to service animals. 

40 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

 

The Age Discrimination 

Act of 1975 and the Boy 

Scouts of America Equal 

Access Act of 2001 

OCR also has jurisdiction to enforce the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001. The Age 

Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination based on age. It states: 

“[N]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded 

from participation in, be denied the benefts of, or be subjected to 

discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal fnancial 

assistance.” The act therefore applies to SEAs, elementary and secondary 

schools, colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary school 

systems, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and museums 

that receive federal fnancial assistance. 

During FY 2020, OCR received 465 complaints alleging one or more 

violations of the Age Discrimination Act. Of the 10,185 complaints that 

OCR resolved in FY 2020, 518 (5.1 percent) included at least one alleged 

violation of the Age Discrimination Act. OCR resolved 9 of those complaints 

(1.74 percent of Age Discrimination Act complaint resolutions overall) 

with change, although a large majority of the Age Act allegations were 

dismissed, including those dismissed for insuffcient evidence. The specifc 

allegations that OCR received ranged from discrimination based on age in 

admissions, inadequate grievance procedures, the distribution of fnancial 

aid, access to programs or activities, employment, and retaliation against 

individuals who asserted their rights or those of others under the Age 

Discrimination Act. 

Separately, the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act prohibits any 

public elementary and secondary school, or SEA or LEA that receives 

Department funds, from discriminating against any group that is offcially 

affliated with the Boy Scouts of America and any other youth group listed 

in Title 36 of the U.S. Code as a patriotic society. Specifcally, the statute 

prohibits covered entities that provide meeting spaces for outside groups 

from denying the Boy Scouts of America and other protected youth groups 

equal access to or a fair opportunity to meet. 

Of the 10,185 complaints received in FY 2020, OCR received 14 

complaints (0.13 percent of total complaints) that alleged at least one 

violation of the Boy Scouts Act. OCR resolved 14 complaints containing 

an allegation of discrimination under the Boy Scouts Act, and none of the 

allegations raised under the Boy Scouts Act in FY 2020 were considered 

resolved with change. 

41 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

The Civil Rights Data 

Collection 

As Secretary DeVos has unambiguously stated, “Protecting all students’ 

civil rights is at the core of OCR’s mission, and in order to meet that 

challenge, we need reliable, accurate data and true partnership with state 

education agencies and school districts.” To meet this mission, the CRDC 

collects data related to OCR’s civil rights enforcement responsibilities at 

the pre-K through 12th grade levels, including charter schools, magnet 

schools or programs, alternative schools, schools serving students with 

disabilities, and long-term secure juvenile justice facilities. The CRDC has 

been published by OCR since 1968. OCR is authorized to collect data 

that are necessary to ensure compliance with civil rights laws within its 

jurisdiction, pursuant to the Department of Education Organization Act, 

20 U.S.C. § 3413(c)(1). 

The CRDC is a long-standing aspect of the overall enforcement and 

monitoring strategy used by OCR to ensure that recipients of the 

Department’s federal fnancial assistance do not discriminate on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and/or disability. Under the 

Trump Administration, OCR has prioritized improving data accuracy and 

reliability so that the CRDC will be even more effective. In FY 2020, 

OCR’s increased focus on data quality and improved collection efforts has 

beneftted stakeholders, schools, families, and those who are committed to 

eliminating roadblocks to quality education for all students. 

2017–18 CRDC 

On October 15, 2020, OCR released the 2017–18 CRDC.32 The data, 

which was self-reported and self-certifed by 17,604 public school 

districts and 97,632 public schools and educational programs, represents 

roughly 50.9 million students, and covers a broad array of civil rightsrelated topics. The 2017–18 CRDC data form required school districts and 

their schools to collect and input as many as 1,700 data points. 

As a result of OCR’s recent efforts, the 2017–18 CRDC contained several 

improved data quality elements across several categories. By identifying 

and correcting statistical anomalies and increasing post-collection 

outreach to give school districts an opportunity to submit amended data, 

the 2017–18 CRDC was improved immensely. Immediately after the 

window to report data through OCR’s submission system closed for the 

2017–18 CRDC, OCR began a data quality correction phase during which 

school districts made corrections to erroneous data directly through 

the CRDC submission system. OCR also conducted greater outreach to 

school districts with potentially anomalous restraint and seclusion data 

submissions, and allocated additional resources for technical support, 

such as clarifying proper understanding of reporting requirements, and 

working with school districts to ensure that detailed, written corrective 

plans were put into place when data were incomplete. In FY 2020, 

OCR allocated additional technical support resources, clarifed proper 

understandings of reporting requirements, and worked with school 

districts to ensure that detailed, written corrective action plans were put 

into place to address any identifed issues with incomplete data. 

In addition to the release of the 2017–18 CRDC, OCR also released two 

issue briefs on topics about which Secretary DeVos had raised concerns: 

the possible inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion on students with 

disabilities33 and sexual violence in K-12 schools.34 

ISSUE BRIEF: THE USE OF RESTRAINT AND 

SECLUSION ON CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES 

IN K-12 SCHOOLS 

While federal law does not specifcally prohibit the use of restraint 

and seclusion, there are circumstances under Section 504 and 

Title II in which the use of restraint and seclusion may constitute 

discrimination against students with disabilities. In response to the 

Department’s ongoing initiative, OCR’s issue brief provides data 

relevant to the use of restraint and seclusion on students with 

disabilities.35 

During the 2017–18 collection year, approximately 101,990 

students of the approximately 50.9 million students enrolled in 

the nation’s public schools were subjected to physical restraint, 

mechanical restraint and/or seclusion. The data revealed that 

70,833 students were subjected to physical restraint, 3,619 

students were subjected to mechanical restraint, and 27,538 

students were subjected to seclusion. Eighty percent (56,905 

students) of all students physically restrained were students with 

disabilities served under IDEA, and 41 percent (1,494 students) of 

all students mechanically restrained were students with disabilities. 

Seventy-seven percent (21,277) of all students secluded were 

students with disabilities. Among IDEA students who were 

subjected to physical restraint, 83 percent were males and 17 

percent were females. Likewise, among IDEA students who were 

subjected to seclusion, 84 percent (27,938) were male students, 

compared to 16 percent female students. 

42 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

ISSUE BRIEF: SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN K-12 SCHOOLS

In response to the Department’s FY 2020 initiative, OCR published a 

second issue brief highlighting the troubling rise of sexual violence 

incidents in K-12 schools. The CRDC data survey form defnes sexual 

assault as involving threatened rape, fondling, indecent liberties, 

or child molestation and indicates that both male and female 

students can be victims of sexual assault. The CRDC instructs that 

the classifcation of these incidents should take into consideration 

the age and development of the offender(s) to avoid, for example, 

misclassifcation of actions of young children when the student is not 

cognizant of the potential sexual connotations. 

From 2009 to 2019, OCR’s receipt of sexual harassment and sexual 

violence complaints at the K-12 level more than tripled. In addition, 

for collection year 2017–18 alone, the total reported incidents 

of sexual violence were 14,938—a 55 percent increase when 

compared to the prior collection year (9,649 reported incidents). In 

addition, there were approximately 786 reported incidents of rape or 

attempted rape—nearly double (99 percent increase) the number of 

incidents reported for the prior collection year (394 incidents). Lastly, 

as it relates to sexual assault involving threatened rape, fondling, 

indecent liberties, or child molestation, there was a 53 percent 

increase of reported incidents of sexual assault (14,152) when 

compared to the prior collection year (9,255). 

Proposed Changes to the 2020–21 CRDC 

During FY 2020, OCR proposed and considered changes to the next CRDC 

to support OCR’s enforcement efforts and to balance the administrative 

burden on LEAs and schools of collecting and reporting civil rights data 

while furthering OCR’s ongoing mission of protecting students’ civil rights. 

OCR published its proposed changes to the data collection in the Federal 

Register for two rounds of public comment—an initial 60-day public 

comment period, which began in September 2019, and a second, 30-day 

public comment period, which started in July 2020. 

As part of its effort to support the enforcement of civil rights laws while 

considering the administrative burden of collecting data, OCR’s proposed 

changes also supported President Trump’s Executive Order 13777, 

Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, which directs federal agencies 

to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. Consistent with these 

directives, OCR proposed to retire data elements which do not support 

OCR’s enforcement efforts or further OCR’s core mission of upholding 

students’ civil rights or impose a signifcant unjustifed burden on LEAs 

and schools. The elements selected for removal were carefully considered 

in both the burden they impose on LEAs and their beneft to OCR’s mission 

of enforcing civil rights. OCR also proposed to modify existing elements 

or add data elements based on what OCR has identifed as particularly 

acute civil rights issues of pressing concern. The two key areas where 

OCR has proposed additional elements, described below, are areas where 

OCR believes additional data are needed to better inform its civil rights 

enforcement and technical assistance activities. In addition to the two 

key areas, other elements were also either modifed or added to improve 

effciency in data collection. 

In response to the increase in the number of cases that OCR has seen 

annually involving sexual violence, the experience of OCR’s enforcement 

offces, and the gravity of these offenses, for the next CRDC, OCR 

proposed to collect more detailed data on incidents involving rape or 

attempted rape and sexual assault. The proposed data elements aim to 

collect, for the frst time, detailed data on documented incidents of rape, 

attempted rape, or sexual assault committed by a student and those 

documented incidents committed by a school staff member. OCR also 

proposed to collect detailed data on how schools respond to allegations of 

sexual violence made against school staff members, including the number 

of such allegations against a school staff member that were followed by a 

resignation or retirement prior to fnal discipline or termination, the number 

of such allegations against a school staff member that resulted in a 

determination of responsibility, and the number of such allegations against 

a school staff member that were followed by a duty reassignment. 

Similarly, in response to data from past collections suggesting that 

incidents of harassment or bullying on the basis of religion were 

increasingly prevalent in schools, OCR also proposed to expand its 

collection to include, for the frst time, the number of incidents of 

harassment or bullying on the basis of perceived religion for each of 14 

religion categories, as identifed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual. OCR believes 

that collecting this data will be helpful in identifying patterns of conduct, 

especially patterns of ethnic or ancestral harassment related to 

religious discrimination. 

Additional proposed changes for the 2020−21 CRDC include expanding 

the collection of counts of students enrolled in the International 

Baccalaureate Diploma Programme; expanding counts of students 

enrolled in one or more AP courses to include the numbers of students 

served under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by sex; and combining 

the collection of preschool children who received one out-of-school 

suspension counts and the collection of preschool children who received 

more than one out-of-school suspension counts into one collection of 

preschool children who received one or more out-of-school 

suspension counts. 

43 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

Freedom of Information 

Act Requests 

The Freedom of Information Act 

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enacted in 1966, is a federal 

law that establishes the public’s right to request existing records from 

federal government agencies. FOIA sets standards for determining which 

records must be made available for public inspection and which records 

can be withheld from disclosure. The law also provides administrative and 

judicial remedies for those denied access to records. Above all, the statute 

requires federal agencies to provide the fullest possible disclosure of 

information to the public. 

In FY 2020, OCR received 913 FOIA requests and processed 1,016 FOIA 

requests. Although 913 is the lowest number of FOIA requests OCR has 

received in at least 12 years, OCR’s FOIA requests still represent 38 

percent of the total number of requests received by the Department in FY 

2020. Moreover, during FYs 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 combined, OCR 

received 5,039 requests—an increase of 331 FOIA requests received 

compared to the last four fscal years under the previous administration 

(FYs 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016). 

OCR’s New Dedicated FOIA Team 

As mentioned above, OCR receives and responds to the plurality of the 

FOIA records requests received by the Department. The requests can 

be complex in nature, requiring the review, redaction, and production of 

large numbers of pages of correspondence, policy guidance, enforcement 

case fles, and letters of fndings for hundreds of cases. While OCR 

staff have been able to meet these large requests, many requests that 

OCR receives are requests for entire enforcement case fles, which may 

contain thousands of records to be reviewed, processed, and released 

under applicable FOIA standards. However, prior to FY 2020, OCR had no 

dedicated team to work on processing FOIA requests and instead relied on 

OCR staff throughout headquarters and regional offces to perform FOIA 

work when their schedules allowed. 

Given that OCR has received record-high numbers of FOIA requests 

in recent years, OCR established a separate team of dedicated FOIA 

professionals to facilitate the expeditious processing of FOIA requests for 

OCR records in FY 2020. Consisting of a director, team leader, six FOIA 

professionals, and an attorney, the FOIA team is focused on ensuring that 

records released under FOIA are in response to, and within the scope of, 

a properly described records request. Recognizing OCR’s legal obligations 

to respond under FOIA, and in response to the marked increase in FOIA 

flings, the new FOIA team is focused exclusively on fulflling FOIA requests 

and processing new FOIA requests in a more timely and effcient manner. 

During FY 2020, OCR’s new FOIA team relieved OCR attorneys of the 

burden of processing FOIA requests to better focus on their primary duties 

of case investigation and resolution. The FOIA team also streamlined 

OCR FOIA requests by proactively redacting and publicly posting OCR’s 

letters of fnding to the OCR website, thereby reducing the need for FOIA 

requests. Through this process, OCR’s FOIA team has consistently applied 

FOIA exemptions to the same or similar types of records and aided in 

OCR’s overall effectiveness and effciency. 

44 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

Looking Ahead 

OCR’s mission is “ensuring equal access to education and promoting 

educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous 

enforcement of civil rights.”36 This responsibility is not one to be taken 

lightly. OCR is committed to ensuring that all students, regardless of race, 

color, national origin, sex, disability, or age, receive equal access to a 

high-quality education. As a part of this commitment, OCR must continue 

to maintain the fair and vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws as its 

primary focus, thereby ensuring compliance by educational 

institutions nationwide. 

Unfortunately, from 2009 to 2016, OCR acted as an advocacy 

organization, using its role as a law enforcement agency to promote 

political agendas, and using “Dear Colleague” letters to unlawfully rewrite 

federal civil rights laws without the beneft of notice or comment by the 

public. Often, this involved expanding the scope of individual complaints 

so signifcantly that children and families waited for years to receive relief, 

while OCR spent years reviewing decades of data, purportedly in search 

of systemic violations. The Trump Administration has demonstrated that, 

when it comes to civil rights enforcement, having the right approach 

“Our new Title IX rule demonstrates that 

commitment to all students and their safety. It 

protects them by holding schools accountable for 

responding to incidents of sexual misconduct and 

requires each institution to adopt fair, 

transparent, and reliable processes for addressing 

Title IX complaints. This rule empowers 

survivors of sexual harassment to ensure that 

schools take all allegations seriously, and we are 

proud of our work on this issue. We will continue 

to enforce Title IX and ensure that all students 

are protected from unlawful sex discrimination.” 

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos 

matters. The previous approach to civil rights enforcement indisputably failed students. The data outlined in this report demonstrate that. 

This administration’s focus on reorienting OCR to be a neutral, impartial law enforcement agency has allowed OCR to signifcantly reduce the tragic 

backlog of civil rights complaints inherited from the Obama Administration—while bringing about timely and meaningful change at thousands of schools, 

to the beneft of students and families across this nation. During the past four years, complaint investigations have been conducted without bias, driven 

by the needs of the particular students harmed, and guided by a fdelity to the law, as passed by Congress. Moving forward, OCR must dedicate its 

efforts to ensuring that the backlog of cases does not grow again and that families receive timely resolution of their cases. OCR must remain committed 

to fulflling its purpose as an independent and neutral arbiter of the law, as it is written, and maintain transparency in its case investigation procedures. 

If OCR does not respect the clear lines of its jurisdictional authority and purpose, families across this country will suffer, by being denied the expedient 

enforcement of federal civil rights laws and relief from 

actual discrimination. 

The Trump Administration has put a framework into place that will allow 

OCR to pursue the vigorous enforcement of civil rights, provide timely 

relief to students and families, and work collaboratively with recipients 

to address noncompliance. While its primary function is to investigate 

and resolve complaints of discrimination, OCR will continue to dedicate 

resources to proactive investigations focused on critical civil rights issues 

of national concern. Through ongoing compliance reviews and directed 

investigations, OCR must continue to address issues of access to online 

and web-based learning for students with disabilities, sexual harassment 

and sexual assault in K-12 schools, and the possible inappropriate use 

of restraint and seclusion on students with disabilities. OCR must use the 

CRDC prudently, mindful of its purpose—to collect data that are necessary 

to ensure compliance with civil rights laws, and where appropriate, mindful 

of the burden it places on recipients. OCR has also affrmed its commitment to working with institutions—prior to the fling of any complaint—to help 

them better understand their responsibilities under the laws that OCR enforces. Through the OPEN Center, OCR must continue to provide technical 

assistance and support to schools, educators, families, and students to ensure better awareness of their obligations and protections under federal nondiscrimination laws. 

As a law enforcement agency, it is not OCR’s role to issue sub-regulatory guidance documents that impose new obligations not contemplated by the 

statutes or regulations OCR enforces. Where clarity in the law is needed, the difference is once again about having the right approach. Under Secretary 

DeVos’s leadership, the Department amended the Title IX regulations to enshrine protections from sexual harassment for the frst time, doing so 

through the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures mandated by Congress. As a result of over two years of wide-ranging research, careful 

deliberation, and critical input from the American people—including over 124,000 public comments—the Department took the historic step of codifying 

schools’ obligations to respond to reports of sexual harassment. The Title IX regulation, which became effective on August 14, 2020, carries the full 

force of law, and provides a consistent and clear framework for adjudicating Title IX complaints on which survivors, the accused, and schools can rely for 

decades to come. 

45 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

Robust enforcement of the new Title IX regulation must continue 

in the years to come—and students and parents must demand 

it. The regulations establish new protections for survivors and 

institutionalize procedural protections that create safer educational 

communities that will beneft and protect all students. In the past 

four years, other issues have arisen under the statutes that OCR 

enforces that will demand continued attention. For example, 

OCR has investigated hundreds of complaints involving singlesex scholarships that implicate federal civil rights laws. Finally, 

in the face of a growing trend of allowing biological males who 

identify as transgender females to compete athletically against 

biological females, it is imperative that OCR remains steadfast in its 

commitment to protecting women’s athletics and preserving Title 

IX’s original purpose. 

Vigorous enforcement of Title VI—consistent with Supreme 

Court precedent—must also continue to be a priority for OCR. 

The continued use of racial preferences or race-based criteria in 

admissions and fnancial aid cannot be ignored; and the troubling 

rise of anti-Semitism on campuses and in schools nationwide 

cannot be ignored. Each day, OCR works to ensure that all students 

have equal access to a safe, nurturing, quality learning environment, 

free from discrimination. It fghts to create opportunity and give a 

voice to those children and families who are invisible to or forgotten 

by too many. In so doing, OCR must keep in mind the fundamental 

principles of federal civil rights laws and the legal principles that 

protect all students from discrimination on the basis of race, no 

matter who they are or where they are from. 

Finally, over the past year, the nation faced an unprecedented 

national emergency in COVID-19 that disrupted learning for students 

everywhere and, in some cases, complicated recipients’ ability to 

comply with federal non-discrimination laws. As Secretary DeVos 

repeatedly stated, however, “Learning should not stop or be denied 

because schools fear federal regulators or fear doing something 

different.” Too many students have fallen further behind because 

schools failed to transition and adapt to meet their needs. This is 

particularly the case for our most vulnerable students—including 

unrepresented populations and children with disabilities, who are 

at risk of falling through the cracks the longer schools remain 

closed. OCR has supported the efforts of local education leaders 

and schools, while ensuring that schools were mindful of their 

continuing civil rights obligations each step of the way. OCR provided 

critical guidance and technical assistance as schools transitioned 

to distance learning, implemented creative solutions to emerging 

problems, and are now welcoming or are preparing to welcome 

students back in the classroom. OCR must continue to vigorously 

enforce federal civil rights laws—even in the midst of COVID-19— 

and must continue to forcefully protect the right of every student to 

learn in an environment that is safe and free from discrimination, 

whether that learning takes place in the classroom or online. 

USE OF RACE-EXCLUSIONARY POLICIES 

OR PRACTICES IN SCHOOLS 

The nation has experienced signifcant strife that stirred debate about racial 

discrimination and inequality. Each day, educators across the country strive to 

ensure that all students have equal access to a safe, nurturing, quality learning 

environment, free from discrimination. As school districts and leaders in the 

higher education community seek to bring awareness to these important 

issues, they must keep in mind the fundamental principles of federal civil 

rights laws and the legal principles that protect all students and staff— 

regardless of race—from discrimination on the basis of race. 

OCR is aware of concerning reports recently that schools across the country 

are discriminating on the basis of race in different ways. Sometimes, these 

reports have involved schools’ purported efforts to promote diversity and 

equity among students but are nevertheless prohibited because they violate 

Title VI. OCR has received complaints concerning the use of race-exclusionary 

policies or practices in schools. OCR has also opened investigations involving 

such complaints, including two directed investigations involving raceexclusionary practices. A few of those investigations are briefy described 

below. 

n A teacher in a Chicago-area school district fled a complaint with 

OCR alleging that the district implemented a series of racial “equity” 

policies and programs that discriminated against staff, students, 

and job applicants; implemented certain policies and programs that 

discriminate against staff, students, and job applicants, including 

segregating staff and students into affnity groups based on race; 

used “Black Lives Matter” materials to advocate to students that white 

individuals bear collective guilt for racism, police brutality, and other 

social ills; and failed to discipline some students appropriately by 

allegedly taking race into consideration in its disciplinary decisions. 

n OCR opened a directed investigation based on reports that a university 

in Kentucky segregated by race its incoming resident assistants 

for training purposes. As part of what the university called “White 

Accountability Training,” resident advisors who identifed as white were 

allegedly given training on “microaggressions” and “white privilege,” 

while resident assistants who identify as “black, indigenous, [or] people 

of color,” were given separate training. 

n OCR opened a directed investigation to examine whether a university in 

New York is discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin 

by offering and/or providing an exemption from the requirement to 

obtain vaccinations to students “who identify as Black, Indigenous, or 

as a Person of Color” based on their race, color, or national origin. 

OCR has concerns that using curricular or training materials for students or 

staff which are based on racial classifcations or stereotypes of individuals 

—solely based on their race—may violate Title VI by requiring school 

personnel to engage in activities that result in the different treatment of 

students based on their race, or which constitute racial harassment.37 Such 

policies or pedagogical practices that perpetuate the idea that students may 

be categorized by race, assigned a set of characteristics, and be considered 

to possess certain characteristics based on that race, may subject students or 

staff to discrimination in violation of Title VI. 

OCR must take its obligation to ensure equal access to education seriously; 

this must apply to all students regardless of race. Recipients cannot engage in 

race discrimination, either by treating individuals differently due to their race, 

or by creating a racially hostile environment. While OCR is bound to adhere 

to the First Amendment’s free speech protections, these racially exclusive 

practices could result in a violation of Title VI. OCR must take its obligation 

to ensure equal access to education seriously and continue its vigorous 

enforcement of Title VI on behalf of all students. 

46 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2020

 

 

19. Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1743. Endnotes 20. Id. at 1753.

1. In this report, unless otherwise specifed, schools means elementary and

secondary schools or school districts, postsecondary colleges or universities, and

any other type of educational institution receiving federal fnancial assistance from

the U.S. Department of Education.

2. In this report, complaint resolutions requiring recipients to make substantive

changes protective of students’ rights are considered resolutions with change.

This term excludes resolutions that result in dismissal, administrative closure, or a

fnding of no violation.

3. Offce for Civil Rights, Case Processing Manual (2020), https://www2.ed.gov/

about/offces/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf.

4. Per OCR’s Case Processing Manual (CPM), a complainant fling on behalf of

another person will be required to secure any necessary written consent from the

individual.

5. A single complaint often contains more than one allegation of discrimination.

Please note that this report includes data on both the total number of individual

allegations and the total number of complaints.

6. 34 C.F.R. §§ 100.7(a), 106.71, 104.61, 108.9, 110.30, and 28 C.F.R. §35.172(a).

7. The Offce for Civil Rights’ Blog can be found at the following link: https://www2.

ed.gov/about/offces/list/ocr/blog/index.html.

8. U.S. Department of Education, Final Rule, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of

Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,”

Federal Register 85, no. 97, (May 19, 2020): 30026-30579, https://www.

federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/19/2020-10512/nondiscrimination-onthe-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federal.

9. “Secretary DeVos Announces New Civil Rights Initiative to Combat Sexual Assault

in K-12 Public Schools,” press release, February 26, 2020, https://www.ed.gov/

news/press-releases/secretary-devos-announces-new-civil-rights-initiativecombat-sexual-assault-k-12-public-schools.

10. Issue Brief on Sexual Violence in K-12 Schools, OCR, https://www2.ed.gov/

about/offces/list/ocr/docs/sexual-violence.pdf?utm content=&utm

medium=email&utm name=&utm source=govdelivery&utm term=.

11. “U.S. Department of Education Holds Penn State Accountable for its Failure to

Protect Students from Sexual Misconduct, Requires Major Overhaul of Title IX

Procedures Following Compliance Review,” press release, March 26, 2020,

https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-holds-pennstate-accountable-its-failure-protect-students-sexual-misconduct-requires-majoroverhaul-title-ix-procedures-following-compliance-review.

12. “Secretary DeVos Requires Sweeping Changes at USC After Title IX Investigation

Finds University Failed for Years to Protect Students from Sexual Abuse,” press

release, February 27, 2020, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretarydevos-requires-sweeping-changes-usc-after-title-ix-investigation-fnds-universityfailed-years-protect-students-sexual-abuse.

13. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3).

14. 34 C.F.R. § 106.12(a).

15. Throughout this report, data on the number of allegations in discrete issue

areas received and resolved by OCR in prior fscal years may vary slightly when

compared to the data reported in previous publications. This is because case

information continues to be updated in OCR’s database as cases are processed,

investigated, and resolved, resulting in changes to the categorization of some

cases.

16. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a), (b).

17. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)-(c)(1) (In determining whether equal athletic opportunities

are available, [OCR] will consider ... whether the selection of sports and levels

of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of

both sexes[.]”).

18. Pursuant to Section 103 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual, OCR may open

complaints against other recipients if it determines that they, too, are involved in

incidents of alleged discrimination. In light of the allegations in this complaint, OCR

opened fve additional investigations against Bloomfeld Public Schools, Hartford

Board of Education, Canton Board of Education, Cromwell School District, and

21. Id. at 1739, 1741.

22. Revised Letter of Impending Enforcement Action, August 31, 2020, https://www2.

ed.gov/about/offces/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/01194025-a2.pdf.

23. Bostock, at 1741 (2020).

24. See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).

25. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

26. See Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016) (Fisher II), Fisher v.

Univ. of Texas at Austin, 570 U.S. 297 (2013) (Fisher I), and Grutter v. Bollinger,

539 U.S. 306 (2003)

27. See recission letter, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offces/list/ocr/letters/colleaguetitle-vi-201807.pdf.

28. Dear Colleague Letter on the Use of Race in Postsecondary Admissions, (2008)

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offces/list/ocr/letters/raceadmissionpse.html.

29. Id.

30. In addition to the cases mentioned, OCR has received complaints against several

high-profle institutions alleging an unlawful use of race in admissions. A full

list of Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary Schools currently under

investigation by OCR is available at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offces/list/ocr/

docs/investigations/open-investigations/tvi.html. This list is a snapshot of data on

aspects of law that OCR enforces as it existed at a particular point in time (i.e.,

the last Friday of each month), and search results are organized by the types of

discrimination issues under investigation.

31. In addition to OCR’s case involving Washington University in St. Louis, OCR

opened a joint investigation with DOJ into a complaint alleging that Yale University

discriminated against Asian American applicants, in violation of Title VI, by treating

Asian American applicants differently than non-Asian American applicants during

the admissions process. More information about this case, including the U.S.

Department of Justice fnding that Yale University violated Title VI is available at

the following link: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-yaleuniversity-illegal-discrimination-practices-undergraduate.

32. “U.S. Department of Education Releases 2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection

OCR’s press release on the 2017–18 CRDC,” press release, October 15, 2020,

https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases2017-18-civil-rights-data-collection.

33. Issue Brief on the Inappropriate Use of Restraint and Seclusion on Children with

Disabilities in K-12 Schools is publicly available, OCR, https://www2.ed.gov/

about/offces/list/ocr/docs/restraint-and-seclusion.pdf?utm content=&utm

medium=email&utm name=&utm source=govdelivery&utm term=.

34. Issue Brief on Sexual Violence in K-12 Schools is publicly available, OCR,

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offces/list/ocr/docs/sexual-violence.pdf?utm

content=&utm medium=email&utm name=&utm source=govdelivery&utm

term=.

35. Specifcally, under the CRDC, physical restraint is defned as a personal restriction

that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move his or her torso,

arms, legs, or head freely, whereas mechanical restraint is the use of any device

or equipment to restrict a student’s freedom of movement. Seclusion is the

involuntary confnement of a student alone in a room or area from which the

student is physically prevented from leaving.

36. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offces/list/ocr/aboutocr.html.

37. The Department of Education lacks general jurisdiction over curricular decisions

made by school districts. See 20 U.S. Code § 3403(b) (noting limits on the

“direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction,

administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school

system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or

content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any

educational institution or school system.”). However, OCR possesses jurisdiction

in rare cases, where curricular decisions themselves may constitute illegal

discrimination under federal civil rights laws, such as Title VI. See id. (recognizing

jurisdiction “to the extent authorized by law”).

Danbury Board of Education. 47 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

OCR 12 Regional Offices: 

Atlanta Offce 

U.S. Department of Education 

61 Forsyth Street S.W., Suite 19T10 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Boston Offce 

U.S. Department of Education 

8th Floor 

5 Post Offce Square 

Boston, MA 02109 

Chicago Offce 

U.S. Department of Education 

John C. Kluczynski Federal Building 

230 S. Dearborn Street, 37th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60661 

Cleveland Offce 

U.S. Department of Education 

1350 Euclid Avenue 

Suite 325 

Cleveland, OH 44115 

Dallas Offce 

U.S. Department of Education 

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 1620 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Availability of Alternate Formats: 

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as braille or large print should be submitted to the Alternate Format Center by calling 

1.202.260.0852 or by contacting the Section 508 Coordinator via email at om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited-English-Proficient Persons: 

If you have diffculty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to 

the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation 

services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1.800.872.5327) (TTY: 1.800.877.8339) or email us at ED.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. You 

also can write to U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, 

Washington, DC 20202. 

Denver Offce San Francisco Offce 

U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Education 

Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building 50 United Nations Plaza 

1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite 310 Mail Box 1200, Room 1545 

Denver, CO 80204 San Francisco, CA 94102 

Kansas City Offce Seattle Offce 

U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Education 

One Petticoat Lane 915 Second Avenue, Room 3310 

1010 Walnut Street, Suite 320 Seattle, WA 98174 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

Metro DC (District of Columbia) Offce 

U.S. Department of Education 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20202 

New York Offce 

U.S. Department of Education 

32 Old Slip, 26th Floor 

New York, NY 10005 

Philadelphia Offce 

U.S. Department of Education 

The Wanamaker Building 

100 Penn Square East, Suite 515 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Office for Civil Rights 

Kimberly M. Richey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

Lyndon Baines Johnson Building 

U.S. Department of Education 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202-1100 

Telephone: 1.800.421.3481 | Fax: 1.202.453.6012 

Email: OCR@ed.gov | www.ed.gov/ocr 

48