The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by 

fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

32 OLD SLIP, 26 T H FLOOR

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005

TIMOTHY C. J. BLANCHARD

DIRECTOR

NEW YORK OFFICE

November 5, 2014

Christopher L. Eisgruber

President

Princeton University

Office of the President

1 Nassau Hall

Princeton, New Jersey 08544

Re: Case No. 02-11-2025

Princeton University

Dear President Eisgruber:

This letter is to notify you of the determination made by the U.S. Department of Education 

(Department), New York Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the above-referenced consolidated 

complaint filed against Princeton University (University).1 In response to the above-referenced

complaint, OCR examined whether the University responded promptly and equitably to 

complaints, reports, and any other notice to the University of incidents of sexual harassment, 

sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence, including the students’ reports of sexual 

assaults; and whether as a result, students, including the students at issue in the above-referenced 

complaints, were subjected to a sexually hostile environment. 

Background

Complainants 1, 2, and 3 alleged that the University discriminated, on the basis of sex, by failing 

to adopt and publish grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of 

student complaints of sex discrimination/harassment, including sexual assault. Additionally, the 

complainants alleged that the University failed to respond appropriately to complaints of sexual 

assault that three students (Students 1, 2, and 3) made during academic years 2009-2010 and 

2010-2011.

 

1 OCR Case Number 02-11-2025 consolidates three OCR complaints: Case Numbers 02-11-2025 (Complainant 1), 

02-11-2167 (Complainant 2) and 02-11-2166 (Complainant 3).
Page 2 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

In academic year 2013-2014, the University, which is located in Princeton, New Jersey, had a 

total student population of 8,014 students, comprising 5,323 undergraduate students and 2,691 

graduate students. The student body was approximately 55 percent male and 45 percent female. 

In its investigation, OCR reviewed documentation that the complainants and the University 

submitted, as well as the University’s policies and procedures relating to sexual harassment, 

including sexual assault/violence. OCR also interviewed Complainants 1, 2, and 3; Students 1, 

2, and 3; and University staff and administrators. In addition, OCR reviewed the University’s 

handling of individual complaints of sexual harassment filed in academic years 2011-2012 and 

2012-2013. Further, OCR conducted on-site visits to review files and recordings on April 30, 

2012, and June 27, 2013. OCR also reviewed information contained in the Department’s Office 

of Postsecondary Education’s Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool, 

including statistics collected pursuant to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and 

Campus Crime Statistics Act (“Clery Act”), 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f); this information is located at 

http://ope.ed.gov/security/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx, and is discussed in more detail below. 

OCR determined that the University’s prior grievance procedures failed to comply with the 

requirements of Title IX. OCR also 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, as well as Student 1’s, 2’s, and 3’s complaints of sexual 

harassment/violence. OCR further determined that for Student 1, this failure allowed for the 

continuation of a hostile environment that limited and denied her access to the education 

opportunities at the University. On October 12, 2014, the University provided OCR with a 

signed Resolution Agreement, and in accordance with the Agreement, it submitted revised 

grievance procedures to address complaints of sexual misconduct (including sex discrimination, 

sexual harassment, and sexual assault/violence). OCR’s preliminary review of the new 

procedures revealed that it corrects many deficiencies identified in the previous policies and 

procedures. OCR will review these procedures in detail as part of its monitoring of this 

Agreement, which when fully implemented, will resolve the University’s noncompliance with 

Title IX.

Legal Authority

OCR is responsible for enforcing Title IX, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its 

implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex 

in education programs and activities receiving financial assistance from the Department. The 

University is a recipient of financial assistance from the Department. Therefore, OCR has 

jurisdictional authority to investigate this complaint under Title IX.

The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a), provides that no person 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 operated by a recipient. Sexual 

harassment that creates a hostile environment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title 

IX. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment can include 

unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical 

conduct of a sexual nature, such as sexual assault or acts of sexual violence. Sexual harassment 
Page 3 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

of a student creates a hostile environment if the conduct is sufficiently serious that it denies or 

limits a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient’s program.2

In determining whether this denial or limitation has occurred, OCR examines all of the relevant 

circumstances from an objective and subjective perspective, including: the type of harassment 

(e.g., whether it was verbal or physical); the frequency and severity of the conduct; the age, sex, 

and relationship of the individuals involved (e.g., teacher-student or student-student); the setting 

and context in which the harassment occurred; whether other incidents have occurred at the 

college or university; and other relevant factors. The more severe the conduct, the less need 

there is to show a repetitive series of incidents to prove a hostile environment, particularly if the 

harassment is physical. For example, a single instance of rape is sufficiently severe to create a 

hostile environment. Title IX also protects all students at recipient institutions from sex 

harassment, including male and female students. 

If a recipient knows or reasonably should have known about sexual harassment that creates a 

hostile environment, a recipient must take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or 

otherwise determine what occurred. If an investigation reveals that discriminatory harassment 

has occurred, a recipient must take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the 

harassment, eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and prevent the harassment from 

recurring. These duties are a recipient’s responsibility regardless of whether a student has 

complained, asked the recipient to take action, or identified the harassment as a form of 

discrimination. A law enforcement investigation does not relieve the recipient of its independent 

Title IX obligation to investigate the conduct. A recipient should not wait for the conclusion of a 

criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to conduct its own Title IX investigation; and if 

needed, must take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment prior to 

the completion of the Title IX investigation/resolution. Additionally, under Title IX, a recipient 

must process all complaints of sexual assault/violence, regardless of where the conduct occurred, 

to determine whether the conduct occurred in the context of an education program or activity or 

had continuing effects on campus or in an off-campus education program or activity. Further, 

once a school is on notice of off-campus sexual assault/violence against a student, it must assess 

whether there are any continuing effects on campus or in an off-campus education program or 

activity that are creating or contributing to a hostile environment, and if so, address that hostile 

environment in the same manner in which it would address a hostile environment created by oncampus misconduct.

The Title IX regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b), requires recipients to adopt and publish 

grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging 

any action that would be prohibited by Title IX, including sex discrimination, sexual harassment, 

 

2 The applicable legal standards described herein are more fully discussed in OCR’s 2011 Dear Colleague letter on 

Sexual Violence, which is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

(April 4, 2011); for further clarification on this topic, see “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence,” 

at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf (April 29, 2014). See also OCR’s 2010 

Dear Colleague letter on Harassment and Bullying, which is available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html (October 26, 2010), and OCR’s Revised 

Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties, at 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html (January 19, 2001).
Page 4 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

and sexual assault/violence. Title IX does not require a university to provide separate grievance 

procedures for sexual harassment complaints, including sexual assault/violence complaints. 

A university may use student disciplinary or other separate procedures for these complaints; 

however, a university’s grievance procedures for handling discrimination complaints must 

comply with the prompt and equitable requirements of Title IX. In evaluating whether a 

recipient’s grievance procedures are prompt and equitable, OCR reviews all aspects of a 

recipient’s policies and practices, including the following elements that are critical to achieve 

compliance with Title IX: 

1. notice to students and employees of the procedures, including where complaints may be 

filed; 

2. application of the procedures to complaints alleging discrimination or harassment carried 

out by employees, students, and third parties; 

3. provision for adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints, including an 

opportunity for both the complainant and respondent to present witnesses and other 

evidence; 

4. designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for major stages of the complaint process; 

5. written notice to parties of the outcome of the complaint and any appeal; and 

6. an assurance that the institution will take steps to prevent recurrence of any sex 

discrimination or harassment found to have occurred, and to correct its discriminatory 

effects on the complainant and others if appropriate. 

To ensure that students and employees have a clear understanding of what constitutes sexual 

violence, the potential consequences for such conduct, and how the recipient processes 

complaints, the recipient’s Title IX grievance procedures should also include the following in 

writing: 

1. a statement of the recipient’s jurisdiction over Title IX complaints; 

2. adequate definitions of sexual harassment (which includes sexual assault) and an 

explanation as to when such conduct creates a hostile environment; 

3. reporting policies and protocols, including provisions for confidential reporting; 

4. identification of the employee or employees responsible for evaluating requests for 

confidentiality; 

5. notice that Title IX prohibits retaliation; 

6. notice of a student’s right to file a criminal complaint and a Title IX complaint 

simultaneously; 

7. notice of available interim measures that may be taken to protect the student in the 

educational setting; 

8. the evidentiary standard that must be used (preponderance of the evidence) in resolving a 

complaint; 

9. notice of potential remedies for students; 

10. notice of potential sanctions against perpetrators; and 

11. sources of counseling, advocacy and support. 
Page 5 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

The procedures for addressing and resolving complaints of sexual harassment should be written 

in language that is easily understood, should be easily located, and should be widely distributed.

For Title IX purposes, a recipient must inform the complainant as to whether or not it found that 

the alleged conduct occurred, any individual remedies offered or provided to the complainant or 

any sanctions imposed on the perpetrator that directly relate to the complainant, and other steps 

the recipient has taken to eliminate the hostile environment, if the recipient finds one to exist, 

and prevent recurrence. Sanctions that directly relate to the complainant (but that may also relate 

to eliminating the hostile environment and preventing recurrence) include, but are not limited to, 

requiring that the perpetrator stay away from the complainant until both parties graduate, 

prohibiting the perpetrator from attending school for a period of time, or transferring the 

perpetrator to another residence hall, other classes, or another school. Additional steps the 

recipient may take to eliminate the hostile environment include counseling and academic support

services for the complainant and other affected students. 

To ensure individuals can invoke these grievance procedures without fear of reprisal, Title IX 

also prohibits the university and others, including students, from retaliating against any 

individual “for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by [Title IX],” or 

because that individual “has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner 

in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing” under Title IX. Prohibited retaliatory acts include 

intimidation, threats, coercion, or discrimination against any such individual. Universities 

therefore should take steps to prevent any retaliation against a student who makes a complaint or 

any student who provides information regarding the complaint. At a minimum, under Title IX, 

the university must ensure that complainants and their parents, if appropriate, know how to 

report any subsequent problems; and should follow up with complainants to determine whether 

any retaliation or new incidents of harassment have occurred.

Pending the outcome of an investigation, Title IX requires a recipient to take steps to ensure 

equal access to its education programs and activities and to protect the complainant from further 

harassment as necessary, including taking interim steps before the final outcome of the 

investigation. The recipient should undertake these steps promptly once it has notice of a sexual 

harassment allegation and should provide the complainant with periodic updates on the status of 

the investigation. It should notify the complainant of his or her options to avoid contact with the 

alleged perpetrator, and allow students to change academic or living, transportation, dining and 

working situations as appropriate. For instance, the recipient may prohibit the alleged 

perpetrator from having contact with the complainant pending the results of the investigation. 

The specific interim measures implemented and the process for implementing those measures 

will vary depending on the facts of each case. When taking steps to separate the complainant 

and the alleged perpetrator, a recipient should minimize the burden on the complainant and thus 

should not, as a matter of course, remove the complainant from classes or housing while 

allowing the alleged perpetrator to remain. If an accused student is found responsible and a 

recipient determines that he/she must be separated from the complainant, it must do so in a 

manner that minimizes the burden on the complainant. Recipients should also check with 

complainants to ensure that the interim measures are effective and, if ineffective, identify 

alternatives. In addition, recipients should ensure that complainants are aware of their Title IX 

rights and any available resources, such as advocacy, housing assistance, academic support, 
Page 6 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

counseling, disability services, health and mental health services, and legal assistance, and the 

right to report a crime to campus or local law enforcement. 

In addition, if there is an incident involving potential criminal conduct, the university must 

determine, consistent with state and local law, whether appropriate law enforcement or other 

authorities should be notified, bearing in mind that a university’s Title IX investigation is 

different from any law enforcement investigation, and a law enforcement investigation does not 

relieve a university of its independent Title IX obligation to investigate the conduct. A 

university therefore should not wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal 

proceeding to begin its own Title IX investigation; and if needed, must take immediate steps to 

protect the complainant in the educational setting. These duties are a university’s responsibility, 

regardless of whether a student has complained, asked the university to take action, or identified 

the harassment as a form of discrimination.

If the complainant requests confidentiality or asks that the complaint not be pursued, a university 

should take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the complaint consistent with the 

request for confidentiality or request not to pursue an investigation. If the complainant insists 

that his or her name or other identifiable information not be disclosed to the alleged perpetrator, 

the recipient should inform the student that honoring the request may limit its ability to respond 

fully to the incident, including pursuing disciplinary action against the accused. The recipient 

should notify students of the information that will be disclosed, to whom it will be disclosed, and 

why. The recipient should also explain that Title IX includes protections against retaliation, and 

that school officials will not only take steps to prevent retaliation but also take strong responsive 

action if it occurs. If the student still requests that his or her name not be disclosed to the 

accused or that the recipient not investigate or seek action against the accused, the recipient will 

need to determine whether or not it can honor such a request while still providing a safe and 

nondiscriminatory environment for all students, including the student who reported the 

harassment. 

Grievance procedures generally may include voluntary informal mechanisms (e.g., mediation) 

for resolving some types of sexual harassment complaints; however, it is improper for a 

complainant to be required to work out the problem directly with the alleged perpetrator, and 

certainly not without appropriate involvement by the recipient (e.g., participation by a trained 

counselor, a trained mediator, or, if appropriate, a faculty member or administrator). The 

complainant must be notified of the right to end the informal process at any time and begin the 

formal stage of the complaint process. Moreover, in cases involving allegations of sexual 

assault/violence, mediation is not appropriate even on a voluntary basis. OCR recommends that 

recipients clarify in their grievance procedures that mediation will not be used to resolve sexual 

assault/violence complaints.

Throughout the recipient’s investigation and in any hearing, both parties must have equal 

opportunity to present relevant witnesses and other evidence and to otherwise participate in the 

process. Also, in order for a recipient’s grievance procedures to be consistent with the Title IX 

evidentiary standard, the recipient must use a preponderance of the evidence standard for 

investigating allegations of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence. If a recipient 
Page 7 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

provides for appeal of the findings or remedy, it must do so for both parties. The recipient must 

maintain documentation of all proceedings.

In addition, a school must ensure that responsible employees with the authority to address sexual 

assault/violence know how to respond appropriately to reports of sexual assault/violence; that 

other responsible employees know that they are obligated to report sexual assault/violence to 

appropriate school officials; and that all other employees understand how to respond to reports of 

sexual assault/violence. A school should provide training to all employees likely to witness or 

receive reports of sexual assault/violence, including professors, university law enforcement unit 

employees, university administrators, university counselors, general counsel, athletic coaches, 

health personnel, and resident advisors. Training for employees should include practical 

information about how to prevent and identify sexual assault/violence, including same-sex sexual 

assault/violence; the behaviors that may lead to and result in sexual assault/violence; the attitudes 

of bystanders that may allow conduct to continue; the potential for revictimization by responders 

and its effect on students; appropriate methods for responding to a student who may have 

experienced sexual assault/violence, including the use of nonjudgmental language; the impact of 

trauma on victims; and, as applicable, the person(s) to whom such misconduct must be reported. 

The training also should explain responsible employees’ reporting obligation, including what 

should be included in a report and any consequences for the failure to report and the procedure 

for responding to students’ requests for confidentiality, as well as provide the contact 

information for the school’s Title IX coordinator. A school also should train responsible 

employees to inform students of: the reporting obligations of responsible employees; students’ 

options to request confidentiality, available confidential advocacy, counseling, or other support 

services; and students’ rights to file a Title IX complaint with the school and to report a crime to 

campus or local law enforcement. 

The Title IX implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a), requires that a recipient designate 

at least one employee to coordinate its responsibilities to comply with and carry out its 

responsibilities under that law. The recipient is further required, by the Title IX implementing 

regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9(a), to notify all students and employees of the name (or title), 

office address, and telephone number of the designated employee(s). In addition, OCR’s 2011 

Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Violence states that recipients should notify all students and 

employees of the electronic mail (email) address of the Title IX Coordinator. The coordinator’s 

responsibilities include overseeing the recipient’s response to Title IX reports and complaints of 

sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, and identifying and addressing any patterns 

or systemic problems revealed by such reports and complaints. The coordinator or designee 

should be available to meet with students, as needed. The Title IX coordinator should not have 

other job responsibilities that may create a conflict of interest. Also, as noted above, recipients 

must ensure that employees designated to serve as Title IX coordinators have training or 

experience in handling sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence complaints, and in 

the operation of the recipient’s grievance procedures. 

The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9, requires that recipients notify 

applicants for employment, students, employees, and all unions or professional organizations 

holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient that it does not 

discriminate on the basis of sex in its education programs or activities, and that it is required by 
Page 8 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

Title IX not to discriminate in such a manner. The notice must also state that questions regarding 

Title IX may be referred to the recipient’s Title IX coordinator or to OCR. 

Factual Information

The Sexual Harassment/Violence Reporting Process

Designation and Notice of Title IX Coordinator

OCR determined that the University has complied with the Title IX regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 

106.8(b) and 106.9, with respect to the designation and notice of its Title IX Coordinator. The 

University has designated the Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity as the Title IX 

Coordinator and notified its students and employees of the name, office address,

3

and telephone 

number of the designated employee in various University publications; including the 

University’s Rights, Rules and Responsibilities, the University’s Annual Security and Fire Safety 

Report, and Working at Princeton, a Handbook for Administrative and Support Staff. The 

information is also available on the University’s website at

http://sexualmisconduct.princeton.edu/coordinator. The University’s Title IX Coordinator is 

responsible for overseeing the University’s centralized response to complaints and reports of 

sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence. 

OCR found that the University’s Title IX Coordinator receives training in handling sexual 

harassment, including sexual assault/violence complaints, and in the operation of the 

University’s grievance procedures. In addition, the Title IX Coordinator regularly attends 

webinars and conferences relating to sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence.

Notice of Non-Discrimination

OCR determined that the University has nondiscrimination notices that comply with the 

regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. § 106.9(a). The notices include the name, title, 

address, and telephone number of the Title IX Coordinator, and appear in several publications, 

including the University’s Equal Opportunity Policy; the University’s Rights, Rules and 

Responsibilities; University’s website, at http://www.princeton.edu/pub/RRR/eop; the 

Undergraduate admission materials and financial aid application; Working at Princeton, a 

Handbook for Administrative and Support Staff; and Rules and Procedures of the Faculty of 

Princeton University and Other Provisions of Concern to the Faculty.4 

Grievance Procedures

During OCR’s investigation and until September 2014, the University used two policies to 

address complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence: (1) the 

Nondiscrimination/Anti-Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedures (the General Policy); 

and, (2) Rights, Rules and Responsibilities (RRR). The University also published a document, 

 

3 The email address of the Title IX Coordinator is included in the University’s revised policies and procedures. 

4 The non-discrimination statement also is displayed prominently on many notices, announcements, and pages on the 

University’s website.
Page 9 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

entitled, Frequently asked Questions Regarding Allegations of Sexual Misconduct and the 

University Discipline Process (the FAQ);5and a document entitled, Title IX Administrative 

Review Procedure Based on an Alleged Pattern of Risk to the Physical Safety of the University.6

During its investigation, OCR reviewed the most recent version of the General Policy published 

in hard copy, dated November 2011. OCR also reviewed a version of the General Policy

available on the University’s website, dated August 2013, which differed from the earlier version 

only in that contact information for filing complaints and making inquiries referenced individual 

titles rather than individual names. 

OCR found that complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, against 

students typically were investigated and resolved through the student disciplinary process 

administered by the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students (ODUS) and Office of the 

Dean of the Graduate School (ODGS), respectively. Pursuant to the RRR, after receiving a 

complaint, a University dean would conduct an initial investigation; following this, ODUS or 

ODGS would convene a Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline, Subcommittee on Sexual 

Assault and Sexual Harassment (the Committee) comprised of faculty, staff, and students. The 

Committee would then hold a hearing to review evidence and hear from witnesses, including the 

complainant and the accused. Following this, the members of the Committee would convene to 

determine responsibility and, if necessary, sanctions. The accused had the right to appeal the 

Committee’s determination; however, the complainant did not have this right.

Notice of the Procedures

Students, employees and third parties previously could file complaints of sexual harassment, 

including sexual assault/violence against employees and third parties, using the procedures 

outlined in the General Policy. The General Policy provided information regarding how and 

where such complaints could be filed, and informal options for resolution. The General Policy

contained a description of the investigation, complaint resolution, and appeal process for 

complaints filed against employees and third parties alleging sexual harassment, including sexual 

assault/violence; however, the process for investigating and resolving complaints contained in 

the General Policy did not apply to students. 

Complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, against undergraduate and 

graduate students generally were investigated and resolved through the student disciplinary 

process (the RRR), administered by the ODUS and ODGS, respectively. However, the sections 

addressing sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual misconduct in the RRR (found in 

sections 1.2.3 and 1.6.5) did not include a description of or reference to how to file a complaint 

of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or sexual misconduct, including sexual assault 

or other sexual violence, or detail the investigative process, resolution, and appeal processes.

OCR also found that three separate documents, the RRR, a document entitled Sexual Misconduct: 

 

5

See http://www.princeton.edu/odus/docs/sexual-misconduct-FAQ.pdf (July 14, 2014) (Note that OCR reviewed an 

earlier version of this FAQ during its investigation). 

6

See https://www.princeton.edu/diversity/documents/Title-IX-Administrative-Review-Procedure.pdf (Effective July 

2013).
Page 10 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

Resources, Services, and Options at ODUS,

7

and the FAQ, each contained incomplete 

information describing the process for addressing sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or 

sexual misconduct complaints against students. These documents often did not clearly reference 

one another. 

Designated and Reasonably Prompt Timeframes

The General Policy stated that the University will “make an effort” to conclude the complaint 

resolution process within 45 working days. However, the General Policy did not give a 

timeframe for appeals; and the RRR did not include any timeframes for complaint resolution or 

appeals. The only timeframes found in the procedures in the RRR stated that when a matter is 

first presented to the ODUS or ODGS within one week of the end of an academic term, it may be 

held for consideration until the following term. The FAQ also did not contain specific 

timeframes for either process; it stated that the University sought to conduct disciplinary 

adjudications with “reasonable promptness” and that the information gathering process will 

proceed as quickly as possible but “given the complexity of sexual misconduct cases, it may take 

days or weeks.” Further, with respect to a “statute of limitations” on filing a complaint of sexual 

misconduct, the RRR stated, “Our student disciplinary procedures are only invoked when there is 

a complaint of sexual misconduct against a current University student.” [emphasis added]. This 

position could discourage students from filing sex discrimination/harassment complaints against 

former students by implying that the University is unable to investigate or take any action with 

respect to such complaints, such as providing support for the complainant and taking steps to 

address the effects of the harassment. 

Adequate, Reliable, and Impartial Investigation/Notice of Outcome/Preventive Steps 

The procedures found in the General Policy and the RRR did not explicitly provide the 

complainant with an equal opportunity as the accused student to present witnesses and other 

evidence. OCR determined that these rights were outlined in the FAQ; however, as noted, the 

FAQ was not directly referenced in the General Policy and/or RRR (the RRR referenced the 

document, Sexual Misconduct: Resources, Services, and Options at ODUS, which referenced the 

FAQ). The RRR specifically provided certain rights to a charged undergraduate or graduate 

student participating in the hearing process, but did not provide equivalent rights to the 

complaining student.8 These rights included: (a) obtaining reports detailing the alleged 

misconduct, and the names of the members of the Committee; (b) being informed in writing of 

the charge(s) and of the specific day and time to appear before the Committee; as well as the 

ability to (c) request the appearance of anyone with information about the matter; (d) have an 

advisor; (e) testify on his/her own behalf; (f) question witnesses or be questioned by the 

committee members; (g) submit additional character statements in writing; and (h) make a 

closing statement. 

 

7 This document outlines University resources and describes the options available to complainants and accused 

students, and is located at http://www.princeton.edu/odus/standards/sexual-misconduct/.

8

 The FAQ states that all of these rights, except for the right to have the names of the members of the Committee, 

are provided to the complainant as well as the accused.
Page 11 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

The University used a “clear and persuasive” standard of evidence rather than the appropriate 

“preponderance of the evidence” standard during the hearing process, including the findings 

phase, under the RRR. The University used a “preponderance” standard of evidence under the 

General Policy. 

The General Policy stated that the appropriate dean or vice president would provide a summary 

of the findings to both parties, although it did not explicitly state that it would be in writing. The 

General Policy and RRR did not indicate that written notice of the outcome of the complaint (or 

any appeal) would be provided to either party. Further, neither the General Policy nor the RRR

provided for an assurance that the University would take steps to prevent further harassment or 

remedy its effects, if appropriate. 

The General Policy included an informal as well as a formal process; however, it did not notify 

parties of their right to end the informal process and begin the formal process at any time. The 

RRR does not include an informal process. 

The General Policy provided for appeal rights only to the individual found to have violated the 

General Policy. Neither party had a right to appeal if there was a determination that the behavior 

did not violate the General Policy, or if there was a finding of inappropriate behavior not rising 

to the level of a violation. Further, the RRR did not provide a right of appeal to the complaining 

party; only the respondent had the right to appeal.

 In practice (although not written in the RRR), 

the University would prepare a transcript of the hearing only in the event of an appeal, at which 

time it would be provided to both parties; however, as stated above, only the respondent had the 

right to appeal.

Additionally, the General Policy did not include a provision notifying the complainant of the 

right to proceed with a criminal investigation and a Title IX complaint simultaneously, although 

this was included in RRR. 

Handling of Criminal Complaints and Law Enforcement’s Role

The University informed OCR that if the Department of Public Safety (DPS) receives a report of 

an incident of sexual assault or violence, officers will meet with the complainant and first ensure 

that he/she is receiving appropriate medical care and feels safe; will explain the individual’s right 

to report the incident to the University and/or file a criminal complaint with local police; and will 

provide information about counseling services at the University. If a student chooses to file a 

criminal complaint, DPS will turn over the case to the local police department to conduct its own 

criminal investigation. The DPS officers may take a statement and/or obtain other general 

information, but they typically do not conduct a detailed investigation; rather, these 

investigations are led by either a University dean (for internal complaints) or the local police 

department (for criminal complaints). The University noted that if the individual files a criminal 

complaint, the police department rarely will share information with DPS or the University 

because of concerns that this will interfere with the criminal investigation. 

The University informed OCR that it does not wait for the conclusion of a criminal 

investigation/proceeding to begin its own administrative investigation (whether for Title IX or 
Page 12 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

other purposes), and that it takes immediate steps to protect its students. The University stated 

that it will proceed with a Title IX investigation while a criminal complaint is active; however, 

whether (and/or for how long) the University might delay its administrative investigation 

depends on a variety of circumstances, such as the wishes of the complainant, the severity of the 

alleged misconduct, the status of the criminal investigation, whether the respondent is currently 

enrolled, and the safety of the campus community. The University stated that because its Title 

IX grievance procedures reference a resolution within 45 working days, any delay typically will 

not last very long.

Requests for Confidentiality

University staff informed OCR that if a student wishes to remain confidential, the University 

would first encourage a student to move forward and explain that without further information, 

the University’s ability to redress the issue would be limited. University staff further stated that 

if the University has independent information beyond what the student told University staff, the 

University would nonetheless have to explore this, and would explain this to the complainant in 

advance. University staff stated that the University would also encourage the student to visit 

Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources and Education (SHARE), and make clear that 

he/she always has the option to request an investigation at a future date. 

The University informed OCR that while responsible employees generally may move forward 

with an investigation despite a request for confidentiality if the need for safety supersedes a 

student’s interest in confidentiality, employees at SHARE will not breach a student’s 

confidentiality unless there is persuasive evidence of a “clearly identified threat” that someone 

will be endangered. Nonetheless, SHARE employees will explain all options to an alleged 

victim, including the investigative process. 

Training/Outreach

Every year, the University conducts education and prevention initiatives for the campus 

community, including faculty, staff, and students. All faculty and staff are required to take 

several trainings every year addressing sexual harassment prevention, discrimination and the 

legal aspects of supervision. The University also provides multiple trainings to undergraduate 

and graduate students regarding sexual harassment prevention and alcohol education. The 

University also disseminates a Title IX resource letter/email each year to all students, faculty, 

and staff. In addition, the University conducts specific training for individuals responsible for 

addressing complaints of sexual harassment/assault/violence, as well as those individuals 

serving in a resource capacity. These individuals and offices include the Title IX Coordinator 

and any assistants, SHARE office staff, SHARE Peer Advisors, the Ombuds office, 

Residential College Advisors, the Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline, the Residential 

College Disciplinary Board, Title IX investigators, community members who have 

volunteered to serve as advisors to complainants and respondents in student disciplinary 

hearings involving sexual misconduct allegations, DPS staff members, athletics staff 

members, the LGBT Center, the Women's Center, the Office of the Dean of the Faculty, 

Human Resources, ODUS, and ODGS.
Page 13 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

The University advised that training to the aforementioned individuals/groups includes a 

discussion of:

• The University’s policies and procedures for complaints of sex discrimination;

• The University's responsibility to address sex discrimination;

• The role and obligations of the Title IX Coordinator and the Assistant Title 

IX Coordinators;

• How to appropriately respond to allegations and complaints;

• Applicable confidentiality requirements;

• Notifying complainants of their rights to file criminal complaints and how to do so;

• Understanding how Title IX investigations differ from criminal investigations;

• Protecting and preserving evidence;

• Conducting thorough, prompt, and impartial investigations;

• The University's prohibition of retaliation;

• The roles of alcohol and drug use;

• How to appropriately coordinate and cooperate with other members of the 

University community and local law enforcement;

• Implementing interim measures; and

• Interactive discussions involving practical hypotheticals. 

In addition, the University conducts community-based trainings/outreach programs for students 

each academic year.

9

 

Climate Information/Climate Assessment/Response

The University informed OCR that it maintains a standing committee on Sexual Misconduct 

Policies, Prevention and Programs (SMPPP) to provide oversight and monitor campus activities 

relating to sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment and assault, for members of the 

University community, including students, faculty, and staff. The SMPPP collects and reviews 

data, monitors training activities, reviews the effectiveness of campus programs and policies, and 

provides recommendations on new policies and activities. The University also informed OCR 

that it implemented a tracking system for all complaints of sexual discrimination. The Title IX 

Coordinator uses this system to identify patterns of risk, and whether a specific student poses a 

risk to the physical safety of the University community. If the Title IX Coordinator determines 

that a pattern exists sufficient to pose a risk to the campus community, she will intervene as 

appropriate to mitigate the risk.10

 

9 These include The Way You Move freshmen orientation performance and debrief; a residential education program 

during orientation; SHARE peer programs in colleges and with high risk groups; Domestic Violence Awareness 

Month programming; Sexual Assault Awareness Month programming; STANDBY bystander mobile website; Sexual 

harassment briefing to recreational sports club leaders; STEP UP! pro-social behavior and bystander intervention 

program for student athletes; Ongoing awareness raising and education through social media, listserv, and the 

University’s website; SHARE Peer Program liaisons to eating clubs and residential colleges.

10 The University’s Title IX Administrative Review Procedure Based on an Alleged Pattern of Risk to the Physical 

Safety of the University outlines how the Title IX Coordinator determines whether a student poses a safety risk to the 

University community based on a pattern of sexual harassment. In these cases, the Title IX Coordinator reviews the 

matter herself “to determine whether any action should be taken to protect the University community.” The Title IX 

Coordinator employs a preponderance of the evidence standard, makes a finding, and imposes any interventions. 
Page 14 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

Review and Analysis of the University’s Handling of 

Complaints and Reports of Sexual Harassment/Assault/Violence

The complainants alleged that the University failed to respond promptly and appropriately to 

complaints of sexual assault that three students (Students 1, 2, and 3) made during academic year 

2009-2010 and 2010-2011. 

Student 1’s Complaint

Complainant 1 alleged that the University discriminated against Student 1, on the basis of her 

sex, by failing to respond appropriately to a complaint Student 1 made during academic year 

2009-2010, in which she alleged that Student A sexually assaulted her. Complainant 1 alleged 

that the disciplinary hearing, the appeal process, and a subsequent re-hearing were neither fair 

nor equitable. 

OCR determined that in response to Student 1’s complaint, the University informed Student 1 of 

the student disciplinary process and available resources, including counseling and health 

services. The University stated that it informed Student 1 that the University could administer a 

no-contact order (NCO) between Student 1 and Student A; Student 1 stated that she did not recall 

receiving this information and the University did not provide documentation to support that a 

NCO had been offered to Student 1. The University also granted Student 1’s request to change 

her dormitory. 

After an investigation and a hearing, the University determined that Student A was responsible 

for sexually assaulting Student 1 and suspended him. Student A appealed and was allowed to 

remain on campus during the appeal. Student A withdrew about a month after being informed of 

the University’s determination; this status did not bar Student A from visiting campus. Student 1 

told the University that she observed Student A on campus and felt very uncomfortable; she also 

informed OCR of the negative impact of seeing Student A. The University responded, in part, 

by advising Student 1 of her right to request a NCO. Student 1 asserted to OCR that this was the 

first time the University discussed the option of a NCO in detail with her, but that she declined 

the offer because at that time she believed Student A had been suspended; and until the next 

month was unaware that Student A had filed an appeal and had the right to remain on campus. 

The University did not inform Student 1 that Student A had appealed his decision and remained 

enrolled pending the outcome of the appeal until the end of the next month. Student 1 informed 

OCR that once she learned of Student A’s appeal, she decided not to request a NCO because she 

believed any NCO would unfairly apply equally to her, although she had done nothing wrong. 

Student A’s appeal was subsequently granted, overturning the initial determination. 

Following a rehearing, the University again found Student A responsible for sexual assault and 

re-imposed the suspension. A NCO order was issued at that time. OCR did not find any 

 

The policy states that all interventions “will be limited to protecting the physical safety of the University 

community, and any particular member of the University community,” and makes clear that the process is separate 

from the University’s standard disciplinary process “as these processes serve different purposes.” 
Page 15 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

evidence to indicate that there was further interaction between Student A and Student 1 on 

campus, or that Student 1 was subjected to harassment by other students. 

The evidence established that Student 1 was subjected to a sexually hostile environment when 

she was sexually assaulted by Student A. OCR determined that the University did not provide a 

prompt response to Student 1’s complaint, as the appeals process was unduly long. Although the 

University issued its initial decision within a month of her complaint, the University’s final 

decision on Student A’s appeal was not issued until nine months after the initial determination.

11

The University also failed to provide Student 1 with an adequate, reliable, and impartial 

investigation, as the University used a “clear and persuasive” evidentiary standard during the 

investigation and hearing and allowed only Student A, not Student 1, to present in-person 

character witnesses. In addition, Student 1 was not given equal written notice of the outcome of 

the complaint, as she was not notified of the sanctions that directly affected her, including that 

Student A had an opportunity to appeal; and that Student A filed an appeal and could remain on 

campus during the appeal. While the University provided an opportunity for Student A to appeal, 

it did not provide an equal appeals process for Student 1. The evidence supports that the 

University took some interim steps before the final outcome of the investigation to protect the 

complainant, including providing her with information about counseling and other resources and 

changing her dormitory. However, the University did not implement a NCO until eleven months 

after Student 1 filed her complaint. The evidence supports that Student 1 did not agree to a NCO 

earlier, at least in part, because the University did not inform her of Student A’s appeal and 

enrollment status at the University. Based on a totality of circumstances, OCR determined that 

there was sufficient evidence to support that Student 1 continued to be subjected to a sexually 

hostile environment as a result of the University’s failure to provide a prompt and equitable 

response to Student 1’s complaint. 

Student 2’s Complaint

Complainant 2 alleged that the University discriminated against Student 2, on the basis of her 

sex, by failing to respond appropriately to a complaint Student 2 made during academic year 

2010-2011, alleging that Student B sexually assaulted her. Complainant 2 asserted that 

University staff discouraged Student 2 from filing a complaint or gathering evidence; did not 

provide Student 2 with rights during the investigation and hearing on an equitable basis with the 

accused; subjected Student 2 to direct and inappropriate lines of questioning during the hearing; 

limited Student 2’s ability to present witnesses and other evidence and participate in the 

 

11 OCR evaluates on a case-by-case basis whether the resolution of sexual violence complaints is prompt and 

equitable. OCR has noted that, based on its experience in typical cases, there is a 60-calendar day timeframe for 

investigations. “Whether OCR considers an investigation to be prompt as required by Title IX will vary depending 

on the complexity of the investigation and the severity and extent of the alleged conduct. OCR recognizes that the 

investigation process may take longer if there is a parallel criminal investigation or if it occurs partially during 

school breaks. A school may need to stop an investigation during school breaks or between school years, although a 

school should make every effort to conduct an investigation during these breaks unless doing so would sacrifice 

witness availability or otherwise compromise the process.” OCR has explained that this timeframe does not include 

appeals, but that a school should be aware that any unduly long appeals process may impact whether the school’s 

response was prompt and equitable as required by Title IX. See F-8, in OCR’s “Questions and Answers on Title IX 

and Sexual Violence.”
Page 16 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

disciplinary hearing; failed to provide Student 2 with appeal rights (Student B did not appeal); 

and employed the incorrect evidentiary standard during the disciplinary hearing. 

After investigation, the University found that it did not have sufficient evidence to substantiate 

that Student 2 was sexually assaulted. Namely, the University determined that based on its 

investigation, the versions of events offered by Student 2 and Student B regarding their 

interaction over the course of a weekend were “diametrically opposed” and could not be 

reconciled. 

Based on the evidence obtained in OCR’s investigation, including its review of the University’s 

investigation, OCR concluded that the evidence did not support that Student 2 was subjected to a 

sexually hostile environment, but that while prompt, the University did not provide an equitable 

response to response to Student 2’s complaint, as required by Title IX. Upon receipt of Student

2’s complaint, the University informed Student 2 of the complaint reporting options and 

available resources, including counseling and medical services. The University also issued a 

NCO restricting contact between Student 2 and Student B. OCR determined that the University 

conducted a prompt (i.e., within approximately two and one half months, including a school 

recess period) and thorough investigation of Student 2’s allegations of sexual assault by 

interviewing relevant witnesses; reviewing relevant documentation; and, providing both Student 

2 and Student B with the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, question the opposing 

party, provide opening and closing statements, and avail themselves of an advisor and character 

witness statements. OCR found insufficient evidence to substantiate Complainant 2’s assertions 

that University staff discouraged Student 2 from filing a complaint or gathering evidence; 

subjected Student 2 to direct and inappropriate lines of questioning during the hearing; or limited 

Student 2’s ability to present witnesses and other evidence and participate in the disciplinary 

hearing. OCR also determined that the University provided written notice to Student 2 and 

Student B regarding the outcome of the complaint, and that it conducted the investigation in a 

timely manner. OCR determined, however, that the University’s disciplinary hearing process 

employed an inappropriate “clear and persuasive” evidence standard during the investigation 

used to determine the outcome of the complaint; and did not provide Student 2 with an 

opportunity to appeal the outcome of the hearing although Student B had this right. 

Student 3’s Complaint

Complainant 3 alleged that the University discriminated against Student 3, on the basis of her 

sex, by failing to respond appropriately to a complaint Student 3 made during academic year 

2010-2011, alleging that Student C sexually assaulted her. Specifically, Complainant 3 alleged 

that University staff: discouraged Student 3 from filing a complaint12 and permitted Student C to 

file a retaliatory complaint of sexual assault against her; failed to take appropriate interim 

measures; did not provide comparable rights to Student 3 and Student C during the investigation; 

failed to provide an impartial disciplinary hearing; used the incorrect evidentiary standard during 

the disciplinary hearing; failed to provide Student 3 with appeal rights (Student C did not appeal) 

 

12 Specifically, Complainant 3 alleged that University staff told Student 3 that a University investigation would be 

disruptive to her life; informed Student 3 that she would have to prove her case using the clear and convincing 

evidence standard (rather than the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard); and warned Student 3 that 

many students found the grievance procedure frustrating because they could not muster the necessary evidence.
Page 17 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

or the opportunity to receive a copy of the disciplinary hearing transcript; and failed to take 

measures to prevent the recurrence of sexual harassment. The University found that it did not 

have sufficient evidence to substantiate that Student 3 was sexually assaulted. 

Based on the evidence obtained in OCR’s investigation, including its review of the University’s 

investigation, OCR concluded that the evidence did not support that Student 3 was subjected to a 

sexually hostile environment, but that, while prompt, the University did not provide an equitable

response to Student 3’s complaint, as required by Title IX. OCR determined that in response to 

Student 3’s complaint, the University advised Student 3 of the complaint reporting options, and 

the availability of health and counseling services. The University also provided the complainant 

with housing and academic accommodations, and issued a NCO restricting contact between 

Student 3 and Student C. Student 3’s counsel objected that this NCO continued and subjected 

Student 3 to restrictions on attending campus events, including some graduation events. OCR 

determined that the University conducted a prompt (i.e., within less than two months) and 

thorough investigation of Student 3’s allegation of sexual assault by interviewing relevant 

witnesses; reviewing relevant documentation; and, providing both Student 3 and Student C with 

the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, ask questions of the opposing party and 

witnesses, provide opening and closing statements, and avail themselves of an advisor and 

character witness during the disciplinary hearing. OCR also determined that the University 

provided written notice to Student 3 and Student C regarding the outcome of the complaint. 

OCR found insufficient evidence to substantiate Complainant 3’s assertions that University staff 

discouraged Student 3 from filing a complaint; failed to provide appropriate interim measures; 

and failed to take measures to prevent the recurrence of harassment. OCR concluded, however, 

that the University’s disciplinary hearing process was not equitable, as the University gave only 

Student C the opportunity to appeal the outcome of the complaint. OCR also determined that the 

University employed an inappropriate “clear and persuasive” evidence standard during the 

investigation used to determine the outcome of the complaint. 

Review of Other Sexual Harassment Complaints Filed with University

According to the Clery Act statistics outlined in the Office of Postsecondary Education’s 

Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool, in academic year 2011-2012, the 

University reported 16 on-campus forcible sex offenses, 14 of which occurred in University 

residence halls. It also reported 4 off-campus forcible sex offenses. In academic year 2012-2013, 

the University reported 17 on-campus forcible sex offenses, 14 of which occurred in the 

University residence halls. It also reported 3 off-campus forcible sex offenses. 

OCR reviewed the records relating to the University’s handling of seven complaints of sexual 

harassment, including allegations of sexual assault that were filed against students or staff at the 

University between academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.13 Most of these cases involved 

allegations of sexual assault/violence sufficient to create a sexually hostile environment; and in 

two cases, the University’s investigation confirmed the reported allegations of sexual 

 

13 The University informed OCR that this number does not match its reported Clery Act numbers because the Clery 

numbers encompass reports of sexual offenses made to confidential sources. The University noted that confidential 

reports do not trigger an investigation. It stated that this practice allows the University to analyze patterns and 

trends on campus without revealing confidential information.
Page 18 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

assault/violence. OCR determined that in all cases involving a current University student, the 

University offered interim measures during the pendency of the investigation, such as academic 

accommodations, counseling services, access to Public Safety Protection, SHARE services, and 

NCOs. However, OCR’s review of the complaint files revealed concerns relating to the prompt 

and equitable nature of the process, including failure to provide the complainant with written 

notice of the complaint outcome, inequitable application of the NCO to the complainant and not 

the accused student, use of an inappropriate “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard, not 

allowing the complainant an equal opportunity to participate in the appeals process, and delays in 

the investigative process. 

Conclusions

Based on its investigation, OCR determined that the University complied with Title IX 

requirements regarding the notice of non-discrimination and with Title IX requirements 

regarding the designation and notice of a Title IX coordinator. 

OCR determined that the University’s prior sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence,

policies and procedures did not comply with the applicable Title IX requirements. As noted 

above, the University used the General Policy to address sexual harassment complaints against 

employees and third parties, and RRR, the discipline process, to address sexual harassment 

complaints against students. The University provided supplemental guidance in several 

documents, including its FAQs, Sexual Misconduct: Resources, Services, and Options at ODUS, 

and Title IX Administrative Review Procedure Based on an Alleged Pattern of Risk to the 

Physical Safety of the University. OCR determined that these procedures did not provide 

adequate notice to students and employees of the University’s sexual harassment, including 

sexual assault/violence, policies and procedures, as these documents each contained incomplete 

information describing the process for addressing sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or 

sexual misconduct complaints against students. These documents often did not clearly reference 

one another, resulting in a policy that was not easily understood or easily located. Additionally, 

the RRR noted that the disciplinary procedures could not be invoked when there was a complaint 

of sexual misconduct against a student who had graduated or otherwise left the University; OCR 

determined that this might have discouraged students from filing sex discrimination/harassment 

complaints against former students, and implied that the University was unable to investigate or 

take any action with respect to such complaints. 

The University’s prior sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, policies and 

procedures also did not include designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major 

stages of the grievance process, including the complaint resolution and appeals procedures. 

Specifically, the General Policy did not give a timeframe for appeals, and the RRR did not 

include any timeframes for complaint resolution or appeals. 

OCR also determined that the prior policies and procedures did not provide for an adequate, 

reliable, and impartial investigation, as appeal rights were provided only for the accused student, 

not the complainant; the RRR process did not use of the preponderance of the evidence standard

in investigating allegations of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence; written 

notice was not required to be provided to the parties of the outcome (and appeal) and sanctions 
Page 19 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

imposed on the perpetrator that directly relate to the complainant; and there was no assurance 

that the University would take steps to prevent further harassment and to correct its effects, if 

appropriate. The prior policies and procedures also did not explicitly provide for equal 

opportunities for the complainant and accused to present witnesses and other evidence and to 

participate in the hearing process; these rights were described in the separate FAQ document. 

OCR determined that the General Policy did not notify parties of their right to end the informal 

process and begin the formal process at any time. Additionally, the General Policy did not 

include a provision notifying the complainant of the right to proceed with a criminal 

investigation and a Title IX complaint simultaneously.14 

OCR also determined that the University failed to provide prompt and equitable response(s) to 

complaints of sexual assault/violence of which it had notice (including complaints made by 

Students 1, 2 and 3, and other students’ complaints/reports). OCR further determined that, for 

Student 1, the University’s failure allowed for the continuation of a sexually hostile environment 

that limited and denied Student 1’s access to the University’s educational program. Thus, OCR 

concluded that the University did not comply with the applicable Title IX regulations at 34 

C.F.R. §§ 106.8, 106.31.15 

Resolution Agreement and the University’s 2014 Revised Sexual Harassment Policies 

and Procedures

On October 12, 2014, the University provided OCR with the enclosed signed Resolution 

Agreement, which addresses the compliance concerns identified in OCR’s investigation and, 

when fully implemented, will resolve the University’s noncompliance with Title IX. As part of 

the Agreement, the University submitted revised grievance procedures to OCR on October 8, 

2014. The University adopted the new “Sex Discrimination & Sexual Misconduct Policy” (the 

Policy) on September 15, 2014, and the Policy is on the University’s website.16 The University 

has affirmed that the procedures are internally consistent and provide for the prompt and 

equitable resolution of complaints of sexual misconduct (including sex discrimination, sexual 

harassment, and sexual assault/violence) filed against students, employees, and third parties. 

 

14 The University stated that the police department does not always share information with the University because of 

concerns that it will interfere with the criminal investigation. OCR determined that at the time of OCR’s 

investigation, there was no indication that the police department had agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding 

with the University on this topic.

15 Complainant 1 further asserted that the Campus SaVE Act, a federal law recently enacted as part of The Violence

Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. No. 113-4) (VAWA) is contrary to and/or does not include 

some of the requirements articulated in OCR’s “Dear Colleague Letter” of April 4, 2011, including recipients’ use of 

the preponderance of the evidence legal standard, responses to incidents regardless of whether they are “reported” to 

campus officials or local law enforcement, and promptness in obtaining resolution. OCR notes that the VAWA has 

no effect on a school’s obligations under Title IX. VAWA amended the Violence Against Women Act and the 

Clery Act, which are separate statutes. Nothing in Section 304 or any other part of the Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act of 2013 relieves a school of its obligations to comply with the requirements of Title IX, 

including those set forth in OCR’s “Dear Colleague Letter” of April 4, 2011. OCR is responsible for enforcing Title 

IX and has applied Title IX as reflected in OCR guidance. OCR does not enforce the SaVE Act.

16 http://sexualmisconduct.princeton.edu/policy.
Page 20 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

OCR’s preliminary review of the new Policy revealed that it already includes many of the 

revisions required by the Agreement and thus corrects many of the deficiencies identified in the 

University’s previous sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, policies and 

procedures. For example, the new Policy consolidates its sexual harassment, including sexual 

assault/violence, procedures into one document that addresses complaints of harassment filed 

against students, employees and third parties; states that the University will use the 

preponderance of the evidence standard for investigating allegations of sexual harassment, 

including sexual assault/violence; includes appeal rights for both parties; requires both parties to 

be provided concurrent written notice of the outcome of the University’s investigation and any 

appeal; and includes designated and reasonably prompt timeframes (45 days, unless extended for 

good cause and with notice to the parties) for the investigation and appeal processes. OCR found 

that in the new Policy, other students are not involved in the investigative process and neither 

party is allowed to cross-examine the other or to present character witnesses. 

The new Policy also includes the University’s specific assurances that it will respond to 

complaints or reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault/violence with measures designed to 

stop the behavior, eliminate the discrimination, prevent the recurrence of the harassment, and 

remediate any adverse effects of the harassment on campus or in University-related programs or 

activities. The Policy specifically states that if the accused student is no longer enrolled, the 

University may not be able to take disciplinary action, but will still seek to meet its Title IX 

obligations by providing support for the complainant and taking steps to end the prohibited 

behavior, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects. The Policy also states that, upon receipt 

of a sexual harassment or sexual assault/violence complaint or report, the University will provide 

reasonable and appropriate interim measures designed to preserve the complainant’s educational 

experience, the safety of all parties and the broader University community, maintain the integrity 

of the investigative and/or resolution process, and deter retaliation. The Policy includes a 

provision requiring that, if requested by the complainant, the University will promptly implement 

a one-way no contact order (with the burden of no contact on the accused) if the University has 

made a finding of responsibility under the Policy, even if an appeal may be filed, or has been 

filed and is pending.

Finally, the Policy makes clear that while discretion regarding the process relating to sexual 

harassment, including sexual assault/violence, complaints is important, complainants and 

accused students are not restricted from discussing and sharing information with others who may 

support of assist them in present their case. Finally, the Policy outlines a student’s options, 

including pursuing a criminal and/or University investigation at the same time and states the 

University promptly resume its Title IX investigation as soon as it is notified by the law 

enforcement agency that the agency has completed the evidence gathering process and will not 

wait for the conclusion of a criminal proceeding to begin its own investigation and will, as 

appropriate, provide interim remedies.

OCR will review the revised policies and procedures in detail as part of its monitoring of the 

Agreement to ensure their compliance with the terms of the Agreement and applicable Title IX 

requirements. OCR expects to complete this review by December 7, 2014.
Page 21 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

In addition to revising its sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, policies and 

procedures, the University has agreed to:

 Provide training to all staff responsible for recognizing and reporting incidents of sexual 

harassment, and any other University community members, officials/students directly 

involved in receiving, processing, investigating, adjudicating, and/or resolving

complaints of sexual misconduct. 

 Provide annual information sessions to students regarding sexual misconduct (including 

sex discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault/violence); develop and 

implement a public awareness and bystander intervention campaign; and revise its 

existing materials or develop new materials on sexual misconduct to be distributed to 

students during orientation and upon receipt of complaints of sexual misconduct.

 Conduct annual climate checks with students to assess the steps and measures taken by 

the University pursuant to this Resolution Agreement and otherwise; and use gathered 

information to inform future proactive steps to achieve its goal of a campus free of sexual 

misconduct, in particular sexual assault/violence. 

 In addition, SMPPP will review and monitor systemic issues relating to sexual 

misconduct and Title IX compliance, including applicable policies, procedures, trainings 

and campus climate. SMPP will identify and annually recommend, strategies to ensure 

that students understand their rights under Title IX and the University’s sexual 

misconduct policy and procedures; understand how to report possible violations of sexual 

misconduct policy/Title IX; and to ensure that the University takes each complaint 

seriously and provides a prompt and equitable response in accordance with the 

requirements of Title IX. Additionally, the committee will recommend additional 

strategies for improving the effectiveness of the University’s procedures, support 

services, and resources available to students and for the prevention of sexual misconduct, 

including outreach and educational activities.

 Request from external local law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the 

University, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), where there is not an existing 

MOU, to improve communication and coordination and to address the protocols and 

procedures for referring allegations of sexual misconduct, sharing information, and 

conducting contemporaneous investigations. 

 In accordance with its OCR-approved, revised grievance procedures, review all 

complaints and reports of sexual misconduct made from academic year 2011-2012 to 

September 1, 2014, to determine whether the University investigated each complaint or 

report promptly and equitably and take appropriate action to address any problems 

identified in the manner in which these complaints were handled, including providing 

appropriate remedies that may still be available for the complainants in these cases, such 

as counseling or academic adjustments.

 Provide the students identified in the complaint with remedies relating to the educational 

and other expenses incurred from the date on which each student first reported alleged 

sexual violence to the University to the date of resolution. 

 Annually track, and provide to OCR documentation of, the University’s responses and 

handling of all sexual misconduct/Title IX allegations reported during the previous 

calendar year. 
Page 22 of 22 – Case No. 02-11-2025

OCR will monitor implementation of the Agreement. If the University fails to implement the 

Agreement, OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to enforce the 

specific terms and obligations of the Agreement. Before initiating administrative enforcement 

(34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10), or judicial proceedings to enforce the Agreement, OCR shall give 

the University written notice of the alleged breach and a minimum of sixty (60) calendar days to 

cure the alleged breach.

This concludes OCR’s investigation of the complaint and should not be interpreted to address the 

University’s compliance with any other regulatory provision or to address any issues other than 

those addressed in this letter. This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCR 

case. This letter is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or 

construed as such. OCR’s formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR 

official and made available to the public. The complainant may have the right to file a private 

suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds a violation.

Please be advised that the University may not harass, coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against 

any individual because he or she has filed a complaint or participated in the complaint resolution 

process. If this happens, the complainant may file another complaint alleging such treatment. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related 

correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, we will 

seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if 

released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy.

Should you have any questions, please contact Stacy L. Bobbitt, Compliance Team Investigator, 

at (646) 428-3823 or stacy.bobbitt@ed.gov; David Hensel, Compliance Team Attorney, at (646) 

428-3778 or david.hensel@ed.gov; Jocelyn Panicali, Compliance Team Attorney, at (646) 428-

3796 or jocelyn.panicali@ed.gov; or Nadja Allen Gill, Compliance Team Leader, at (646) 428-

3801 or nadja.r.allen.gill@ed.gov.

Sincerely,

/s/

Timothy C.J. Blanchard

Encl.

cc: Sankar Suryanarayan, Esq.