DELIVERING

JUSTICE U.S. Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights

Report to the President 

and Secretary 

of Education

Under Section 203(b)(1) 

of the Department of Education 

Organization Act

FISCAL YEAR

2015
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

2

U.S. Department of Education 

Office for Civil Rights

Catherine E. Lhamon

Assistant Secretary

May 2016

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 Office for Civil Rights and 

identifying significant civil rights or compliance problems as to which such Office 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, Office for Civil Rights

Delivering Justice, Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization 

Act, FY 2015, Washington, DC, 2016.

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

Any updates to this report will be available at this website.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 3

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

Executive Summary and Report Highlights.................................................................. 5

The Office for Civil Rights: Overview and Trends.......................................................... 6

Notable Outreach and Collaborative Activities............................................................ 13 

The Civil Rights Data Collection..................................................................................15

Policy Guidance: An Overview....................................................................................17

Title VI: Discrimination Based On Race, Color, or National Origin ...............................18

Title IX: Discrimination Based on Sex......................................................................... 26

Section 504 and ADA Title II: Discrimination Based on Disability.................................33

Enforcement Activity Under Other Statutes ............................................................... 40

Looking Ahead.......................................................................................................... 41 

Appendix................................................................................................................... 42

Endnotes................................................................................................................... 43 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

4

MESSAGE FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Nothing is more important to us at the U.S. Department of Education, 

including the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), than increasing and fostering 

equitable and excellent educational opportunities for all students. 

Far too many students lack robust access to the core elements of a 

quality education – or face barriers to their education in the form of 

discriminatory harassment, violence, or exclusionary discipline, or other 

types of discrimination. We must make sure our students’ background 

or identity – including their race, ethnicity, or national origin; their sex; or 

whether or not they have a disability – neither limits their opportunity nor 

dims their horizon. Instead, we must achieve equity and excellence at 

every level of our education system, in every school, for every student. 

As the pages of this report describe, during fiscal year (FY) 2015, 

OCR processed nearly 10,400 complaints – a new record high – 

opened more than 3,000 investigations, and reached more than 1,000 

resolutions that secured changes protective of students’ civil rights in 

schools around the nation. We nearly doubled the number of sexual 

violence cases resolved1

 in FY 2015 (84) compared to FY 2014 (44). 

We provided more than 250 technical assistance sessions to recipients 

and other stakeholders. We released nine policy documents on key issues to provide schools with 

a clearer roadmap of how to comply with the laws we enforce. And we responded to 7,430 hotline 

calls, 3,397 public inquiries, and 8,775 publication requests for OCR documents.

We accomplished all of it with a dedicated yet skeleton crew of 540 staff – the smallest cadre in 

OCR history – for whose skill and passion I owe my deepest gratitude. While I am pleased we will 

add to their numbers in FY 2016, it is my strong hope that in the future we will obtain the resources 

needed to allow OCR’s work to continue with the speed and skill we expect of ourselves, and that 

students who seek our help deserve.

The pages of this report contain the stories of America: individual accounts of hurt or inequity faced 

by students and families as they struggle to access a quality education and to get ahead in life. But 

these are also stories of redemption, of justice, and of courage and leadership shown by teachers, 

administrators, and educational institutions as they strive to make their schools safer, fairer, and 

more equitable. These stories give me hope that, school by school, we can build a better education 

system where no student suffers the indignity of discrimination, and where the full potential of every 

student is realized. 

Sincerely,

Catherine E. Lhamon

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 5

In FY 2015, OCR promoted excellence in education 

through conducting investigations and monitoring 

schools under resolution agreements; ensuring equal 

access to educational opportunity through the release 

of policy guidance; providing technical assistance to 

enforce federal civil rights laws; and improving the Civil 

Rights Data Collection. 

n In FY 2015, the quality and pace of OCR’s 

enforcement work remained high. OCR received 

a record-high 10,392 complaints, initiated 19 

compliance reviews and directed inquiries, and 

resolved2

 9,250 cases overall, including 1,044 

resolutions that secured changes protective of 

students’ civil rights in schools around the nation. 

(See the Appendix for the total number of resolution 

agreements in FY 2015 by jurisdiction, state, and 

type of investigation.) Over several years, the 

number of complaints OCR received generally rose 

in several areas, including restraint or seclusion of 

students with disabilities; accessibility of curriculum 

through technology for students with disabilities; 

harassment based on race, color, or national 

origin; appropriate support for English Learner (EL) 

students; and sexual violence. 

n OCR developed and released nine policy guidance documents and hosted policy-related listening sessions with stakeholders on the following 

issue areas:

• resource equity and resource comparability 

and discrimination based on race and national 

origin; 

• obligations of elementary and secondary 

schools to respond to the bullying of students 

with disabilities that denies a free appropriate 

public education (FAPE) and disability-based 

harassment of students with disabilities; 

• schools’ obligations surrounding effective communication for students with disabilities; 

• questions and answers regarding singlesex elementary and secondary classes and 

extracurricular activities; 

• applicability of federal civil rights laws to juvenile justice residential facilities; 

• implementing the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Ebola 

guidance for schools; 

• schools’ obligations to ensure that EL students can participate meaningfully and equally 

in school and to communicate information to 

limited English proficient (LEP) parents in a 

language they can understand; 

• addressing the risk of measles in schools and 

school obligations to students with disabilities 

medically unable to obtain vaccinations; and 

• the importance and role of Title IX coordinators in fostering compliance with Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972.

 OCR provided more than 250 technical assistance sessions to a wide range of stakeholders 

– including schools and districts, state education 

agencies, colleges and universities, parent groups, 

nonprofit organizations, advocacy organizations, 

and other federal agencies – and conducted other 

outreach to galvanize action on important civil 

rights topics. Notable outreach efforts include a 

convening at the White House on school discipline 

(with the Supportive School Discipline Initiative), a 

celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and continued leadership 

in the White House Task Force to Protect Students 

from Sexual Assault.

 OCR administered and collected data for the 

2013-14 school year Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC) from approximately 97,000 public schools 

serving about 49 million students nationwide. OCR 

improved the data collection process for thousands 

of school districts by instituting customized data 

submission checks that provided them with realtime technical assistance while significantly cutting 

back on the possibility of submission errors. OCR 

also launched a pilot program with eight states 

to pre-populate local CRDC data, thereby 

dramatically reducing the reporting burden 

on districts in those states. 

n

n

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

AND REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

6

For decades, OCR has enforced civil rights in our 

nation’s preschool through 12th grade (P-12) and postsecondary schools, which now serve almost 80 million 

students annually.

Mission and Scope

To advance the U.S. Department of Education’s mission of promoting student achievement and to prepare 

students for global competitiveness, OCR’s purpose 

is to foster educational excellence and ensure equal 

access by enforcing federal civil rights laws and implementing regulations that prohibit discrimination on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, 

or age in all programs or activities that receive federal 

financial assistance.

Federal Civil Rights Laws 

under OCR’s Jurisdiction

OCR’s charge is to enforce and implement the following laws (See Figure 1):

n Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting 

race, color, or national origin discrimination in 

all programs or activities receiving federal 

financial assistance);

n Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex discrimination in all education programs 

or activities receiving federal financial assistance);

n Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in 

programs, services, and activities receiving federal 

financial assistance);

n Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (prohibiting age 

discrimination in all programs or activities receiving 

federal financial assistance);

n Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(prohibiting disability discrimination in state and local government services—whether or not programs 

receive federal financial assistance); and

n Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (2001) 

(prohibiting public elementary and secondary 

schools, local educational agencies, and state 

educational agencies from denying any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts 

of America or certain other youth 

groups equal access to school 

facilities for meetings). 

These and other civil rights laws 

extend to a wide range of federal 

recipients, including all state educational agencies; approximately 

16,900 local educational agencies; 

approximately 7,200 postsecondary 

institutions, including proprietary 

schools and community colleges; 

80 state vocational rehabilitation 

agencies and their sub-recipients; 

as well as other institutions that 

receive U.S. Department of Education financial assistance, such as 

libraries, museums, and correctional 

institutions. Nearly 80 million individuals are beneficiaries of the financial assistance these 

institutions and agencies receive on behalf of 

the Department.

Structure and Functions 

OCR is headed by an Assistant Secretary, appointed 

by the President of the United States with the advice 

and consent of the U.S. Senate. The senior staff supporting the Assistant Secretary include a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, a Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Enforcement, an Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 

THE OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: 

OVERVIEW AND TRENDS

Figure 1

Boy Scouts of America 

Equal Access Act (2001)

Age Discrimination Act of 1975

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title II of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

The Office for Civil Rights Enforcement Jurisdiction Timeline
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 7

for Policy, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic 

Operations and Outreach, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management and Operations, a Chief of Staff, 

and two additional senior counsel, among others.

OCR is composed of a headquarters office and 12 enforcement offices throughout the country (See Figure 

2). The Headquarters and DC Metro enforcement offices are located in Washington, DC, and the remaining 

11 enforcement offices are in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, New York, 

Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle.

OCR’s core activities include responding to civil rights 

complaints filed by members of the public and conducting proactive investigations to enforce federal civil 

rights laws; monitoring institutions’ adherence to resolution agreements reached with OCR; issuing policy 

guidance to increase recipients’ understanding of their 

civil rights obligations and students’ awareness of their 

civil rights; responding to requests for information from 

and providing technical assistance to the public; and 

administering and disseminating the Civil Rights Data 

Collection. This report details notable accomplishments in these activities during FY 2015.

Enforcement and Staffing Trends 

OCR’s staffing level has consistently declined over the 

life of the agency even though complaint volume has 

significantly increased (See Figure 3). OCR’s staff level 

at the end of FY 2015 was 540 Full Time Equivalents 

Figure 2

OCR Regional Office

Guam

Northern 

Mariana 

Islands

Puerto 

Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands

American Samoa

HI

WA

OR

ID

MT

NV

CA CO

TX

IL OH

WY

UT

AZ NM

OK

KS

MI

NE

SD

ND

MN

IA

IN

AR

MS AL

TN

KY

WV

LA

WI

MO

GA

PA

MA

VT

NH

ME

VA

NC

SC

FL

NY Boston

NJ

DE

CT

AK

RI

Seattle

Denver Kansas 

City

Dallas

Atlanta

Chicago Cleveland

San 

Francisco

Philadelphia

Washington, DC

(Metro) 

New York

OCR REGIONAL OFFICE STATE, DISTRICT, OR TERRITORY

Washington, DC (Metro) DC, VA, NC, SC

Atlanta, GA GA, TN, AL, FL

Boston, MA MA, ME, VT, NH, RI, CT

Chicago, IL IL, IN, IA, WI, MN, ND

Cleveland, OH OH, MI

Dallas, TX TX, AR, LA, MS

Denver, CO CO, WY, UT, AZ, NM

Kansas City, MO MO, SD, NE, KS, OK

New York, NY NY, NJ, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

Philadelphia, PA PA, DE, MD, WV, KY

San Francisco, CA CA

Seattle, WA WA, OR, ID, MT, NV, AK, HI, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

8

Percentage of Complaints Received in 

FY 2015 by Type of Alleged Discrimination 

(both raw numbers and percentage)*

Figure 4

Disability 4,806 46% 

Sex 2,939 28%

Race & National Origin 2,157 21%

Age 550 5%

* Raw numbers do not add up to 10,392 because some complaints cover 

more than one statute.

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1,500

2,700

3,900

5,100

6,300

7,500

8,700

9,900

11,100

12,300

13,500

Staff Level 

(FTE) 1,148 913 815 788 712 640 585 540

Complaint 

Receipts 3,497 2,199 3,384 4,981 4,897 5,533 6,933 10,392 Staff Level (FTE)

Complaints

Figure 3

OCR Staff Level (FTE) 

and Complaints Received, FY 1980-2015

(FTE), marking an all-time low in staff levels since 1980, 

when the Department of Education (ED) separated 

from what had until then been the Department of 

Health, Education, and Welfare, establishing an OCR 

within ED. At the end of FY 2015, the number of OCR 

staff was 100 FTE or 15% below the level 10 years ago 

(640 FTE in FY 2005), while OCR’s complaint volume 

nearly doubled in that time span (10,392 in FY 2015 

compared to 5,533 in FY 2005). The number of complaints reached an all-time high of 10,392 in FY 2015 

(See Figure 4). Processing and resolving complaints 

generate the largest share of workload for OCR.

OCR has seen a general increase in complaints in 

some specific areas as well, including appropriate 

support for English learner (EL) students; harassment 

based on race, color, or national origin; restraint or 

seclusion of students with disabilities; accessibility 

of curriculum through technology for students with 

disabilities; and sexual violence. Increased complaint 

volume in these areas has resulted in large increases in 

workload for OCR staff, as these and other cases tend 

to include issues that are complex and campus- or institution-wide in addition to those pertaining to specific 

students. This combination of volume and scope has 

led to greater variance in the length of investigations. 

n EL Students

OCR saw an increase in the number of complaints 

received involving implementation of policies that 

promote educational equity in its programs for EL 

students (See Figure 5). In FY 2015, OCR received 

82 such complaints, similar to levels received over 

each of the last 5 years, which is a 51% increase 

over the number of complaints received in 

FY 2009 (54).

n Racial Harassment 

At the elementary and secondary education level, 

the last four years have seen an average of 347 annual complaints regarding racial harassment, while 

the preceding ten years averaged 210 complaints 

per year (See Figure 6). There have been similar 

increases at the postsecondary level; for example, 

in FY 2015, OCR received 146 racial harassment 

complaints—nearly triple the number of racial harassment complaints received in FY 2005 (50).

n Inappropriate Restraint or Seclusion of Students 

with Disabilities

Since FY 2011, OCR has seen an increase in 

the number of complaints received involving the 

inappropriate restraint or seclusion of students with 

disabilities (See Figure 7). FY 2015 saw the highest number of such complaints – 76, an increase 
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 9

Number of Complaints Over Time 

Involving English Learners (ELs)

0

20

40

60

80

100

‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06

Fiscal Year

EL Complaint Receipts

‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15

61 67 64 59

35 37 41 42

53 54

70

82 80 80 81 82

Figure 5

Figure 6

0

200

400

600

800

‘00

242 278 278 267 236 238 238 222 318 338 347 437 509 584 523 436

‘01 ‘02

Elementary and 

Secondary (ESE) 

Racial Harassment

Complaints

Postsecondary (PSE) 

Racial Harassment

Complaints

FY ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06

Total ESE and PSE

Racial Harassment

Complaints

Racial Harassment Complaint Receipts

‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15

182

60 71

207

73

205

71

196

44

192

50

188

52

186

52

170

95

223

88

250

126

221

161

276

165

344

174

410

178

345

146

290

Number of Complaints Over Time Involving Racial Harassment

of 58% from FY 2014 (48) – since OCR 

began tracking this issue in FY 2011.

n Online Accessibility for All Students, 

Including Students with Disabilities

Although OCR receives comparatively 

fewer complaints in the area of web 

accessibility for students with disabilities, 

the number of complaints in this area 

has grown significantly in recent years 

(See Figure 8). The 25 complaints that 

OCR received in FY 2015 marked the 

highest number since OCR began tracking the issue in FY 2011.3 

n Sexual Violence 

Complaints of sexual violence at the 

postsecondary level have increased 

dramatically over the past seven years, 

from 11 in FY 2009 to 164 in FY 2015 

(See Figure 9). At the elementary and 

secondary school level, OCR received 

65 complaints in FY 2015, which is more

than double the previous highest number

of complaints received in a year (31) in 

FY 2013.

Increasing Transparency

Consistent with the Administration’s commitment to open government, OCR is committed to improving transparency in its work 

and the civil rights data it collects to shed 

light on the status of equity and opportunity 

in public schools. OCR believes strongly in 

the educative effect of transparency: Publicizing resolution agreements of civil rights 

investigations gives schools and communities additional tools to take proactive steps 

to prevent and address discrimination without OCR involvement. It also provides the 

public with a better understanding of civil 

rights issues and the volume of incidents occurring in 

schools today. In addition to transparency in enforcement processes, OCR is pleased to afford the public 

full access to the civil rights data collected by OCR 

that show progress and gaps in providing equal educational opportunity in P-12 schools nationwide. And 

OCR has taken additional steps to make policy and 

investigative work more accessible on OCR’s website 

and to respond more speedily and vigorously to public 

and media requests for information. 

n Enforcement Resolutions 

OCR continued its practice of making publicly available resolution letters and agreements for cases resolved in the last two fiscal years. Currently, OCR’s 

website posts resolution letters and agreements in 

more than 700 cases. In addition, since May 2014, 

OCR has proactively released to the public and 

the press a list of educational institutions currently 

under investigation for whether their policies and 

practices related to sexual violence meet Title IX 

requirements. Release of this information at the 
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

10

postsecondary level on a weekly basis, in response 

to a record-high volume of requests for the information, has furthered the national dialogue on an 

important civil rights issue. 

n Civil Rights Data Collection

In FY 2015, OCR collected data for the 2013-14 

school year from every public school district in the 

nation, including long-term, secure juvenile justice 

facilities, charter schools, alternative schools, and 

schools serving students with disabilities. In an 

effort to speed up the availability of data to schools 

and reduce the burden in submitting data, OCR implemented a number of innovations – including the 

launch of a new data collection tool that allowed 

17,000 school districts to receive summary reports 

of their 2013-14 CRDC data immediately after submission, which was up to eight months earlier than 

would have been the case without this new report 

feature. OCR continued the option to upload data 

using Excel templates and revised the file upload 

methodology to be more flexible by allowing for 

partial data uploads. This feature reduced burden 

and assisted many districts with large data submissions. OCR also reduced the burden of at least 

2,000 school districts to comply with data collection requirements through collaboration with states. 

For the first time, data edit checks were customized to specific school district characteristics (e.g., 

grades offered), and district data responses were 

compared automatically to other data sources such 

as the district’s website or data submitted elsewhere within the Department. The customized data 

checks eliminated a manual edit-checking process 

that otherwise would have taken OCR an additional 

two months after the data collection period ended, 

and thus contributed to OCR’s projected timely 

release of the data to the public in 2016. For more 

information about the CRDC, see page 15 of 

this report.

n OCR Website 

In FY 2015, in order to improve the public’s ability to file a complaint and access important civil 

rights information, OCR overhauled its website, 

updating and enhancing web-accessible content. 

OCR streamlined the organization of the website to 

improve navigability and make it more user-friendly; 

reorganized the electronic reading room with more 

robust content, including policy documents and 

guidance across all of the statutes that OCR enforces; and developed a search engine that allows 

users to search for recent case resolution documents. OCR also improved the ease of access 

to resources in languages other than English and 

developed an online “news room” where recent 

items of interest to the public are posted. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15

Fiscal Year

Disability – Restraint and Seclusion

 Complaint Receipts

37

28

38

48

76

Number of Complaints Over Time Involving 

Restraint and Seclusion* of Students with Disabilities**

Figure 7

 * Restraint is a personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move his or her 

torso, arms, legs, or head freely, or it is the use of any device or equipment to restrict a student’s freedom 

of movement. Seclusion is the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area from which the 

student is physically prevented from leaving.

** OCR’s case management database did not track this discrete issue prior to FY 2011. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15

Fiscal Year

Disability – Web Accessibility

 Complaint Receipts

9

5 8

15

25

Number of Complaints Over Time 

Involving Web Accessibility*

Figure 8

* OCR’s case management database did not track this discrete 

issue prior to FY 2011. 
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 11

n Media and Public Inquiries 

In addition to enhancing the content of OCR’s 

website to provide more information directly to the 

public, OCR’s customer service team responded to 7,430 hotline calls, answered 3,397 public 

inquiries, and fulfilled 8,775 publication requests for 

OCR documents to ensure the public has accurate 

information about civil rights laws and policy to 

promote equity in education. Through the Department’s Office of Communications and Outreach, 

OCR also provides information in response to 

media inquiries to ensure that the public is well-informed of OCR’s work. In FY 2015, OCR responded to more than 1,200 unique media inquiries.

n Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

Timely and accurate responses to FOIA requests 

are vital to open government and are an integral 

part of the Department’s work. OCR’s timely and 

accurate responses to FOIA requests – made by 

complainants, educational institutions, non-profit 

organizations, the media, and others – serve the 

public interest, enhance transparency, and 

ensure accountability.

OCR reaffirmed its commitment to providing excellent customer service by launching a National FOIA 

Pilot Project in FY 2015 to address issues related 

to expansive requests for information involving multiple offices. OCR also provided greater and more 

coordinated support throughout the regional offices 

0

100

200

300

FY

Sexual Violence Complaint Receipts

‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

16

15

‘13 ‘14 ‘15

22 35 40 31 64 128 229

Postsecondary 

(PSE)

Title IX 

Sexual Violence

Complaints 

Elementary and 

Secondary (ESE)

Title IX 

Sexual Violence

Complaints 

65 31 22

164

106

33

16

24

11

11 24

11

Figure 9

Number of Complaints Over Time Involving Sexual Violence*

* OCR’s case management database did not track this discrete issue prior to FY 2009.

Total Elementary and 

Secondary (ESE) and 

Postsecondary (PSE) 

Title IX Sexual Violence 

Complaints 

Date Requests 

Processed

Open FOIA Requests at 

Beginning of FY

Average Age of Requests 

Open at Beginning of FY

Median Age of Requests 

Open at Beginning of FY

Requests Open >180 

Days at Beginning of FY

FY 2014 997 206 166 days 102 days 68

FY 2015 1,092 158 68 days 41 days 9

% Change +10% - 23% -59% -60% -87%

Figure 10

Comparison of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests at OCR between FY 2014 and FY 2015
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

12

to enable us to process FOIA requests more expeditiously. These steps resulted in a 10% increase in 

FOIA cases processed in FY 2015 compared to FY 

2014. Additionally, compared to the same date at 

the end of FY 2014, in FY 2015 OCR saw a 23% 

reduction in the number of open FOIA requests, 

a 59% reduction in the average age of open FOIA 

requests, and an 87% reduction in the number of 

FOIA requests open more than 180 days. 

In FY 2015, FOIA case processing efficiency and 

speed in closing out longstanding cases (thus 

reducing average and median age of open FOIA 

requests) improved immensely (See Figure 10). 

Technical Assistance Activities

Educators, as well as parents and students, should 

have the knowledge and skills to identify, prevent, and 

address discrimination, or get help when they experience discrimination. Every year, OCR provides technical assistance to schools and communities around the 

country on both longstanding and emerging civil rights 

issues. In FY 2015, OCR provided more than 250 

technical assistance sessions to a wide range of stakeholders, including schools and districts, state education agencies, colleges and universities, parent groups, 

nonprofit organizations, advocacy organizations, and 

legal organizations, among others. Examples of 

technical assistance provided include the following:

n OCR’s Kansas City regional office wrote and 

produced a video filmed by the Missouri School 

Board Association to help teachers, districts, and 

the public better understand OCR’s January 2014 

guidance on school discipline. 

n OCR’s Program Legal Group presented a livestreamed webinar to nearly 100 organizations on 

civil rights compliance for race-targeted or sexspecific programming. 

n OCR provided technical assistance in English and 

Spanish to Parents Helping Parents on the rights of 

students with disabilities and limited English proficient (LEP) parents’ rights for meaningful access to 

their children’s education. 

n OCR gave a presentation to the Oregon Department of Education on Title IX, specifically addressing sexual harassment, including sexual violence 

and harassment on the basis of gender identity and 

gender nonconformity.

“The courage of the Office for Civil Rights in expanding 

the value and availability of the Civil Rights Data 

Collection, issuing guidance clarifying nondiscrimination 

in Title VI regarding school discipline and resource 

equity, and shining a light on the safety of women 

on college campuses will have lasting effects for a 

generation of young people.” 

WADE HENDERSON, President and CEO, The Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, March 2016.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 13

OCR extends the reach of its core activities through 

ongoing work on inter- and intra-agency initiatives, as 

well as public events. 

OCR continued its partnership with other federal agencies and remained active in the Supportive School 

Discipline Initiative (SSDI) and its efforts to promote 

alternatives to exclusionary school discipline. In July 

2015, OCR partnered with other offices across the 

Department, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), 

and the White House Domestic Policy Council to host 

a supportive school discipline convening at the White 

House. The convening brought together teams of educators from 40 school districts across the country to 

share challenges they have faced in addressing school 

discipline issues. Participants also identified next steps 

for action on school discipline so as to ensure continued progress toward supportive approaches to school 

discipline. Through this work, OCR helped advance a 

national conversation around school discipline practices while highlighting relevant OCR/DOJ guidance and 

promoting best practices to prevent race discrimination in discipline. OCR’s CRDC data also supported 

the creation of a series of maps that shine a light on 

the rate of discipline in a given district, disaggregated 

by race/ethnicity, sex, and disability. These interactive 

maps are a valuable tool for local- and state-level educators, policymakers, and communities as a starting 

place for evaluating their policies and practices. 

OCR commemorated the 25th anniversary of the 

signing of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 with an event keynoted by Secretary 

Arne Duncan. The event focused on progress and 

goals, highlighted the perspectives of youth leaders 

with different types of disabilities, hosted information 

tables from federal agencies and community organizations, and featured activity stations showcasing ways 

in which students with and without disabilities participate in extracurricular athletics and sports. 

OCR continues participation in the White House Task 

Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault

(Task Force), which President Obama established in 

January 2014. The Task Force released a resource 

guide in September 2015 that included OCR’s April 

2015 resource guide for Title IX coordinators and sample language for schools to establish a memorandum 

of understanding with local law enforcement. OCR also 

continues its practice of transparency by making available the list of schools OCR is investigating in the area 

of Title IX sexual violence and by posting its resolution 

agreements on its website. 

NOTABLE OUTREACH 

AND COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES 

“We really appreciate the leadership that the 

Office for Civil Rights has shown in the Obama 

Administration on disability issues.” 

ANDREW IMPARATO, Executive Director of the Association 

of University Centers on Disabilities, 25th Anniversary of 

Americans with Disabilities Act event, July 24, 2015.

Using Data to Highlight Discipline Disparities

In July 2015, at a White House event entitled “Rethink 

School Discipline,” OCR released the state- and national-level discipline estimations from the 2011-12 CRDC 

as well as interactive maps of discipline data. The discipline data include information on students who received 

suspensions, expulsions, referrals to law enforcement, 

school-related arrests, and corporal punishment. The 

White House event trended on Twitter and sparked 

national conversation on how to reduce exclusionary 

school discipline. One week after the release, the number 

of visitors to the CRDC website spiked noticeably, reaching 14,625 page views. These events contributed to an 

overall increase of over 12,000 page views of the CRDC 

website in July 2015 from the previous month. 
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

14

In collaboration with the Office of the Under 

Secretary and the Office of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education, OCR participates 

on the Law Enforcement Equipment 

Working Group (LEEWG), a consortium 

of representatives from the Departments 

of Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, 

Treasury, Interior, and others, convened by 

the President under Executive Order 13688 

to better coordinate federal support for the 

acquisition of certain federal equipment 

by state, local, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies, including those at educational 

institutions. The LEEWG issued a 120-day 

report in May 2015 about the acquisition 

and use of federally-provided, controlled law 

enforcement equipment by local law enforcement agencies. OCR worked with other 

federal agencies to formulate a policy barring 

the receipt of such equipment by law enforcement agencies operated by P-12 school 

districts. In collaboration with other federal 

agency colleagues, OCR and the Department 

of Education also met with stakeholders and 

drafted criteria that governed the acquisition 

of federally-provided, controlled equipment by 

institutions of higher education.

OCR worked with the Department’s Office of 

the General Counsel and colleagues at DOJ 

to develop legal briefs in federal district court 

and appellate cases of significant importance 

to the Department. In FY 2015, OCR participated in five such efforts. The Departments 

of Education and Justice filed two statements 

of interest in FY 2015 regarding the rights of 

transgender students under Title IX to access 

restroom or locker room facilities consistent 

with their gender identity in G.G. v. Gloucester County Sch. Bd. and Tooley v. Van Buren 

Pub. Schs. OCR also contributed to briefs in 

cases about students with disabilities. 

“A valuable national conversation about the proper role for 

colleges and universities in appropriately responding to sexual 

and interpersonal violence and preventing such violence 

has followed upon the April 2011 Office for Civil Rights Dear 

Colleague letter and its 2014 and 2015 progeny – the 2013 

reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and its 

concomitant changes to the Clery Act – as well as the White 

House’s April 2014 task force report.” 

JOSEPH STORCH, Associate Counsel, State University of New York 

(SUNY) Office of General Counsel, March 14, 2016, discussing federal 

government influence on the national conversation regarding sexual 

violence on college campuses. 
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 15

Since 1968, the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) 

has been a longstanding and important component of 

OCR’s overall strategy for administering and enforcing the civil rights statutes for which it is responsible. 

The CRDC is a biennial survey of the nation’s public 

schools. Its purpose is to collect data on leading 

civil rights indicators related to access and barriers 

to educational opportunity at the P-12 school levels. 

OCR uses the CRDC in its own enforcement work and 

to disseminate information to the public on the equity indicators in public schools. Information compiled 

through the CRDC includes data on student enrollment, student discipline and school climate, school 

expenditures, teachers and other school staff, and 

access to preschool and to P-12 educational courses, programs, and services – disaggregated by race/

ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency, and disability. 

The CRDC is a valuable resource for other Department 

offices and federal agencies, policymakers and researchers, educators and school officials, parents and 

students, and the public.

New Data Reports

In FY 2015, OCR released two new reporting enhancements using the most recently available CRDC data: 

an English learner report and new estimations of stateand national-level discipline rates.

These reporting strategies will be available for use with 

subsequent data releases. Both reports are available 

on the CRDC reporting website. 

n The English learner report is a visual report that 

gives new insights in the educational access and 

attainment of English learners (EL students). The 

report displays data about EL student enrollment, 

discipline, and indicators of college and career 

readiness in one comprehensive report, highlighting opportunity gaps and providing a pathway for 

members of the public to explore these issues in 

their own state, district, or school.

n The new discipline state- and national-estimation report for the 2011-12 CRDC makes comparative state-level analysis, previously only available 

to skilled users, accessible. The report provides detailed tables of the number and percentages of students, with and without disabilities, who received 

various disciplinary actions, including suspension, 

expulsion, corporal punishment, 

school-related arrests, and referrals to law enforcement. 

The report further supports the 

use of the CRDC data for relevant, compelling, and accurate 

stories of education equity.

Improving Quality and 

Efficiency in Collection of Data

In FY 2015, OCR continued its multi-year effort to improve the CRDC data submission process to increase 

data quality and reduce the burden on school districts 

in complying with data collection requirements. In 

April 2015, to prepare for the 2013-14 CRDC, OCR 

launched a new data submission tool that was used to 

collect information from about 17,000 school districts 

and 95,000 schools. Building on work completed in 

the past two years in collaboration with the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES), new features of 

the 2013-14 CRDC increased efficiency and accuracy 

of the collection: 

n Survey items appeared in a new module format, 

which allowed districts and schools to submit data 

by broad categories instead of item-by-item.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION

Find the CRDC at 

http://ocrdata.ed.gov

Upcoming Release of 2013-14 CRDC Data 

In 2016, OCR plans to release the results of the 2013-14 

CRDC. Like the 2011-12 CRDC, the 2013-14 CRDC was 

a universal collection of data from all public schools and 

districts in the nation. The 2013-14 CRDC will include new 

information on the following topics:

n cost of preschool within school districts;

n educational access in youth correctional facilities;

n civil rights coordinators in school districts;

n access to distance education courses, credit recovery, 

and dual enrollment programs; and

n chronic student absenteeism.
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

16

n Automated edit checks implemented 

prior to districts’ certification of their data 

provided customized quality control of 

the data. 

n Individualized feedback reports assisted 

districts in resolving possible reporting errors and provided them with an 

instant, visually-intuitive depiction of their 

2013–14 data months in advance of 

their release to the public.

n School districts were able to prepare 

for the 2015–16 CRDC by previewing 

data elements that will be introduced in 

that collection; new data elements for 

the 2015–16 collection were included 

as optional items in the 2013–14 CRDC 

data submission tool.

n OCR developed tip sheets to address 

emerging issues and common questions; more than 119,000 downloads of 

these new technical assistance documents occurred during the data 

submission period.

n OCR implemented a pilot program to 

support the pre-population of data by 

the state educational agency (SEA) to 

reduce the burden on individual school 

districts and schools; eight SEAs saved 

their school districts valuable time and 

effort by pre-populating CRDC survey 

forms with between 40 and 100 percent 

of the required data elements.

Select Highlights from the 2011-12 CRDC4

College and career readiness:

n Only 50% of our country’s public high schools offer calculus and 

only 63% offer physics.

n A quarter of high schools with the highest percentage of black 

and Latino students do not offer Algebra II; a third of these 

schools do not offer chemistry. 

n Fewer than half of American Indian and Native-Alaskan high 

school students have access to the full range of core mathematics and science courses in their high school. The core courses 

include: Algebra I, geometry, Algebra II, calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics.

School discipline:

n Black students are suspended and expelled at a rate three 

times greater than white students.

n Students with disabilities are more than twice as likely to 

receive an out-of-school suspension (13%) than students 

without disabilities (6%). 

n Black children make up 18% of preschool enrollment, but 42%

of preschool children suspended once and 48% of preschool 

children suspended more than once.

Early childhood education:

n About 40% of school districts do not offer preschool programs.

n 57% of school districts that operate public preschool programs 

offer only part-day preschool.

Teacher and staff equity:

n Black, Latino, American Indian and Native-Alaskan students 

attend schools with higher concentrations of first year teachers 

at higher rates than white students.

n Nationwide, one in five high schools lacks a school counselor.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 17

During FY 2015, OCR issued nine policy guidance 

documents addressing issues ranging from resource 

equity concerns to the obligations of schools to designate a Title IX coordinator (See Figure 11). These 

documents serve to assist schools and other educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance 

in understanding how OCR interprets and enforces 

federal civil rights laws. In some instances, the guidance OCR issues directly responds to emerging trends 

reflected in the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

requests OCR receives for technical assistance, 

compliance issues in career and technical education 

programs as identified through the Methods of Administration program, and OCR’s own complaint investigations and compliance reviews. When appropriate, OCR 

issues guidance jointly with other civil rights offices, 

such as the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Educational institutions may 

use OCR’s policy guidance to help understand the law, 

adjusting their own policies and practices to enhance 

civil rights protections for students and avoid civil rights 

violations, which can reduce the need for OCR enforcement. Students, families, and communities often 

utilize OCR’s guidance to better understand students’ 

civil rights.

OCR created a more systematic process to assure 

engagement with relevant stakeholders while developing policy guidance. This engagement assures that 

the guidance OCR develops can continue to reflect 

and respond to issues schools and students may 

confront. OCR held 25 listening sessions addressing 

topics across all substantive areas OCR enforces. The 

25 listening sessions involved representatives from 

leading education and civil rights organizations across 

the country.

POLICY GUIDANCE: AN OVERVIEW 

text chart

STATUTE ISSUE/RELEASE DATE DESCRIPTION

Title VI, Title IX, and 

Section 504/Title II

Juvenile Justice Residential Facilities

December 8, 2014 (released jointly with DOJ)

Reiterates the applicability of federal civil rights laws in juvenile justice residential facilities.

Title VI and 

Section 504/Title II

Implementing CDC’s Ebola Guidance While 

Protecting Civil Rights 

December 16, 2014

Clarifies how schools can implement CDC’s Ebola guidance without discriminating against students on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability.

Title VI Resource Equity 

October 1, 2014

Discusses the requirement under Title VI and the Department’s implementing 

regulations that students have equal access to educational resources without 

regard to race, color, or national origin.

English Learners (EL Students) & Limited 

English Proficient (LEP) Parents

January 7, 2015 (released jointly with DOJ)

Discusses schools’ obligation under Title VI and the Department’s implementing 

regulations to ensure EL students’ ability to participate and the obligation of 

P-12 schools to communicate with LEP parents. 

Title IX Single-Sex Classes and Extracurricular 

Activities

December 1, 2014 

Clarifies the Title IX requirements that must be met in order for nonvocational, 

coeducational elementary and secondary schools to offer single-sex nonvocational classes or extracurricular activities. 

Title IX Coordinators

April 24, 2015

Reminds recipients of the obligation to designate a Title IX coordinator and 

provides an overview of Title IX’s requirements in several key areas, including 

athletics, single-sex education, sex-based harassment, and discipline.

Section 504/Title II Responding to Bullying of Students with 

Disabilities

October 21, 2014

Discusses a school’s obligation under Section 504 and Title II and their implementing regulations to respond to the bullying, on any basis, of students 

with disabilities.

Effective Communication for Students with 

Disabilities

November 12, 2014 (released jointly with the 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services (OSERS) and DOJ)

Addresses the responsibility under Section 504 and Title II and their implementing regulations of public schools to ensure that communication with students 

with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities is as effective as communication with 

all other students. 

Implementing CDC’s Measles Prevention 

Recommendations Without Discriminating 

on the Basis of Disability

March 18, 2015

Clarifies how schools can implement the CDC’s measles prevention recommendations without discriminating against students on the basis of disability, 

particularly for students who are medically unable to receive vaccines because 

of a disability.

Policy Guidance Issued in FY 2015

Figure 11
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

18

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national 

origin in programs and activities operated by recipients of federal funds. It states: “No person in the 

United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or 

national origin, be excluded from participation in, be 

denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 

financial assistance.” In the education arena, Title VI’s 

protections apply to all public elementary and secondary schools and colleges and universities—public or 

private—that receive federal financial assistance. Its 

protections extend to all aspects of these institutions’ 

programs and activities. When enforcing Title VI, OCR 

works to ensure equal access to education services 

and benefits and to prevent acts of retaliation against 

those who report Title VI violations.

Policy Guidance: During FY 2015, OCR issued four 

guidance documents or packages that address Title 

VI: (1) a Dear Colleague letter addressing the need for 

equal access to educational resources for all students 

without regard to race, color, or national origin; (2) a 

Dear Colleague letter discussing schools’ obligation 

under Title VI and the Department’s implementing regulations to ensure English Learner (EL) students’ ability 

to participate in educational environments as well as 

the need to adequately communicate with limited 

English proficient (LEP) parents; (3) a Dear Colleague

letter reiterating the applicability of federal civil rights 

laws in juvenile justice residential facilities; and (4) a 

fact sheet clarifying how schools can implement the 

CDC’s Ebola recommendations without discriminating 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability.

Technical Assistance: Educators, as well as parents 

and students, should have the knowledge and skills 

to identify, prevent, and address discrimination, or get 

help when it does occur. Every year, OCR provides 

technical assistance to schools and communities 

around the country on both longstanding and emerging civil rights issues. In FY 2015, OCR engaged 

in nearly 100 technical assistance events on Title 

VI-related issues. These events included presentations 

on OCR’s discipline guidance package and technical 

assistance on issues faced by EL students.

TITLE VI: 

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, 

COLOR, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN 

Figure 12

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

162

26

15

1

452

561

93

208

167

82

30

35

3

57

25

849

1

Admissions

Assignment of Students

Desegregation

Different Treatment/Exclusion/Denial of Benefits 

Discipline

Employment

English Learners

Extracurricular Activities 

Financial Assistance/Retention

Graduation Requirements 

Disproportionate Enrollment of Minorities in Special Education

Racial Harassment 

Recruitment

Resource Equity and Comparability 

Retaliation

Access to STEM/College and Career Readiness*

Other 

Total Number of Complaints Raising Title VI Issues, FY 2015 = 2,157 

Note: A single complaint can raise multiple issues; therefore, the total 

number of issues raised will exceed the number of complaints received.

* STEM refers to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. College and 

Career Readiness refers to access to high-level, college preparatory courses and 

rigorous curricula, such as honors and Advanced Placement (AP) courses. 

Number of Title VI Issues Raised in OCR Complaints, by Issue
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 19

Enforcement: In FY 2015, OCR received more than 

2,150 Title VI-related complaints and launched seven 

systemic, proactive investigations that, collectively, 

address a broad range of Title VI-related issues in institutions across the nation (See Figure 12). These issues range from discrimination against EL students to 

differential disciplinary policy on the basis of race. Over 

the course of the fiscal year, OCR resolved5 2,066 

Title VI complaints.

Ensuring Access to Equal 

Educational Opportunity 

In FY 2015, OCR received 40 complaints and resolved6

 23 complaints related to student access to 

resources, curricula, and opportunities that foster 

college and career readiness under Title VI. Additionally, in FY 2015, OCR launched three and resolved7

 three 

proactive, systemic investigations in this area. Illustrative cases include: 

South Orange-Maplewood School District (NJ):

In October 2014, OCR resolved a compliance review 

of South Orange-Maplewood School District after 

concerns arose about the significant and disproportionate underrepresentation of black students in the 

math enrichment program, middle school honors, advanced honors and accelerated mathematics courses, 

and high school Advanced Placement (AP) courses. 

During the course of the investigation, OCR conducted 

interviews of district staff and clarified how the district’s 

elementary, middle, and high school staff implemented the district’s educational achievement placement 

policy and how students’ achievement in lower grades 

affected their placement in various levels of courses in 

the middle and high schools. OCR’s investigation also 

identified concerns related to the statistically significant 

underrepresentation of students of color in AP and 

other accelerated courses. For example, in the 2012-

2013 school year, black students made up about 19% 

of the district’s AP enrollment, while they represented 

about 52% of the district’s high school enrollment. In 

contrast, white students represented about 38% of the 

district’s total high school enrollment and nearly 70% 

of the district’s high school AP course takers. To address OCR’s concerns, the district agreed to conduct 

a review and self-assessment of its current programs 

and courses offered at all school levels to identify 

any potential barriers to black students’ participation; 

survey students, parents/guardians, and staff to gain 

information that could help the district equalize access 

to its high-rigor courses; and hire a consultant with expertise in addressing the underrepresentation of black 

students in college and career preparatory programs 

and courses in high school.

Arlington Independent School District (TX): In 

June 2015, OCR resolved an investigation of Arlington 

Independent School District assessing whether the 

district discriminated against black and Latino students 

on the basis of race or national origin with respect to 

providing equal access to, and equal opportunity to 

participate in, college and career preparatory programs 

and courses, including the district’s Advanced 

Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) 

programs and other high-level and career-building 

learning opportunities. OCR also examined whether 

discrimination occurred regarding access to foundation 

courses that are essential to prepare students to take 

rigorous courses in high school and to provide them 

with the skills necessary for success in college and 

their careers. OCR’s investigation revealed that for the 

preceding two school years, black and Latino students 

Guidance on Responsibility of Schools to Provide 

Students With Equal Access to Educational Resources

On October 1, 2014, OCR released a Dear Colleague letter 

and fact sheet on the responsibility of states, districts, and 

schools, under Title VI and the Department’s implementing 

regulations, to provide students with equal access to 

educational resources without regard to race, color, or 

national origin. The guidance provides superintendents and 

other state and district officials with information regarding the 

importance of comparable educational resources, how OCR 

investigates resource disparities and determines whether 

unlawful discrimination has occurred, and what states, 

districts, and schools can do to meet their Title VI obligations 

to all students.
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

20

were enrolled in the gifted and talented services, AP 

courses and IB programs, and dual credit courses at 

statistically significant lower rates than their respective 

districtwide enrollment rate. OCR identified several 

possible barriers to enrollment of black and Latino 

students in these courses, including the publication of 

enrollment criteria, which negated the characterization 

by district officials of the college and career 

preparatory programs as having “open” enrollment; the 

fact that not all students were aware of the district’s IB 

program; and the need to take prerequisite courses for 

AP course enrollment as early as junior high school. To 

address these issues, the district agreed to develop 

a comprehensive districtwide plan for ensuring equal 

opportunity to enroll in college and career preparatory 

courses, including AP, IB, dual credit, and other 

higher-level learning opportunities, as well as in any 

other advanced academic activities and courses and 

programs; review and assess any potential barriers to 

increased student participation in college and career 

preparatory courses, advanced academic activities, 

courses and programs, and foundation courses at the 

elementary and junior high schools; communicate with 

parents and guardians about these programs; and 

conduct training for staff at elementary, junior high, 

and high schools regarding district course offerings, 

enrollment demographics, and best practices to 

encourage black and Latino participation and retention 

in higher-level learning opportunities.

Combating Harassment on the Basis of 

Race, Color, or National Origin 

OCR enforces Title VI to ensure safe and inclusive 

environments free from discrimination and harassment 

on the basis of race, color, or national origin for all 

students. In FY 2015, OCR received 452 complaints 

and resolved8

 445 complaints in this area. Additionally, 

in FY 2015 OCR resolved9 one proactive, systemic 

investigation in this area. Illustrative cases include:

John Doe School District:10 In January 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging that the John Doe School 

District discriminated against a student on the basis of 

race/national origin (Jewish) and disability. The complainant alleged that the student’s peers harassed him 

using negative stereotypes about Jews, and constantly 

verbally and physically bullied him more generally for 

several years. The complainant also alleged that the 

district failed to respond to reports of this conduct; 

consequently, the student often responded inappropriately to the conduct, resulting in discipline and, sometimes, missed instructional time. OCR’s preliminary 

investigation revealed that school officials were notified 

of several alleged instances of language directed at 

the student potentially implicating his Jewish heritage. 

Additionally, the district assigned an instructional aide 

to monitor and provide support for academics, socialization, and safety for the student. Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, the district expressed interest 

in remedying the concerns raised in the complaint. The 

district agreed to develop a plan to assess and monitor 

the climate at the school with respect to harassment, 

provide annual investigative training to district and 

school administrators, provide age-appropriate student 

instruction to increase awareness of what constitutes 

harassment, and convene a meeting of the student’s 

Individualized Education Program (IEP) team to ensure 

that the student continues to receive a free appropriate 

public education (FAPE). 

Pinckney Community Schools (MI): In April 2015, 

OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the district 

discriminated against students on the basis of national 

OCR MONITORING REPORT

District overhauls procedures to address racially disparate 

impact in access to gifted and talented programs and 

advanced coursework:

The Elk Grove Unified School District in California entered 

into a resolution agreement with OCR in July 2014 after 

OCR found that the district’s policies and procedures for 

identifying gifted and talented (GATE) students and enrolling 

students in honors and AP courses resulted in an unlawful 

disparate impact on black students. The district agreed to 

establish and implement modified eligibility and selection 

criteria for the district’s GATE program and to provide OCR 

with an analysis of the changes with data to be disaggregated by school, grade level, and race. The district has 

since worked with an equity consultant to identify best 

practices for equitable access to GATE, honors, and AP 

courses; created a GATE/equity committee that will evaluate whether the district’s efforts are effectively increasing 

black students’ participation in GATE programs; approved 

changes to the admission requirements to 42 honors, AP, 

and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses to eliminate 

barriers to enrollment; established equity initiatives at middle 

and high schools, including honors/AP “boot camp” summer programs, extended day tutoring support, counseling, 

peer mentoring, and PSAT for All; and had all principals affirm that their school is adhering to the agreed-upon course 

prerequisites and enrollment processes and conducting 

student outreach to increase equitable enrollment.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 21

origin and race at Pinckney Community Schools. 

Specifically, the complaint alleged that students at the 

high school subjected other students to derogatory 

comments, ethnic and racial slurs, and physical threats 

and attacks based on their race and/or national 

origin, and that district staff and administrators were 

made aware of the harassment but failed to take 

appropriate action to stop the harassment or prevent 

its recurrence, thereby creating a hostile educational 

environment. OCR investigated the complaint and 

found that students at the district’s high school 

were subjected to severe, pervasive, and persistent 

race-based and national origin-based comments by 

multiple students at the school, including frequent use 

of derogatory comments based on race and national 

origin. OCR also found that the district had actual 

notice of the hostile environment and did not take 

steps to adequately redress it. To remedy this, the 

district agreed to revise its harassment-related policies 

and procedures to include a statement that the district 

will offer counseling services to any person found to 

have been subjected to harassment on the basis of 

race, color, or national origin and, where appropriate, 

to the person(s) who committed the harassment. The 

district also agreed to provide annual, age-appropriate 

training to high school students and to appoint an 

administrator, staff person, or independent third party 

to conduct an annual assessment of the district’s 

educational climate at its high school to assess the 

effectiveness of its anti-harassment program and to 

ensure an educational environment free from race and/

or national origin discrimination, including harassment.

Springfield City School District (OH): In July 2015, 

OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the district 

discriminated against a student on the basis of race 

by failing to respond appropriately when the student was subjected to racial harassment by another 

student. The complaint alleged that the student was 

subjected to racial harassment by another student 

when that student repeatedly used an offensive racial 

slur directed at the student, and later threatened the 

student. OCR found that the district’s lack of specific, 

consistent policies and procedures likely contributed 

to its failure to respond in a timely, effective manner to 

racial harassment of which it had notice. The case also 

raised issues related to impact and proper response 

in the case of racial harassment of students with 

disabilities. The student subjected to the harassment 

had a disability – OCR noted that the district failed to 

determine whether, as a result of the harassment, the 

student’s needs had changed and whether the student 

was no longer receiving FAPE. To resolve these issues, 

the district agreed to reconvene the student’s IEP team 

to determine whether additional or different services, 

including compensatory services, were needed as a 

result of the racial harassment. The district also agreed 

to review and revise its anti-harassment policy and 

provide training to district staff.

Fortis College (AL): In September 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint against Fortis College alleging that a staff member of the college made racially 

insensitive comments toward a student and sexually 

inappropriate comments around the student and other 

staff members. Specifically, the complaint alleged that 

over several meetings, the staff member made various comments advising the student to work on being 

“more White.” OCR determined that, based on the 

college’s delayed response and the college’s failure to 

fully remedy the effects of harassment (the college did 

not initiate an investigation until the student’s attorney 

submitted a letter to the college, approximately one 

month after the student first attempted to address her 

concerns, and did not interview the student during its 

investigation), the student was subjected to a hostile 

environment on the basis of race and sex. The college 

entered into a resolution agreement with OCR in which 

it agreed to revise its notice of nondiscrimination; 

designate a Title IX coordinator whose position does 

not pose a conflict of interest; and revise and execute 

an updated grievance and complaint procedure in 

response to civil rights complaints. 

ALSO: See Sandwich Community Unit 

School District #430 (IL), p. 36 

(bullying/harassment on the bases 

of disability, race, and sex).
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

22

Combating Discriminatory Discipline

In FY 2015, OCR received 208 complaints and 

resolved11 153 complaints regarding Title VI racial 

disparities in discipline brought by parents, students, 

and individuals concerned about possible civil rights 

violations involving school discipline practices, policies, and procedures. Additionally, in FY 2015 OCR 

resolved12 two proactive, systemic investigations in this 

area. Below is a case that illustrates some of OCR’s 

work in this area: 

Minneapolis Public Schools (MN): In November 

2014, OCR resolved an investigation of Minneapolis 

Public Schools after assessing whether the district discriminated against black students on the basis of race 

by disciplining them more frequently, and more harshly, 

than white students who committed similar offenses. 

The data showed that black students were the subject 

of higher proportions of each category of discipline 

than white students in the 2011-2012 school year, and 

that the disproportionate discipline of black students 

occurred at almost every school in the district. OCR 

identified a total of 96 incidents in which district personnel could not provide an explanation of why black 

students were potentially treated differently than white 

students. For example, a white 2nd grade student was 

not suspended for an incident in which he threw a rock 

and broke a teacher’s sunglasses and also hit another 

student in the head, while a black 2nd grade student 

was suspended one day out of school for poking a 

student with a pencil. To remedy these issues, the 

district agreed to review its student discipline policies, 

practices, and procedures and make revisions, as 

necessary; train all teachers and students on the policy 

annually through age-appropriate programming; and 

appoint a district discipline supervisor to ensure that its 

administration of discipline is fair and equitable. 

The district also agreed to implement student committees and working groups that allow students and 

parents to make suggestions to help improve the 

effectiveness of the district’s discipline policies, 

practices, and procedures.

Ensuring Equal Opportunities 

for English Learners 

In FY 2015, OCR received 82 complaints and resolved13 74 complaints alleging discrimination against 

EL students. In addition, in FY 2015 OCR launched 

three and resolved14 four proactive, systemic investigations relating to EL programs and services. Illustrative 

cases include: 

Jersey City Public Schools (NJ): In January 2015, 

OCR resolved an investigation examining Jersey City 

Public Schools’ provision of services to EL students 

and LEP parents. During the course of the investigation, OCR found that the district was not in compliance 

with Title VI regarding the district’s implementation of 

its alternative language program; exiting and moniOCR MONITORING REPORT

District finds successful alternatives to exclusionary 

discipline, keeping more students in class and reducing 

number of, and racial disparity in, discipline referrals: 

The Tupelo Public School District in Mississippi reached 

a resolution agreement with OCR in September 2014. 

The agreement followed an OCR compliance review 

that examined whether the district discriminated against 

black students by disciplining them more frequently and 

more harshly than similarly situated white students. The 

agreement required the district to form student committees 

and working groups to submit recommendations for 

improving discipline; review disciplinary data on an ongoing 

basis with all personnel; and conduct programming to 

explain disciplinary policies to parents and guardians at each 

school. At the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year, the 

district implemented a character education program that 

focuses on a specific trait, such as respect, each month. 

It also commenced a training on behavior expectations 

that occurs each fall and in January after winter break. The 

district reports 9% fewer referrals during its first semester 

this school year compared to last, and teachers report 

a striking improvement in classroom climate, as well as 

students holding each other accountable for their behavior.

“That’s something we’ve seen this year, students 

helping students. I just think that’s when it’s powerful, 

when kids start taking ownership of their behavior.”

CHRISTY CARROLL, Principal at Carver Elementary, Tupelo 

Public School District, referring to striking evidence of the 

character education program’s success. 
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 23

toring of EL students; evaluation of its EL program; 

communication with LEP parents/guardians; exclusion 

of EL students from certain specialized programs; evaluation and placement of EL students with disabilities; 

and provision of EL services in the least segregative 

manner possible. Evidence indicated that no EL students participated in AP courses (other than AP Spanish), the teacher-to-student ratio for EL programs at 12 

schools exceeded that of the general education ratio 

by more than 10 students per teacher, and class time 

instruction for EL students was not equivalent to class 

time instruction for non-EL students. To remedy these 

issues, the district agreed to provide English language 

services and instruction to all EL students in all educational settings, including special education; identify 

whether any students who have exited the alternative 

language program have suffered any academic deficiencies and, if so, take appropriate steps to address 

them; ensure classroom observation and evaluation of 

teachers who provide EL instruction; ensure that the 

district carries out its EL program in the least segregative manner consistent with achieving its stated goal(s); 

and convene parent forums in a language the parents 

can understand to provide them with information regarding the alternative language program.

Modesto City Schools (Modesto City Elementary) (CA): In February 2015, OCR reached a resolution 

agreement with Modesto City Schools (Modesto City 

Elementary) after a complainant alleged that the elementary district failed to provide adequate oral interpretation for LEP parents at district board meetings. 

After investigating, OCR concluded that the limited 

interpretation services provided at board meetings 

during the 2013-2014 school year failed to comply 

with Title VI. To come into compliance, the district 

agreed to develop a procedure to ensure that LEP 

parents in the district are able to understand and participate effectively in meetings of the district’s board, 

including through the translation of agendas, notices, 

and calendars of board meetings, and notices that 

describe how LEP parents can request interpreting 

services in Spanish and English at board meetings. 

Harmony Public Schools (TX): In November 2014, 

OCR resolved an investigation of Harmony Public 

Schools (HPS), a public charter school system in 

Texas, examining whether HPS discriminated on the 

basis of national origin or disability by failing to provide 

national origin minority EL students and students with 

disabilities equal access to, and equal opportunity 

to participate in, its charter schools. OCR’s investigation revealed that the enrollment rate of the 1,152 

EL students at the 18 Harmony charter schools was 

approximately half that at the local school districts 

(11.5% compared to 22.5%) and the enrollment rate 

of the 273 students with disabilities was even lower 

(2.7% compared to 7.3%). OCR had concerns that 

admissions and enrollment policies at HPS charter 

schools provided that HPS may exclude students with 

disciplinary records and require students to provide 

enrollment documentation that may chill or discourage the participation of students based on their or 

their parents’ or guardians’ citizenship or immigration 

status. To remedy these issues, as part of the resolution agreement, HPS committed to ensure that it takes 

effective measures to promote and ensure equal opportunities for all students, including EL students and 

students with disabilities, to enroll and participate in its 

schools and programs; develop an EL communication 

plan to ensure meaningful access to LEP parents with 

respect to student admissions and enrollment in HPS 

charter schools, including through interpretation and 

translation services; implement a comprehensive plan 

for all HPS charter schools regarding the provision of 

services to EL students that appropriately identifies 

and assesses EL students for language development 

services and provides these services to the students; 

review and revise existing evaluation and placement 

procedures for students with disabilities to ensure that 

students are evaluated with appropriate evaluation 

Guidance Addressing Schools’ Obligations to 

English Learners 

On January 7, 2015, OCR published a Dear Colleague 

letter and two fact sheets addressing schools’ obligations 

under Title VI and the Department’s implementing regulations 

to EL students as well as to LEP parents. The letter outlines 

common civil rights concerns that schools need to address 

in order to remain in compliance with the law. Such 

concerns include: 

n Identifying and assessing EL students in a timely, valid, 

and reliable manner;

n Providing EL students an educationally sound 

language assistance program with qualified staff and 

sufficient resources;

n Ensuring EL students have meaningful access to all other 

curricular and extracurricular programs and are not unnecessarily segregated from other students;

n Properly evaluating and providing for EL students with 

disabilities; and

n Ensuring meaningful communication with LEP parents.
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

24

materials and that schools properly document the educational needs of students in their records; and provide 

training to administrators and relevant staff on admissions and enrollment policies and procedures, communications with LEP parents, and language assistance 

services for EL students. 

Reynoldsburg City School District (OH): In May 

2015, OCR resolved a complaint concerning the 

provision of English language services to EL students 

during a teacher strike, which lasted 15 instructional 

days, at the district during fall 2014. The district contracted with a strike management firm for alternative 

teaching staff, including 360 temporary replacement 

teachers, but provided no documentation to OCR regarding the provision of services for EL students during 

the work stoppage. After indicating its willingness to 

address loss of EL services faced by the approximately 

486 EL students, the district agreed to send a letter 

to the parents of each EL student, explaining that it 

has developed a written remedial plan to offer remedial services to all EL students, consistent with each 

student’s previously developed ESL Intervention Plan, 

to address any loss of services suffered as a result of 

the teacher strike. The district also agreed to revise 

its work stoppage procedures to include a specific 

discussion of how to prevent service disruption for EL 

students in the event of a future teacher strike or other 

work stoppage.

Appleton Area School District (WI): In January 

2015, OCR resolved an investigation involving whether the district’s charter schools discriminated on the 

basis of national origin against students who were EL 

students and LEP parents and guardians, and whether 

the district’s charter schools discriminated against students with disabilities. Upon investigation, OCR found 

that one charter school used selective admission 

criteria that may have screened out EL students on 

the basis of their limited English proficiency. OCR also 

found that the district failed to ensure that its communications with LEP parents and guardians were effective, including its communications relating to admission 

and enrollment at the charter schools. OCR determined that the district’s charter school facilities and 

the programs, services, and activities located within 

those facilities were not physically accessible, and that 

the district failed to provide notice of nondiscrimination 

on its application materials with respect to Section 

504 and Title II. To remedy these issues, the district 

agreed to develop and implement a plan to ensure EL 

students’ equal access to the district’s charter schools, 

appropriately identify and assess EL students, monitor 

their progress in the EL program, maintain records of 

all services provided to EL students, effectively communicate with LEP parents, and make parents aware 

of translation and interpretation services available. The 

district also agreed to ensure that its charter school 

programs and activities are readily accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities, make physical 

changes to facilities, and adopt and implement procedures as to the existence and location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible to and usable 

by persons with disabilities.

Supporting Lawful and Voluntary Efforts 

to Pursue Racial Diversity 

OCR investigates cases involving challenges to the use 

of race or national origin to help achieve diversity or 

reduce racial isolation at the elementary and secondary level and to achieve diversity at the postsecondary level. In FY 2015, OCR received four complaints 

and resolved15 six cases (three at the elementary and 

secondary level and three at the postsecondary level) 

involving these issues. Below is a case that illustrates 

some of OCR’s work in this area: 

OCR MONITORING REPORT

District improves climate for, communication with Latino 

students and parents: 

Adams County School District 14 in Colorado entered into 

a resolution agreement with OCR in April 2014. The agreement required the district to end a hostile environment for 

Latino students and staff while also communicating with 

Spanish-speaking community members in a language they 

could understand. As OCR learned during the monitoring 

of this district’s adherence to the agreement, the district 

took proactive steps to ensure further equity by establishing a Spanish-speaking advisory committee, led by Superintendent Patrick Sánchez. The purpose of this committee 

is to empower families whose first language is not English 

to become engaged partners in their children’s education 

and to discuss important topics concerning the district. 

The district also hired new staff to focus on equity, language instruction, and STEM, and hosted speakers who 

spoke about the importance of education and academic 

achievement, equity, and encouraging students to achieve 

their dreams. As a result of his distinguished leadership, 

the White House identified Superintendent Sánchez as a 

Champion of Change in September 2014.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 25

Princeton University (NJ): In September 2015, 

OCR resolved a compliance review of the university’s 

undergraduate admissions policies and practices, specifically examining whether the university discriminated 

against Asian and Asian American applicants on the 

basis of race or national origin. OCR conducted a strict 

scrutiny review of the university’s admissions process, 

which entailed examining whether the university was 

pursuing a compelling interest in diversity and whether the university’s consideration of race and national 

origin in its admissions process was narrowly tailored 

to meet that interest, consistent with the standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court. OCR determined 

that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate that 

the university violated Title VI. OCR reviewed years of 

admissions data, conducted file reviews, interviewed 

current and former staff, and evaluated admissions 

policies, procedures, applicant files, internal memoranda, training materials, and other documents. While the 

university sometimes considers race and national origin as factors in admissions, OCR found no evidence 

that the university does so in a discriminatory manner. 

Instead, OCR found that the university pursues a 

compelling interest in student body diversity; and that 

the university, if it considers race or national origin in 

admissions, does so in a narrowly-tailored manner in 

pursuit of that interest. 

Eliminating Retaliation for 

Exercising Civil Rights 

OCR received 561 complaints and resolved16 544 

complaints related to retaliation under Title VI. Although 

resolutions are based on the individual circumstances 

and facts of each case, common remedies include 

implementing policies and procedures regarding 

how the district must respond to complaints of race 

discrimination, including the district’s internal grievance 

procedures; providing faculty, staff and administrators 

training on prohibitions of retaliation; and amending the 

education records of the affected student as appropriate. Below is a case that illustrates some of OCR’s 

work in this area:

Northcentral University (AZ): In December 2014, 

OCR resolved a complaint in which a student at Northcentral University alleged that the university retaliated 

against him after he submitted a claim of discrimination 

on the basis of national origin against the university. 

The complainant alleged that the chair of the dissertation committee stopped communicating with him after 

his discrimination and retaliation claims and would not 

comment on his work as was necessary for him to 

complete his graduate program. The complainant also 

alleged that the university retaliated against him with a 

threat of legal action and dismissal, including a charge 

of violation of the code of conduct. OCR found, after 

speaking with the university about the allegations of 

retaliation, that the complainant was retaliated against 

through restricted communications, threatened legal 

action and dismissal, and the filing of conduct charges 

for reasons OCR found to be illegitimate. To remedy 

these issues, the university agreed to offer to re-admit 

the complainant for enrollment, and, if the student 

accepted this offer, to return the complainant to his 

prior academic status and assign him a new chair for 

his dissertation. In addition, the university agreed to 

provide training to university administrators and educational staff regarding the prohibition of discrimination 

on the basis of race, color, or national origin, as well 

as the prohibition of retaliation against those who are 

within their rights to file discrimination complaints.

Multi-Jurisdictional Policy Guidance: 

Juvenile Justice Residential Facilities

On December 8, 2014, OCR issued a Dear Colleague letter 

jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding 

the protection of civil rights for students in juvenile justice 

residential facilities. The letter reaffirms the applicability of 

federal civil rights law to Juvenile Justice Residential Facilities 

and specifies a number of civil rights concerns, including:

n Ensuring equal access to academic resources by sex;

n Meeting the needs of EL students;

n Ensuring that FAPE is provided to students with disabilities; and

n Eliminating discriminatory disciplinary policies.
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

26

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title 

IX) states: “No person in the United States shall, on 

the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be 

denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving 

Federal financial assistance.” Title IX applies to recipients of Federal financial assistance, including colleges, 

universities, and public school districts. OCR enforces 

Title IX to ensure that students have equal access to 

educational opportunity.

Policy Guidance: During FY 2015, OCR issued three 

guidance documents or packages that address Title 

IX: (1) a Questions and Answers document clarifying the principles of Title IX with regard to single-sex 

classes and extracurricular activities in coeducational 

elementary and secondary schools; (2) a Dear Colleague letter delineating the specific requirements and 

duties of schools’ Title IX coordinators, in addition to 

a letter to Title IX coordinators and a Title IX resource 

guide; and (3) a Dear Colleague letter reiterating the 

applicability of federal civil rights laws in juvenile justice 

residential facilities.

Technical Assistance: Educators, parents, and students should have the knowledge and skills to identify, 

prevent, and address discrimination or get help when 

it does occur. Every year, OCR provides technical 

assistance to schools and communities around the 

country on both longstanding and emerging civil rights 

issues. In FY 2015, OCR engaged in over 130 technical assistance events on Title IX–related issues. These 

events included presentations on the rights of pregnant 

and parenting students under Title IX and the responsibilities of schools to respond to sexual violence under 

Title IX. 

Enforcement: In FY 2015, OCR received 2,939 Title 

IX–related complaints and launched 7 proactive investigations that, collectively, address a broad range of Title 

IX–related issues across the nation, including sexual 

violence at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels; equal access to athletic opportunities; 

and harassment (See Figure 13). Over the course of 

FY 2015, OCR resolved17 2,663 complaints. When 

Title IX was enacted in 1972, Congress explicitly provided an exemption for schools controlled by religious 

organizations to the extent that the law’s application 

would be inconsistent with the organization’s religious 

TITLE IX: 

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX 

4 Figure 13

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

37

1,771

284

43

8

81

15

25

32

101

239

536

14

Admissions

Athletics

Different Treatment/Exclusion/Denial of Benefits 

Discipline

Dissemination of Policy

Employment

Financial Assistance/Scholarships

Grading 

Pregnancy/Parenting-Related 

Procedural Requirements 

Retaliation

Sexual/Gender Harassment/Sexual Violence

Other 

Total Number of Complaints Raising Title IX Issues, FY 2015 = 2,939 Note: A single complaint can raise multiple issues; therefore, the total 

number of issues raised will exceed the number of complaints received.

Number of Title IX Issues Raised in OCR Complaints, by Issue
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 27

Guidance Clarifying Application of Title IX to 

Single-Sex Classes and Extracurricular Activities 

On December 1, 2014, OCR issued a Questions and 

Answers document that clarifies Title IX’s application to 

nonvocational single-sex classes and extracurricular activities. Specifically, the document explains how a school can 

comply with the regulatory requirements that must be met 

in order for schools to offer these classes in compliance 

with the law. The topics in the Q&A include:

n Basing each single-sex class and activity on a justification that demonstrates an important objective and a 

substantial relationship between the important objective 

and the single-sex nature of the class or activity;

n Ensuring completely voluntary enrollment in single-sex 

classes;

n Providing a substantially equal coeducational class in 

the same subject;

n Offering single-sex classes evenhandedly to male and 

female students;

n Offering single-sex classes without sex stereotypes;

n Avoiding discrimination based on sex when assigning 

educators to single-sex classes;

n Assigning transgender students to single-sex classes 

consistent with the student’s gender identity; and

n Conducting periodic evaluations of single-sex classes 

and activities.

tenets. Since Title IX was enacted through the end of 

FY 2015, 218 institutions received this exemption. In 

FY 2015, OCR granted 26 religious exemptions.18

Combating Harassment on the Basis of 

Sex, Including Sex Stereotypes

In FY 2015, OCR received 536 complaints and resolved19 375 complaints involving bullying and harassment on the basis of sex. Additionally, in FY 2015 OCR 

launched two and resolved20 two proactive, systemic 

investigations in this area. Illustrative cases include: 

Downey Unified School District (CA): In October 

2014, OCR resolved a complaint against Downey 

Unified School District alleging that a transgender 

student was subjected to different treatment and 

harassment by district employees because of her 

gender identity and gender nonconformity, and 

that when the student was subjected to sexual and 

gender-based peer harassment, the district failed to 

provide a prompt and equitable response to notice 

of the harassment. During OCR’s investigation, the 

complainant asserted that staff at the student’s school 

confiscated her makeup, even though other girls in 

her class were allowed to wear makeup. Additionally, 

the complainant alleged that staff forced the student 

to write an apology letter for making male students 

uncomfortable by putting on makeup. The complainant 

also alleged that staff discouraged the student from 

speaking about her gender identity with her friends and 

fellow classmates and discontinued her participation 

in group counseling sessions with other students 

based on a concern that the student might discuss 

her gender identity. The complainant also asserted that 

the student was frequently verbally harassed by her 

peers and that school administrators’ response was 

to suggest that she transfer to another school. Before 

the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, the district 

indicated a willingness to address the issues raised 

in the allegations and OCR’s preliminary investigation. 

Through the agreement, the district committed 

to review and revise its policies, procedures, and 

regulations to ensure that all students, including 

students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, 

are provided an equal opportunity to participate in 

all programs and activities; conduct annual climate 

surveys of students and parents to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the district’s bullying and harassment 

prevention efforts; conduct mandatory training on 

issues related to gender nonconformity and genderbased harassment for district administrators; work with 

a consultant with expertise in child and adolescent 

gender identity to ensure appropriate implementation 

of the resolution agreement; treat the student the same 

as other female students in all respects, including 

access to sex-designated facilities for female students; 

and ensure the student is not disciplined for acting 

or appearing in a manner that does not conform to 

stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity.
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

28

John Doe College:

21 In August 2015, OCR resolved 

a complaint alleging that the college discriminated 

against a transgender student on the basis of sex by 

requiring her to provide identification or medical documentation to verify her sex, suspending her from the 

college, prohibiting her from completing work that she 

missed over the course of her suspension, instructing 

her to use gender-neutral restrooms, and discouraging 

and then prohibiting her from filing a complaint under 

the college’s Title IX grievance procedures. The complaint also alleged that the college’s Title IX grievance 

procedures, as applied, did not provide for equitable 

resolution of complaints. OCR identified preliminary 

concerns relating to the requirement that the student 

use gender-neutral restrooms and relating to the student’s suspension. In addition, OCR found that the college’s grievance procedures did not comply with Title 

IX. In the resolution agreement with OCR, the college 

agreed to revise its Title IX complaint resolution procedure, communicate to students their right to use the 

bathroom coinciding with their gender identity, make 

clear that students need not change their official records as a condition of being addressed by the name 

or gender of their choice, and ensure that all staff are 

trained on gender-based discrimination or harassment 

and on the coverage of transgender students under 

Title IX. The college also agreed to address issues 

raised in the complaint regarding discrimination on the 

basis of sex by expunging the student’s record of any 

disciplinary action taken against her in relation to the 

complaint; providing her with copies of all updated 

policies, publications, and training materials regarding 

Title IX violations and gender-based discrimination or 

harassment; and offering her the option to retake or be 

reimbursed for the courses in which she was enrolled 

at the time of her suspension.

John Doe School District:

22 In March 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint of sex discrimination alleging 

that a student was involved in a physical altercation 

during which some of the student’s body parts were 

exposed. OCR’s investigation confirmed that students 

at the high school widely circulated a video and photos 

of the altercation that showed the exposed body 

parts and that one of the photos circulated around 

the school had derogatory words written on it. OCR 

also confirmed that the district’s investigation of the 

harassment was too limited in scope. The district 

entered into a resolution agreement with OCR in which 

it agreed to draft grievance procedures and a notice of 

nondiscrimination and submit them to OCR for review 

and approval; provide training to the Title IX coordinator, district personnel, and students; and improve its 

sexual harassment record-keeping practices to allow 

district staff to evaluate the severity, repetition, or other 

relevant context for allegations of sexual harassment. 

The district also agreed to reimburse expenses for 

counseling services for the student. 

John Doe School District:

23 In May 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint of sex discrimination alleging that 

the district subjected a student to a hostile environment because it allowed classmates to harass the 

student because he did not conform to male gender 

stereotypes. OCR’s investigation revealed that the 

student endured repeated slurs and name-calling and 

was assaulted because of his gender identity. Student 

witnesses reported that district staff members overheard the harassment but refused to respond. OCR 

concluded that the district’s grievance procedures did 

not comply with Title IX and that the district did not 

conduct investigations of each reported incident. The 

district entered into a resolution agreement with OCR 

in which it agreed to revise its Title IX grievance procedures and notice of nondiscrimination and submit 

them for OCR’s review and approval; develop an ongoing, annual training program for all district personnel; 

develop and implement a plan to educate high school 

students and parents about sexual and gender-based 

harassment; and conduct climate checks. 

Guidance Clarifying Schools’ Obligation to Designate 

a Title IX Coordinator

Designating a well-qualified, well-trained Title IX coordinator – 

and giving that coordinator the authority and support necessary to do the job – is a critical responsibility under Title IX. 

On April 24, 2015, OCR released a guidance package that 

includes three documents:

n A Dear Colleague Letter to districts, colleges, and universities reminding them of their obligation to designate a 

Title IX coordinator;

n A letter to Title IX coordinators that provides more information about their important role; and

n A Title IX resource guide that includes an overview of Title 

IX’s requirements in several key areas, including recruitment, admissions, and counseling; financial assistance; 

athletics; sex-based harassment; treatment of pregnant 

and parenting students; discipline; single-sex education; 

employment; and retaliation — all topics that schools and 

their Title IX coordinators frequently confront. 
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 29

John Doe School District:

24 In July 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging that John Doe School 

District subjected a male student to discrimination on 

the basis of sex when the district was aware that the 

student was subjected to gender-based harassment 

by other students but failed to respond appropriately. 

OCR’s investigation uncovered that the student had 

been called “gay” as a derogatory term, had been 

derided as not having genitals or “male parts,” and had 

his pants pulled down at school. In consultation with 

OCR after OCR initiated its investigation, the district 

substantially revised its Title IX policies and procedures 

to comply with the law. Additionally, under the signed 

resolution agreement, the district committed to ensure 

that the student is not subjected to a hostile environment on the basis of sex, including by checking in 

with the student on a periodic basis (at least monthly) 

to ascertain whether any instances of sexual harassment have occurred and, if so, taking prompt and 

appropriate action; provide annual training to all district 

administrators, faculty, and relevant staff regarding the 

district’s revised policies and procedures relating to 

sexual harassment; and provide annual, age-appropriate training for all students on the district’s sexual 

harassment policies and procedures.

University of the Rockies (CO): In December 2014, 

OCR resolved a Title IX sexual harassment complaint 

alleging that the university failed to adequately respond to a student’s allegation of sexual harassment. 

A student alleged that a professor, who was also her 

internship supervisor and doctoral thesis advisor, sexually harassed her by making unwanted advances on 

a daily basis, such as trying to kiss her and sending inappropriate text messages. The investigation revealed 

evidence that the university initially ignored its obligation under Title IX to investigate the student’s allegation 

and did not provide sufficient remedial actions. Prior 

to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, the university sought to remedy the issues raised in a resolution 

agreement. The university agreed to revise its Title 

IX grievance procedures, develop extensive training 

materials for all university staff on Title IX requirements, 

train staff involved in sex discrimination complaints on 

the university’s grievance process, inform the professor he is not allowed access to the campus, provide 

annual training to students regarding the university’s 

commitment to address discrimination based on sex, 

and provide the student with a liaison to assist her 

with any issues that arise while completing her 

doctoral program.

ALSO: See Sandwich Community Unit 

School District #430 (IL), p. 36 

(bullying/harassment on the bases 

of disability, race, and sex). 

ALSO: See Fortis College (AL), p. 21 

(harassment on the bases of race and sex). 

Eradicating Sexual Violence 

During FY 2015, OCR received 230 complaints and 

resolved25 83 complaints related to Title IX sexual violence at the P-12 and postsecondary levels. During FY 

2015, OCR initiated two proactive, systemic investigations and resolved26 one such investigation related to 

sexual violence. Illustrative cases include:

Harvard Law School (MA): In December 2014, 

OCR resolved an investigation of Harvard Law School, 

determining that the law school’s sexual harassment 

policies and procedures failed to comply with Title IX’s 

requirements for prompt and equitable response to 

complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault. 

OCR found that the law school did not appropriately 

respond to two student complaints of sexual assault. 

In one instance, the law school took over a year to 

make its final determination and did not allow the 

complainant to participate in an extended appeal 

process, which ultimately resulted in the reversal of the 

initial decision to dismiss the accused student. During 

the course of OCR’s investigation, OCR determined 

that the university complied with the Title IX regulation 

regarding notice of nondiscrimination with respect to 

the law school’s notice; however, OCR also determined that the law school’s newly adopted grievance 

procedures were not fully compliant with Title IX. To 

remedy these issues, the law school committed to 

take further specific steps to ensure that it responds to 

student complaints of sexual harassment and sexual 

violence promptly and equitably, including by revising 

all applicable sexual harassment policies and procedures to comply with Title IX and providing clear notice 

of which policies and procedures apply to law school 

complaints; training staff and providing information 

sessions for students on the policies and procedures 

applicable to law school complaints; and conducting 

annual climate assessments to assess whether the 

steps and measures being taken by the law school are 

effective and to inform future proactive steps. 
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

30

Michigan State University (MI): In September 2015, 

OCR resolved two Title IX complaints alleging that the 

university discriminated against students on the basis 

of sex by failing to promptly and adequately respond to 

their complaints of sexual violence. During the investigation, OCR found that, over a three-year period, 

many of the 30 cases examined took many months 

and several took nearly a year for the university to 

resolve. The university’s failure to address complaints 

of sexual harassment, including sexual violence, in a 

prompt manner, caused a sexually hostile environment 

and may have contributed to its continuation. Additionally, OCR found that the university failed to take 

sufficient action when it had notice that a university 

counselor allegedly sexually harassed students who 

sought counseling after being sexually assaulted. 

During OCR’s investigation, the university took steps 

to address some of OCR’s concerns, such as hiring 

more Title IX investigative staff, developing memoranda 

of understanding with local police, and implementing 

a campus-wide awareness campaign against sexual 

assault. In the resolution agreement, the university also 

agreed to revise its nondiscrimination and complaint 

procedures, provide mandatory student training on 

the university’s sexual harassment policies and procedures, perform student and employee climate checks 

in order to monitor the effectiveness of its policy 

changes, and establish a committee consisting of 

both students and faculty to increase awareness of 

university Title IX policies and procedures.

Princeton University (NJ): In November 2014, 

OCR resolved an investigation of Princeton University 

after three students at the university alleged that the 

university failed to promptly and equitably respond 

to their complaints of sexual violence of which the 

university had notice. OCR also investigated whether 

the university failed to respond promptly and equitably 

to other complaints, reports, and notices to the 

university of incidents of sexual harassment, sexual 

assault, and other forms of sexual violence – and 

whether as a result, students were subjected to a 

sexually hostile environment. OCR determined that 

the university failed to provide a prompt and equitable 

response to complaints of sexual harassment, 

including sexual assault/violence, as required by 

Title IX. In one complainant’s case, only the accused 

was given the opportunity to provide an in-person 

character witness during the hearing, and the 

appeal was not resolved promptly. As a result, the 

complainant was subjected to an ongoing hostile 

environment that limited and denied her access to 

educational opportunities. Further, in all three cases, an 

inappropriate standard of evidence was used, and only 

the accused was permitted to appeal the outcome of 

the complaint. In the resolution agreement with OCR, 

the university agreed to submit revised grievance 

procedures that provide for prompt timeframes for the 

investigation and appeal processes. The university also 

agreed to ensure that, upon receipt of a complaint of 

sexual misconduct, it will provide interim measures 

to the complainant as appropriate. In addition, the 

university agreed to conduct trainings for staff and 

students and provide annual information sessions to 

students regarding sexual misconduct. The university 

agreed to provide reimbursement for the three initial 

complainants for educational and counseling expenses 

from the dates they reported to Princeton through the 

date of the resolution agreement.

University of Virginia (VA): In September 2015, 

OCR resolved a compliance review of the University of 

Virginia (UVA) after examining the university’s handling of complaints and reports of sexual harassment, 

“We’re on board with OCR that universities need to 

address these issues, we’re on board with the OCR and 

the national conversation that one incident is one too 

many. We’re on board with the national conversation 

that these are complicated issues.” 

LOU ANNA K. SIMON, President, Michigan State University, 

September 2, 2015, discussing the Michigan State 

University (MSU) resolution and its independent efforts 

to improve campus policy. 
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 31

including sexual violence, to determine if the university 

responded promptly and equitably. The review further 

examined whether any failure to respond appropriately 

allowed for the creation and continuation of a sexually 

hostile environment. OCR found UVA to be in violation 

of Title IX for failing to promptly and equitably respond 

to complaints of sexual harassment and violence, 

including sexual assault. OCR also determined that 

a basis for a hostile environment existed for affected students at UVA and that UVA failed to eliminate 

the hostile environment and take steps to prevent its 

recurrence, during certain academic years. OCR also 

found that the policies that had been used by UVA 

to investigate and respond to sexual violence did not 

comply with Title IX because the prior policy did not 

provide fair process to complainants nor to students 

accused of sexual violence. However, in July 2015, the 

university revised its policy and procedures to satisfy 

Title IX requirements; this policy and accompanying 

procedures comply with the requirement of Title IX that 

grievance procedures provide for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints. To remedy the issues 

identified during OCR’s investigation, UVA agreed 

to continue to implement its revised Title IX policies; 

ensure that its policies and procedures require that 

proceedings must provide equal opportunity for both 

parties to access, review, and present witnesses and 

other evidence; ensure UVA’s agreements with student 

organizations – including fraternities and sororities – 

clearly state that sexual harassment, sexual violence, 

and retaliation are prohibited and that the failure of an 

organization’s student members to comply with the Title IX policy may result in UVA severing all ties with the 

organization; ensure that all members of the university 

community – including students, faculty, administrators, and other staff – are trained regularly on issues 

related to sexual harassment and sexual violence; 

and develop and implement a system for tracking an

reviewing all reports, investigations, interim measures, 

and resolutions of student and employee conduct that 

may constitute sexual harassment or sexual violence, 

to ensure that such reports are adequately, reliably, 

promptly, and impartially investigated and resolved.

LaPorte Community School Corporation (IN): In 

April 2015, OCR resolved a complaint against LaPorte 

Community School Corporation alleging that the 

corporation violated Title IX when it subjected a high 

school student to discrimination on the basis of sex 

because it did not respond promptly and effectively to 

sexual harassment of a student athlete when a high 

school athletics coach sexually harassed the student 

and other members of a girls’ sports team. Evidence 

indicated that the coach directed sexual comments 

and jokes at players and engaged in sexual relations with a player. The corporation failed for years to 

promptly and equitably respond to the harassment and 

had allowed the creation and continuation of a sexually 

hostile environment for the team members. In the resolution agreement with OCR, the corporation agreed 

to review and revise its sexual harassment policies and 

procedures and its code of conduct; provide effective 

training to students and staff on the revised policies 

and procedures; establish a working group to make 

recommendations regarding the effectiveness of the 

district’s anti-harassment program; conduct a climate 

survey to assess the effectiveness of the steps taken; 

provide remedial services to affected members of the 

girls’ team, as appropriate; and implement appropriate 

discipline against employees who failed to take action 

to report or investigate the harassment of members of 

the girls’ team. 

Ensuring Equal Access to Athletic 

d Opportunities and Benefit

During FY 2015, OCR received 1,771 complaints and 

resolved27 1,658 complaints related to equal access to 

athletic opportunities and benefits. Additionally, in FY 

2015, OCR launched five proactive, systemic investigations examining concerns of equal access to athletic 

opportunities and resolved28 one such investigation. 

Illustrative cases include:

Chicago Public Schools (IL): In July 2015, OCR 

resolved a case involving the provision of equal athletic 

opportunities to female students at Chicago Public 

Schools high schools. OCR’s investigation revealed 

substantial disparities between the enrollment of 

female students and their participation in high school 

interscholastic athletics at the majority of district high 

“With 134 universities under OCR investigation ... this 

national dialogue has allowed the [University of Kansas] 

community to take a critical look at what the university 

can be doing better.” 

ERINN BARCOMB-PETERSON, Director of News and Media 

Relations, University of Kansas, July 15, 2015, discussing 

KU’s inclusion on the list of colleges that are under 

investigation for Title IX sexual violence investigations.
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

32

schools, and that at one district high school, 477 

additional athletic participation opportunities would 

be available if girls’ enrollment and participation were 

proportionate. The district committed to provide, on a 

school-by-school basis, an equal opportunity for high 

school girls to participate in interscholastic athletics 

at all high schools. Under the terms of the agreement 

with OCR, the district agreed to add a new Title IX 

sports compliance coordinator and develop a process 

for students and parents to use in requesting the addition of new sports. Additionally, based on a comprehensive assessment of the interests and abilities of 

its students, the district will undertake efforts to add 

athletics opportunities until each high school is fully 

accommodating the athletic interests and abilities of its 

female students or until the participation rate for female 

students is substantially proportionate to their rate 

of enrollment. 

New York City Department of Education (NY): In 

February 2015, OCR resolved a complaint against the 

New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) alleging discrimination against high school girls because 

the selection of interscholastic sports at the NYCDOE’s 

high schools did not effectively accommodate the 

interests and abilities of members of both sexes to the 

extent necessary to provide equal athletic opportunity. 

OCR determined that the NYCDOE failed to meet legal 

standards to demonstrate that it effectively accommodated the athletic interests and abilities of both sexes 

to the extent necessary. For example, during the 2012-

2013 school year, females constituted 48% of enrolled 

high school students, compared to 52% for males; 

however, females accounted for only 44% of athletic participants, compared to 56% for males. It also 

failed to establish a history and continuing practice of 

athletic program expansion responsive to the interests 

of female students. The resulting resolution agreement 

commits the district to provide athletic participation 

opportunities that are either substantially proportionate to female student enrollment in its high schools or 

demonstrate that the interests and abilities of female 

students are fully and effectively accommodated by 

the district’s current athletics program. The district 

also agreed to conduct an objective assessment of its 

female student body to determine the existence and/or 

scope of any unmet athletic interests of female students and, if it identified a sufficient but unmet interest in a sport, add athletic opportunities to meet the 

expressed interests and abilities of female high school 

athletes. The resolution agreement also requires the 

district to develop a process for students, parents, and 

coaches to request the addition of new sports, and 

to provide training to the athletic director of each high 

school on the relevant requirements of Title IX. 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (NJ):

In July 2015, OCR resolved a compliance review of the 

athletics program of Rutgers, The State University of 

New Jersey, that examined whether the university provided male and female students an equal opportunity 

to participate in the university’s intercollegiate athletic 

program by effectively accommodating their interests 

and abilities and providing opportunities for athletic 

financial assistance to members of both sexes in proportion to the participation rate of men and women in 

the intercollegiate athletics program. OCR determined 

that there was a significant and unjustified disparity 

favoring men’s teams with respect to the amount of 

travel funds expended, locker room facilities, and the 

quantity and quality of publications and other promotional devices used for the teams. To resolve the areas 

of non-compliance identified, the university agreed to 

provide its women’s athletics teams with locker and 

team rooms of equivalent quality, size, amenities, and 

proximity to competitive facilities as provided to its 

men’s athletics teams. The university also agreed to 

take steps to provide equivalent publicity for men’s 

and women’s teams, including but not limited to the 

assignment of sports information personnel with 

comparable experience; equivalent publicity resources (such as game highlights, press conferences, and 

promotional activities like band, dance team, and/or 

cheerleaders at games); and procedures for seeking 

and obtaining media coverage. The university further 

agreed to provide office space for the coaches and 

administrative staff of men’s and women’s teams that 

is equivalent in availability, size, and amenities. Finally, 

the university agreed to continue implementing its new 

policy of providing charter flights for all air travel for the 

women’s basketball team, and provide travel expenses 

to members of its men’s and women’s teams proportionate to rates of participation.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 33

OCR protects the rights of persons with disabilities, 

including students and parents, under two federal laws 

in the education context. 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 qualified 

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 benefits of, or 

be subjected to discrimination under any program or 

activity receiving Federal financial assistance...”

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability by 

public entities, regardless of whether they receive federal financial assistance. Title II states: “[N]o qualified 

individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied 

the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a 

public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any 

such entity.”

Policy Guidance: During FY 2015, OCR issued 

five guidance documents or packages that address 

Section 504 and/or ADA Title II concerns: (1) a Dear 

Colleague letter and fact sheet addressing a school’s 

obligation under Section 504 and Title II and their 

implementing regulations to respond to acts of bullying 

against students with disabilities; (2) a Dear Colleague

letter, fact sheet, and and frequently asked questions (FAQ) document discussing schools’ obligation 

under Section 504 and Title II and their implementing 

regulations to facilitate effective communication with 

students with hearing, vision, and speech impairments; 

fact sheets clarifying how schools can implement the 

CDC’s (3) Ebola and (4) measles prevention recommendations without discriminating against students on 

the basis of disability (or, with respect to Ebola prevention, on the basis of race, color or national origin); 

and (5) a Dear Colleague letter reiterating the applicability of federal civil rights laws in juvenile justice 

residential facilities.

Technical Assistance: In FY 2015, OCR staff delivered 140 technical assistance presentations across 

SECTION 504 AND ADA TITLE II: 

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY

Figure 14

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

637

214

25

72

1,001

552

215

116

1,974

36

3

140

89

1,029

76

46

142

304

Academic Adjustments

Accessibility (Programs/Facilities) 

Accessibility (Technology) 

Admissions and Recruitment

Different Treatment/Exclusion/Denial of Benefits 

Disability Harassment

Discipline

Employment

Free Appropriate Public Education

Graduation Requirements

Disproportionate Enrollment of Minorities in Special Education 

Non-Academic Services

Procedural Requirements 

Retaliation

Seclusion and Restraint

Testing

Treatment of Postsecondary Students 

Other

Total Number of Complaints Raising Disability Issues, FY 2015 = 4,806 Note: A single complaint can raise multiple issues; therefore, the total 

number of issues raised will exceed the number of complaints received.

Number of Disability Issues Raised in OCR Complaints, by Issue
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

34

the country on disability rights issues. Topics included 

the obligations of schools, districts, and institutions 

of higher learning to provide equal access to the full 

range of programs, services, and activities available to 

other students; how entities may formulate policies, 

practices, and procedures that do not discriminate 

against students with disabilities; and how to remedy 

potential Section 504 or Title II violations once they 

are identified. 

Enforcement: Of all complaints OCR receives, nearly 

half involve allegations of disability-based discrimination. In FY 2015, OCR received more than 4,800 complaints alleging violations of disability laws and covering 

a broad range of issues (See Figure 14). Over the 

course of FY 2015, OCR successfully resolved29 4,655 

such complaints. Over this same period, OCR initiated 

six compliance reviews related to disability issues.

Ensuring Equal Access to Comparable 

Educational Opportunities: Recruitment, 

Admissions, and Enrollment 

In FY 2015, OCR received 72 complaints and resolved30 78 complaints related to admissions and 

recruitment of students with disabilities. Additionally, in 

FY 2015, OCR resolved31 two proactive investigations 

in this area. Illustrative cases include: 

John Doe College:

32 In June 2015, OCR resolved a 

complaint alleging that John Doe College discriminated 

against a student on the basis of disability by failing to 

provide the complainant with an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for meetings with college staff 

and denying the complainant the opportunity to enroll 

and register for classes in its commercial truck driving program to obtain a Class A Commercial Driver’s 

License. Through OCR’s ECR process, the student 

was permitted to register for the winter 2016 quarter, 

and the college committed to provide the student 

with an ASL interpreter for pre-registration and registration meetings, and events as needed, when given 

advance notice. The college also agreed to provide 

an ASL interpreter for in-class instruction and provide 

behind-the-wheel instruction for the complainant in a 

parking lot and in traffic with a cab retro-fitted to allow 

interpretation. The college also agreed to provide the 

retro-fitted cab for the complainant’s use when taking 

the State Department of Licensing test.

Shaw University (NC): In June 2015, OCR resolved 

a complaint alleging that the university rescinded a 

student’s admission several days after meeting the 

student at freshman orientation because the student’s 

needs due to cerebral palsy were, in the university’s 

words to the student, “beyond the scope of what 

the university can reasonably provide.” During the 

investigation, evidence revealed that the university was 

actively discriminating against students with disabilities 

Early Complaint Resolution

To help facilitate the expeditious resolution of allegations 

of discrimination, OCR offers Early Complaint Resolution 

(ECR), a voluntary mediation process designed to bring 

parties together to agree upon appropriate next steps. 

In ECR cases, OCR serves as an impartial, confidential 

facilitator between the complainant and the institution 

rather than directly negotiating with the institution to reach 

an agreement to resolve the case. ECR may be recommended early in the case evaluation process but may also 

occur during the investigative phase. OCR will monitor the 

process of ECR to ensure adequate time for completion 

of OCR’s investigation in the event that ECR is unsuccessful. Where ECR is unsuccessful, OCR proceeds with 

investigation of the complaint allegations to ensure timely 

resolution of the case.

In FY 2015, OCR resolved 289 complaints through 

ECR, comprising 28% of complaints that resulted in 

substantive civil rights changes by, or agreements with, 

recipients and 3% of all complaints resolved.33 Most 

typically, substantive resolutions achieved through ECR 

addressed the following issues: 

n Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) (129)

n Different treatment/exclusion/denial of benefits 

(Disability) (53)

n Retaliation (Disability) (38)

n Academic adjustments (Disability) (38)

On average, ECR cases took approximately 120 days to 

reach agreement between the parties, compared to an 

average of 256 days for non-ECR cases that resulted in 

substantive civil rights changes or agreements. While the 

saved time resulted from multiple factors (including the 

fact that more complex cases tend not to be selected for 

ECR) and not the ECR process alone, the ECR process 

expedited the resolution of certain cases that that might 

have taken longer to resolve if they were to go through 

regular processing – while still achieving substantive 

changes and remedies for complainants, as chronicled in 

several enforcement resolution descriptions in this report.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 35

during the admissions process in part because the 

university’s admissions office regularly coordinated with 

the disability services coordinator to ensure that the 

university did not admit any student with a disability 

where there was a concern that the university may 

not be able to meet the student’s disability-related 

needs. To remedy the issues identified, the university 

committed to revise its policies and procedures; 

ensure that a nondiscrimination statement for people 

with disabilities and the Section 504 coordinator’s 

contact information appear in all relevant publications; 

ensure that it does not impose additional educational 

requirements on students with disabilities; review 

the applications of all non-admitted students with 

disabilities and offer them a chance to enroll if qualified 

for admission; offer all students with disabilities whose 

admissions were rescinded a chance to enroll; and 

implement training for all relevant officials. 

Colorado Charter School Institute (CO): In June 

2015, OCR resolved a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because of the disenrollment of a student after the institute learned of his 

disability. The complainant, filing on behalf of the student, stated that after acceptance to the institute, the 

family visited the school during an open house where 

the school noticed the student’s physical disabilities. 

Following this, the school terminated the student’s 

enrollment, stating that it could not meet the needs 

as outlined in the student’s Individualized Education 

Program (IEP). During the investigation, OCR asked 

the school about its justification for the termination of 

the student’s enrollment. OCR found that the school 

believed it was justified in its denial of his acceptance because it could not provide a free appropriate 

public education (FAPE) without altering its facilities. 

OCR determined that the possibility that the school’s 

building created physical barriers, including the route 

to the playground and access to the elevator, were not 

legitimate reasons for denial. OCR concluded that the 

student was treated differently because of his disability 

and that the school violated Section 504 and Title II. To 

remedy this, the institute agreed to review and revise 

its enrollment policies and procedures to comply with 

Title II and Section 504, facilitate staff training regarding compliance laws and the application process for 

students with disabilities, and remedy the disenrollment of the student by offering him reapplication and 

reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred. 

Additionally, the school agreed to formulate a plan for 

addressing any self-identified accessibility compliance 

concerns and submit it to OCR for review and approval. The plan will include a schedule (not to exceed 

three years) for any modifications or other steps needed to achieve regulatory compliance.

ALSO: See Harmony Public Schools (TX), 

p. 23 (admissions and recruitment of students 

with disabilities and the rights of English Learner 

(EL) students). 

Ensuring Appropriate Educational 

Support for Students with Disabilities 

During FY 2015, OCR received 1,974 complaints 

and resolved34 1,849 complaints related to FAPE. 

Additionally, in FY 2015, OCR launched five and 

resolved35 two proactive investigations related to FAPE 

denial. Illustrative cases include:

John Doe School District:

36 In June 2015, OCR resolved a complaint that alleged that John Doe School 

District discriminated on the basis of disability when 

it failed to evaluate a student whom the district had 

reason to suspect had a disability, instead removing 

that student from school over a three-week period 

without appropriate justification and without providing 

educational services or instruction. After investigating, 

OCR found that the Section 504 coordinator for the 

student’s school did not view the student as having 

a potential disability and stated she would not have 

initiated an evaluation for a suspected disability without 

a request from the parent, even though the principal 

had determined that the student required a mental 

health evaluation by a doctor because of the student’s 

emotional issues. The resolution agreement committed 

the district to revise its risk assessment and nondiscrimination policies and provide training on the revised 

policies to relevant district staff, offer to provide the 

student with counseling, reimburse the family for the 

private mental health evaluation and related expenses, 

and provide the student reimbursement for a state-level band competition the district precluded the student 

from attending while it had removed the student 

from school.

Oakland Unified School District (CA): In November 

2014, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that Oakland 

Unified School District failed to provide a student with 

FAPE by failing to identify and assess the student in a 

timely manner for special education and related services. The complainant alleged that the district’s failure 

to provide the student with these related aids and services impacted his ability to graduate from high school, 
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

36

and that the district utilized methods of administration 

that have the effect of subjecting qualified disabled individuals to discrimination when students transfer from 

other schools. OCR found that despite the student’s 

special education history in the district, his academic 

struggles, and the complainant’s multiple requests for 

an evaluation, the district did not complete the process 

for evaluating and placing the student until the end of 

his senior year in high school. While the student had 

a Section 504 plan at another high school, neither the 

process used by that school to develop the Section 

504 plan nor the one used by his current school to 

determine accommodations was based upon an evaluation consistent with the law. Because of this, OCR 

found that the district failed to evaluate the student for 

special education and related aids and services and 

failed to provide such services to the student for most 

of the student’s educational history in the district for 

a number of years, in violation of the law. To remedy 

these issues, in the resolution agreement, the district 

agreed to compensate the student for tuition, tutoring, 

counseling, fees, educational materials and equipment, 

and other educational related services. The district 

also agreed to issue cross-departmental administrative guidance on appropriate evaluation and assessment procedures, identify a method to track referrals 

and outcomes to special education evaluations and 

assessments, and provide training to staff who have 

responsibilities related to special education.

Paradise Valley Unified School District (AZ): In 

May 2015, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that 

the district discriminated on the basis of disability by 

Combating Bullying and Harassment 

on the Basis of Disability 

changing how students with IEPs would receive reading, writing, and math instruction without consulting 

students’ IEP teams. The complaint also alleged that 

students with IEPs were denied an equal opportunity 

to be taught science, social studies, and history, and 

have Accelerated Reading time, because they were 

required to receive special education services during 

those periods. After a preliminary investigation in which 

OCR interviewed several district staff regarding these 

allegations, the district indicated its willingness to 

reach an agreement with OCR to resolve these issues. 

In the resolution agreement, the district agreed to audit 

all special education models to ensure they are compliant with Section 504 and Title II; identify all students 

during the 2014-2015 school year who did not have 

an equal opportunity to subject-specific curriculum and 

offer enrichment activities focused on social studies 

and science; provide training to all school principals, 

psychologists, and special education teachers about 

the parameters that must be followed to ensure the 

compliance with Section 504 and Title II; and appoint 

a parent liaison to help ensure that parental input is 

carefully considered during IEP meetings. 

ALSO: See John Doe School District,

37 p. 20 

(provision of FAPE and bullying/harassment on 

the bases of race, sex, and disability). 

ALSO: See Springfield City School District 

(OH), p. 21 (provision of FAPE and racial 

harassment). 

In FY 2015, OCR received 552 complaints and 

resolved38 541 complaints involving disability-related 

harassment. Additionally, in FY 2015, OCR launched 

one and resolved39 one proactive investigation in this 

area. Below is a case that illustrates some of OCR’s 

work in this area: 

Sandwich Community Unit School District #430 

(IL): In July 2015, OCR resolved an investigation of 

the Sandwich Community Unit School District #430 

to address allegations that the district discriminated 

against a student by failing to respond appropriately to 

verbal and physical harassment that he was subjected 

to by multiple students based on his disability, sex, and 

race/national origin. OCR found that the student was 

subjected to continuous verbal bullying by his peers, 

including verbal insults, and that the bullying escalated 

Guidance Addressing Bullying and Harassment 

of Students with Disabilities

On October 21, 2014, OCR released a Dear Colleague

letter and fact sheet regarding the obligation under 

Section 504 and Title II and their implementing regulations for schools to respond appropriately to bullying of 

students with disabilities. These documents clarify that 

if a student with a disability is being bullied, federal law 

requires schools to take immediate and appropriate action 

to investigate and, as necessary, take steps to stop the 

bullying and prevent it from recurring. Regardless of the 

basis of the bullying, schools must remedy the effects 

of bullying on the services that a student with a disability 

receives (such as special education or other disability-related services) to ensure that the student continues to 

receive FAPE. 
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 37

from verbal to physical attacks. The student was also 

subjected to race- and sex-based insults and acts. 

OCR determined that district administrators were not 

informed by school staff that the student had exhibited 

severe emotional problems as a result of the bullying 

and harassment, and that the student’s IEP team did 

not meet to determine whether his IEP needed to be 

revised in light of this information. OCR further determined that the student was subjected to harassment 

that was sufficiently severe or serious that it created 

a hostile environment; that the district failed to take 

appropriate action to end the harassment of which 

it had notice and eliminate the hostile environment; 

and that the district failed to remedy in a timely and 

effective manner the denial of FAPE services for the 

student that was the result of bullying by his peers. 

To remedy these issues, the district agreed to provide 

relief to the student to ensure he is not subjected to 

harassment or bullying on any basis; issue a statement 

that it does not tolerate bullying or harassment on any 

basis; review and revise its policies and procedures; 

provide training to all district personnel; and develop 

and provide an orientation program for all students, 

administrators, and staff on the district’s policies and 

procedures related to student conduct, bullying, 

and harassment.

Ensuring Accessibility of Programs, 

Services, and Facilities 

In FY 2015, OCR received 214 complaints and 

resolved40 194 complaints related to accessibility of 

programs, services, and facilities. Additionally, in FY 

2015 OCR resolved41 two proactive investigations in 

this area. Illustrative cases include:

Anchorage School District (AK): In June 2015, 

OCR resolved a complaint alleging discrimination on 

the basis of disability in only 42 days through ECR. 

The complaint alleged that the district discriminated 

against an elementary student and other students with 

disabilities by segregating them unnecessarily from 

students without disabilities in the classroom, at lunch, 

and at recess. Through the ECR, the district committed to review and revise its policies and procedures to 

ensure that students with disabilities are not unnecessarily segregated or isolated from students without 

disabilities. The district also agreed to provide notice of 

these policies and procedures to all staff at the school 

in question.

John Doe Schools:

42 In June 2015, OCR resolved 

a complaint that alleged that the district had denied 

a parent’s requests for an American Sign Language 

(ASL) interpreter for multiple school events, including a registration day and a school musical in which 

the parent’s child was involved. OCR found that the 

district failed to provide the complainant with effective 

communication, as legally required, when it did not 

provide her with an ASL interpreter as requested. In its 

resolution agreement with OCR, the district agreed to 

provide effective communication for all school-related 

activities when requested for any parent, relative, or 

companion who is deaf or hard of hearing; draft and 

implement procedures to ensure this effective communication will be provided, which will then be shared 

and discussed with district staff; and send a letter to 

all parents and guardians known to be deaf or hard 

of hearing to inform them of their right to request an 

interpreter for school events.

Upper Freehold Regional School District (NJ):

In November 2014, OCR resolved an investigation of 

Upper Freehold Regional School District following a 

complaint alleging that the district rescinded its offer of 

admission to a student for an advanced study program 

after learning that the admitted student had a disability, 

arguing that the implementation of the student’s IEP 

would require the district to fundamentally alter the 

nature of its program and create an undue financial 

burden. OCR concluded that the district’s actions in 

rescinding the student’s admission offer denied the 

student an equal opportunity to participate in the program and subjected him to different treatment on the 

basis of his disability. The district entered into a resolution agreement whereby it agreed to provide weekly 

tutoring to the student for the rest of that school year. 

Additionally, the district agreed to review and revise its 

procedures and practices for admitting students into 

the program and provide training to staff. 

Brookfield Local Schools (OH): In June 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint against Brookfield Local Schools 

alleging that the district’s high school football stadium 

was inaccessible to individuals with mobility impairments and lacked seating, parking, an accessible 

route, and restrooms to serve individuals with mobility 

impairments. OCR found the school in violation of 

Section 504 and Title II. The agreement requires the 

district either to find alternative locations to host its 

football programs or to make modifications to the 

stadium and its facilities, including its parking facilities, 

routes, restrooms, seating, and press boxes, and to 

disseminate information regarding the location of accessible seating and parking for games.
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

38

Seaside School District 10 (OR): In May 2015, OCR 

resolved three pending cases at the district, including 

32 specific allegations of violations of Section 504 

and Title II. The complaints alleged that the district 

discriminated against individuals with disabilities 

because main buildings, classrooms, and bathrooms 

were inaccessible to students in wheelchairs, and 

specifically, bathroom stalls were too narrow for use 

and the mounting of soap and paper towel dispensers 

too high. In its resolution agreement with OCR, the 

district agreed to conduct an accessibility evaluation 

of the facilities and elements in question; develop 

an action plan to correct any facilities and elements 

determined to be inaccessible; review and revise its 

accessibility policies and procedures; designate an 

employee who will provide accessibility information 

and address accessibility complaints; and provide 

notice and training to parents, students, and district 

employees regarding accessibility. 

John Doe Schools:

43 In February 2015, OCR resolved two cases at John Doe Schools involving allegations that the district discriminated on the basis of 

disability by holding school training sessions that were 

inaccessible to a student with a hearing impairment. 

OCR investigated whether the district failed to take 

appropriate steps to ensure that its communications 

with a student with a disability were as effective as 

its communications with students without disabilities. 

Before the conclusion of the investigation, the district 

agreed to remedy any preliminary issues identified by 

OCR. In the resolution agreement, the district committed to provide computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) or similar services for all assemblies 

where the audience will exceed 75 individuals and for 

other circumstances as necessary to provide equal 

opportunity for participation for students with hearing 

impairments. Further, the district agreed to train staff 

members as to the need to notify appropriate district 

personnel when activities fitting the criteria are offered, 

with sufficient detail and timeliness that the district 

can arrange for appropriate services. The district also 

agreed to develop a backup method by which it can 

provide services and convey information presented in 

an assembly in case of a technological malfunction. 

University of Alabama in Huntsville (AL): In March 

2015, OCR resolved a complaint against the University 

of Alabama in Huntsville alleging that staff members at 

the university made impermissible inquiries regarding 

a service animal, inappropriately excluded the service 

animal from some areas on campus, and required 

additional training for the service animal at the expense 

of the animal’s owner. During the course of the investigation, OCR also identified that the university’s grievance procedures were not consistent with due process 

standards and were inadequate to ensure a prompt, 

effective resolution. The university entered into a resolution agreement with OCR in which it agreed to revise 

its policies and grievance procedures and train staff 

regarding the new policies and grievance procedures. 

The resolution agreement further required the university 

to refund the cost of additional training required by 

the university. 

John Doe Public Schools:

44 In March 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when John Doe Public Schools refused 

to provide a registered nurse to accompany a diabetic 

high school baseball player during the baseball team’s 

pre-season training trip to a different state. The district 

had denied the service based on the view that the trip 

was optional for players and that the district was not 

obligated to provide necessary supports for such exGuidance Addressing Effective Communication for 

Students with Disabilities 

On November 12, 2014, OCR, in collaboration with the 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), released 

guidance regarding the obligation under Section 504 and 

Title II of the ADA to provide effective communication to 

students with hearing, vision, or speech impairments. An 

FAQ document provides an overview of relevant laws, 

emphasizes that public schools must comply with both 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 

Title II of the ADA, and addresses the interplay of the IDEA 

requirements and the Title II effective communication requirements. A fact sheet summarizes students’ rights and 

districts’ obligations in this area under these laws.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 39

tracurricular activities. In its resolution agreement with 

OCR, the district developed a plan for providing the 

student sufficient nursing coverage in order to manage 

his diabetes and to attend and fully participate with his 

teammates in all aspects of the trip. The district also 

agreed to revise relevant policies and procedures and 

to train staff (including coaches) to ensure that other 

students with disabilities can participate in extracurricular activities, including athletics, in a manner equal to 

participation by students without disabilities.

ALSO: See Appleton Area School District 

(WI), p. 24 (accessibility for students with 

disabilities and the rights of EL students). 

Safeguarding Accessibility of 

Appropriate Technology

In FY 2015, OCR received 25 complaints and resolved45 24 complaints related to accessibility of 

technology. Additionally, in FY 2015 OCR resolved46

two proactive investigations related to accessibility of 

technology. Illustrative case resolutions include:

Michigan Department of Education (MI): In June 

2015, OCR resolved a complaint that alleged that 

a Michigan Department of Education (MDE) webpage was inaccessible to persons with disabilities. In 

the investigation, OCR found that the evidence was 

sufficient to support a violation of Section 504 and 

Title II because the MDE website in question was not 

accessible to individuals with vision impairments and 

the MDE does not provide a notice of nondiscrimination on its website. The resolution agreement required 

the MDE, among other remedies, to develop and 

publish an appropriate notice of nondiscrimination on 

its website pursuant to Section 504; designate one or 

more persons to coordinate its efforts to comply with 

Section 504 and Title II with respect to its website; 

develop, adopt, and provide notice of a web accessibility policy and implementation and remediation plan 

to ensure adherence to the policy and periodic review 

of the MDE website to identify and ameliorate any 

accessibility problems; and provide training to staff 

responsible for web content development. 

University of Cincinnati (OH): In December 2014, 

OCR resolved an investigation of the University of Cincinnati’s websites that assessed whether or not they 

were accessible to students with visual disabilities. 

During the course of the investigation, OCR identified 

compliance concerns relating to the designation of a 

Section 504 coordinator, the university’s nondiscrimination notice, and the accessibility of particular pages 

on the university’s website. The resulting resolution 

ensures that the university’s websites are accessible 

to all and requires the district to provide staff training 

to all website designers. Furthermore, the agreement 

requires the university to designate persons to coordinate the university’s efforts to comply with Section 504 

and Title II and to publish a notice of nondiscrimination 

in a readily-available location on the university’s website, accessible to those with impaired vision. 

University of Phoenix (AZ): In June 2015, the 

University of Phoenix, the largest online education 

provider in the United States, entered into a resolution 

agreement with OCR to resolve a complaint that the 

university’s online learning management program and 

other web-based services were inaccessible to people 

with disabilities who use assistive technology. The 

resolution agreement requires the university to create a 

plan to ensure its new online technology is accessible, 

audit its existing technology, create a plan to remove 

accessibility barriers, establish a new help desk for students who use assistive technology, communicate the 

contents of the agreement to students, and appoint 

special coordinators to handle disability technology 

issues. The resolution agreement also provides specific 

remedies for the complainant, including the opportunity to complete her degree tuition-free and reimbursement for courses where a lack of assistive technology 

prevented her from having an equal opportunity to 

participate. The agreement further stipulates that the 

university must identify other students who may have 

encountered problems in their academic careers due 

to barriers to access in the technology and provide 

them with opportunities for grade reevaluation and to 

repeat courses and/or take new courses tuition-free, 

as appropriate.

Odenton Regional Library (Anne Arundel County 

Public Library) (MD): In March 2015, OCR resolved 

a complaint using the Rapid Resolution Process (RRP) 

alleging that the library discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability by failing to provide 

assistive text-to-speech technology. OCR has jurisdiction, under Title II of the ADA, over complaints alleging 

discrimination on the basis of disability that are filed 

against certain public entities, including public libraries. 

As a result of OCR’s intervention, the library purchased 

network licenses for the assistive technology which will 

allow use of the software at public computers in each 

of the fifteen libraries that comprise the Anne Arundel 

County Public Library system. In addition, the library 

purchased assistive technology specifically for the 

Odenton Regional Library.
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

40

OCR also has jurisdiction over two additional civil rights 

laws: the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the Boy 

Scouts of America Equal Access Act (2001). 

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination based on age in programs or activities that 

receive federal financial assistance. This prohibition 

extends to all state education agencies, elementary 

and secondary school systems, colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary schools, state 

vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and museums that receive federal financial assistance from the 

U.S. Department of Education. Programs or activities 

that receive such funds must provide aids, benefits, 

or services in a nondiscriminatory manner. These 

include (but are not limited to) admissions, recruitment, 

financial aid, academic programs, student treatment 

and services, counseling and guidance, discipline, 

classroom assignment, grading, vocational education, 

recreation, physical education, athletics, and housing. 

Though the Act does not limit protections against discrimination to a certain age group, it does allow for exceptions such as when colleges offer special programs 

that are geared toward providing special benefits to 

children and the elderly.

In FY 2015, OCR received 550 complaints under the 

Age Discrimination Act and resolved47 533 complaints. Common remedies in OCR resolutions include 

provisions that require training for staff, updating and 

disseminating nondiscrimination policies, and investigation by the institution into the specific incidents that 

resulted in the allegation of age discrimination.

The Boy Scouts of America 

Equal Access Act (2001)

OCR also enforces the Boy Scouts of America Equal 

Access Act. Under this Act, no public elementary 

school, public secondary school, or state or local 

education agency that provides an opportunity for one 

or more outside youth or community groups to meet 

at the school, before or after school hours, shall deny 

equal access or a fair opportunity to meet or otherwise 

discriminate against any group officially affiliated with 

the Boy Scouts of America or any other youth group 

listed in Title 36 of the United States Code as a 

patriotic society.

In FY 2015, OCR received 21 complaints under the 

Boy Scouts Act and resolved48 22 cases. Many of 

the complaints filed under this statute sought enforcement of the requirement that institutions’ nondiscrimination policies include a statement about the Boy 

Scouts Act and its provisions.

ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY UNDER OTHER STATUTES 
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 41

The preceding pages give examples of significant progress toward upholding the promise of equal 

educational opportunity for all students. We in OCR are deeply pleased with the specific steps that schools 

and other institutions committed to take in resolving cases with us. And we are regretfully aware that so 

many more students continue to need our help. So we continue working toward more justice, for every 

student, in every school in America. 

Our students in schools today don’t have time to wait for their rights. Carrying the civil rights mantle forward 

means ensuring, now, that students may reap the benefits of the justice our nation promises them in our 

federal civil rights laws.

LOOKING AHEAD 
DELIVERING JUSTICE: Report to the President and Secretary of Education | FY 2015 

42

Title VI Title IX Disability Age

State, District, 

or Territory TOTAL Complaints Compliance

Reviews TOTAL Complaints ComplianceReviews TOTAL Complaints ComplianceReviews TOTAL Complaints ComplianceReviews

TOTAL

Per State*

AK 0 0

AL 2 2 2 2 7 7 11

AR 1 1 1 1 2

AS 0 0

AZ 2 2 1 1 30 30 33

CA 18 17 1 10 10 72 72 1 1 101

CO 3 3 2 2 10 10 15

CT 1 1 1 1 2 2 4

DC 8 8 8

DE 1 1 1

FL 3 3 2 2 17 17 22

GA 1 1 2 2 23 23 26

HI 0 0

IA 2 2 2

ID 1 1 1

IL 5 5 5 5 10 10 20

IN 1 1 1 1 3 3 5

KS 1 1 7 7 8

KY 3 3 2 2 3 3 8

LA 6 6 6

MA 3 3 2 2 7 7 12

MD 2 2 15 15 17

ME 3 3 3

MH 0 0

MI 3 3 4 4 35 35 42

MN 3 1 2 1 1 6 6 10

MO 2 2 2 2 18 18 22

MS 1 1 5 5 6

MT 2 2 2

NC 1 1 10 10 24 24 35

ND 7 7 7

NE 2 2 2

NH 0 0

NJ 4 2 2 2 1 1 7 7 13

NM 2 2 6 6 8

NV 1 1 1

NY 2 2 3 3 21 21 26

OH 5 4 1 2 2 26 23 3 33

OK 2 2 2

OR 3 3 1 1 7 7 11

PA 1 1 10 10 16 16 27

PR 3 3 3

RI 1 1 1

SC 5 5 5

SD 1 1 1

TN 2 2 11 11 13

TX 5 3 2 6 6 24 23 1 1 1 36

UT 1 1 2 2 3

VA 2 2 6 5 1 16 16 24

VI 0 0

VT 1 1 1

WA 1 1 3 2 1 6 5 1 10

WI 1 1 4 4 5 4 1 10

WV 1 1 4 4 5

WY 0 0

TOTAL Per Statute 79 91 492 2 664**

APPENDIX: INDEX OF CASES RESOLVED WITH AGREEMENTS 

* There were no resolution agreements involving the 

 Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act in FY 2015. 

** 629 cases resulted in resolution agreements during FY 2015. However the total listed here reflects the fact that many cases 

 included issues across multiple statutes. Additionally, there were 2 claims of age discrimination that are included in this total.

Total number of resolution agreements in FY 2015 by jurisdiction, statute, and type of investigation
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | FY 2015 43

1 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

2 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

3 Excludes 153 multiple complaints filed by an individual in FY 2013. 

4 The CRDC collects information on public schools in school districts across the 

nation.

5 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

6 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

7 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

8 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

9 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

10 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

11 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

12 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

13 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

14 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

15 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

16 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

17 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

18 Title IX’s legal protections do not govern schools that qualify for and assert 

the religious exemption. The exemption does not cover all school activities; 

it is limited to the actual conflicts present between Title IX and the religious 

organization’s tenets. OCR has been using the same standard to evaluate 

exemption applications for close to four decades. 

19 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

20 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

21 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

22 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

23 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

24 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

25 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

26 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

27 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

28 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

29 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015. 

30 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

31 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

32 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

33 Substantive closures included insufficient evidence, ECR, and change with/

without agreement.

34 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015. 

35 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

36 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

37 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

38 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

39 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

40 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

41 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

42 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

43 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

44 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case because of 

privacy considerations.

45 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

46 Resolved proactive, systemic investigations (compliance reviews) include those 

launched prior to FY 2015.

47 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in 

FY 2015 includes cases received prior to FY 2015.

48 Resolved cases include cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative 

closure, a finding of no violation, an early complaint resolution, or a resolution 

agreement. Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2015 includes cases 

received prior to FY 2015.

ENDNOTES
The Department of Education’s mission is to 

promote student achievement and preparation for 

global competitiveness by fostering educational 

excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov/ocr

Contact us: ocr@ed.gov or 1-800-421-3481