U.S. Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights

2009-

2016

Highlights 

of Activities, 

Office for Civil 

Rights

Achieving 

 Simple 

 Justice
2

ACHIEVING SIMPLE JUSTICE

United States Department of Education 

Introduction 

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy stated, when describing 

the bill that would become the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “Simple 

justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all 

races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, 

entrenches, subsidizes, or results in . . . discrimination.” One 

of the Obama Administration’s highest priorities has been to 

deliver that simple justice by safeguarding students’ access, 

and reducing discriminatory barriers, to educational opportunity. 

Over the past eight years, the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has significantly contributed to this 

priority through vigorously enforcing federal civil rights laws, 

collecting comprehensive data on equity and opportunity gaps in 

schools, issuing timely civil rights policy guidance, and enhancing the public’s awareness of civil rights and of OCR’s work. 

This document provides select highlights of those activities from 

2009 to 2016.

OCR ensures equal access to education for our nation’s students 

by enforcing federal civil rights laws and implementing regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, sex, disability, and age in all programs and institutions that receive financial assistance from the Department. 

The laws OCR is responsible for enforcing include: 

s Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting race, color, 

and national origin discrimination)

s Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex 

discrimination)

s Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (prohibiting disability discrimination) 

s Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (prohibiting age discrimination)

s 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) 

s Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001 (prohibiting 

public elementary and secondary schools, local educational 

agencies, and state educational agencies from denying equal 

access or a fair opportunity to meet, or discriminating against, 

any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America or 

any other youth group listed as a patriotic society in Title 36 of 

the United States Code)

These laws and their implementing regulations represent the Congressional mandate that is the basis for all of OCR’s work.

Enforcement

OCR received more than 76,000 and resolved more than 66,000 

civil rights cases between fiscal years (FY) 2009 and 20161 (see

Figures 1 and 2). OCR also initiated more than 200 proactive 

investigations (which are referred to as compliance reviews) during 

this period to investigate potential civil rights violations. During this 

period, OCR ensured that the scope of investigations allowed for 

a comprehensive examination of the issues, as well as comprehensive relief for complainants, including systemic remedies, as 

necessary. OCR monitored, on average, about 2,000 resolved cases 

per year to ensure compliance with resolution agreements (see

Figure 3). OCR also improved its internal management – including 

new case processing and investigatory protocols and self-auditing 

of its investigations – to increase the efficiency and consistency of 

its enforcement work. 

Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)

OCR administered and released the results for three CRDC surveys 

between fiscal years 2009 and 2016 (surveys covering the 2009-

10, 2011-12, and 2013-14 school years) and began collection for 

a fourth survey (covering the 2015-16 school year). The 2009-10

survey covered 85 percent of the nation’s K-12 students, while the 

2011-12, 2013-14, and 2015-16 surveys were universal collections 

covering nearly every public school and district in the nation. In the 

past eight years, OCR has revamped and expanded the CRDC to be 

more widely accessible to the public (instead of primarily a resource 

within government) and to be more inclusive of key indicators of 

equity and opportunity related to student discipline, access to and 

enrollment in courses and accelerated programs, early learning 

access, student absenteeism, education in juvenile justice facilities, 

Facts and Figures, 2009-2016 (Fiscal Year - Oct. 1 to Sept. 30)

• Complaints received: 76,022

• Total case resolutions: 66,102

• Compliance reviews initiated: 204

• Policy guidance documents issued: 34

• Civil Rights Data Collection releases: 3

2015

10,392

5000

10,000

15,000

20,000

6,364 6,933 7,841 7,833 9,950 9,989 16,720

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016

Fiscal Year

Total 

Complaints 

Recieved: 

76,022

Complaints

Figure 1: Complaints Received Per Year, 2009-2016
3

HIGHLIGHTS OF OCR ACTIVITIES, 2009-2016

Office for Civil Rights 

civil rights coordinators, and much more. OCR also increased its 

technical assistance and support to districts, created new automated data quality checks during the data submission process, 

and followed up with districts that did not submit data to ensure 

that the CRDC provides an accurate and comprehensive view of 

the equity health of public schools nationwide.

Policy Guidance 

OCR issued 34 policy guidance documents between fiscal years 

2009 and 2016 on a range of civil rights topics (see Figure 4). 

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 

set forth by Congress. This document includes descriptions of a 

selection of these policy guidance documents.

Public Engagement and Transparency

Each year, OCR provides technical assistance to institutions and 

the public and responds to thousands of phone calls, letters, requests for information or data, and media inquiries. These activities 

help complainants, institutions, the media, and other members of 

the public better understand civil rights laws and obligations and 

address civil rights concerns. While OCR does not have public 

engagement statistics going back to 2009, in the last year alone 

(FY 2016), OCR conducted 295 technical assistance activities, 

responded to 5,025 incoming correspondence inquiries, answered 

8,019 hotline calls, distributed 701 copies of OCR publications, 

processed 1,244 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and 

responded to more than 1,200 individual press inquiries. 

Figure 3: Cases in Monitoring Status Per Year, 2009-2016

Figure 2: OCR Resolutions, 2009-2016*

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Section 504/Title II (disability) 3,647 4,044 4,370 4,550 5,231 4,785 4,662 5,232

Total (all jurisdictions)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

6,150 6,830 7,434 8,163 10,128

Fiscal Year

9,407 9,235 8,625

Title IX (sex) 726 893 1,184 1,481 2,945 2,804 2,667 1,346

Title VI (race/national origin) 1,847 1,893 2,035 2,229 2,316 2,290 2,068 2,218 OCR Resolutions

* These figures include resolution agreements, Early Complaint Resolutions, resolutions requiring action by 

institutions without a resolution agreement, findings of no violation, and administrative closures or dismissals. 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2,402

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1,363 1,671 1,937 2,248 2,414 1,363 2,737

Fiscal Year

Cases in Monitoring Status

Avg. Cases in 

Monitoring 

Per Year: 

2,017

* These figures include all resolved cases that OCR was monitoring for compliance during the fiscal year.

Enhancing Transparency

During the Obama Administration, OCR has taken 

aggressive steps to make its activities transparent. This 

enhanced transparency provides a resource for institutions and the public to see the data OCR collects or the 

way OCR interprets and applies the law to particular facts. 

Now the public can: 

• find civil rights data on dozens of topics for individual schools and districts;

• look up resolution agreements by name of institution, statute, or issue area;

• find out which institutions have requested and 

received exemptions from Title IX, the one law OCR 

enforces that provides for exemptions; and

• learn more about which institutions are subject 

to pending sexual violence investigations, at the 

elementary/secondary and postsecondary levels, by 

OCR.
4

ACHIEVING SIMPLE JUSTICE

United States Department of Education 

Student Discipline – 

Addresses nondiscriminatory 

administration of discipline at 

school

Sexual Violence – FAQs on 

requirements under Title IX 

to address/respond to sexual 

violence

Ensuring Equal Educational Opportunity 

and Fostering Racial Diversity

OCR has worked to ensure that students have equitable access to 

educational resources and opportunities – including access to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) and college preparatory courses and curricula – regardless of their race, ethnicity or 

national origin, and that schools adhere to federal law in admissions 

and desegregation efforts. 

Policy Guidance

October 2014 Dear Colleague letter and fact sheet on resource 

equity

s provide information regarding the obligations of states, districts,

and schools under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title 

VI) not to intentionally treat students differently based on race, 

color, or national origin in providing educational resources, and 

not to implement policies or practices for providing educational 

resources that disproportionately affect students of a particular 

race, color, or national origin without legally sufficient justification

December 2011 Dear Colleague letter on voluntary use of race in 

K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions to pursue racial diversity or to reduce racial isolation, and three Dear Colleague letters 

in 2013, 2014, and 2016 explaining and reaffirming use of race 

principles after the Fisher I, Schuette, and Fisher II decisions (with 

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

s The 2011 Dear Colleague letter explains ways that K-12 and 

postsecondary institutions may lawfully and voluntarily pursue 

racial diversity, and for K-12 schools, also reduce racial isolation

s The Dear Colleague letters (and a Questions and Answers document) between 2013 and 2016 explain the continued viability 

of OCR’s 2011 guidance following recent U.S. Supreme Court 

decisions that explored the question of race in the context of 

education or the political process

CRDC Fast Fact2: Nationwide, only 48 percent of high 

schools offer calculus. Access to high school math and science courses is even lower for students of color, students with 

disabilities, and English learners. For example, just 33 percent 

of high schools with high enrollment of black and Latino students offer calculus, compared to 56 percent of high schools 

with low enrollment of black and Latino students.3

Children with Disabilities – 

Updated FAQs on Section 504 

incorporating information about 

the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Amendments Act of 2008 

Title IX Athletics – Clarifies test 

for evaluating whether a school 

is effectively accommodating 

athletic interests and abilities of 

male and female students

Emerging Technologies – 

On equal access to emerging 

technologies for students with 

disabilities

Peer Harassment – Explains 

obligations of schools to protect 

students from peerharassment 

and bullying

Sexual Harassment/

Violence – Clarifies obligation 

of schools under Title IX to 

respond to sexual harassment/

sexual violence

Plyler v. Doe – On 

nondiscrimination in student 

enrollment in public schools 

based on race, color, national 

origin, citizenship, and 

immigration status [archived 

guidance]

Electronic Book Readers

– On use accessibility of 

electronic book readers and 

other emerging technologies

Use of Race/Diversity – 

Discusses permissible use of 

race to achieve diversity and 

avoid racial isolation in schools

Methods of Administration

– Explains how to document 

thoroughness of state 

education agencies’ civil 

rights reviews of career and 

technical education programs 

ADA Amendments Act – 

Clarifies how OCR evaluates 

Section 504/Title II in light of 

the Act

Students with 

Disabilities/Athletics – 

On equal opportunity in 

athletics/extracurricular 

activities for students with 

disabilities

Retaliation – Clarifies 

basic principles of 

retaliation law

Hepatitis B – Discusses rights of 

students with Hepatitis B and CDC 

recommendations

Pregnant and Parenting 

Students – Explains rights of 

pregnant and parenting students 

under Title IX

Use of Race/Diversity – Clarifies 

permissibility of use of race to 

achieve diversity after Fisher I case

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 4: OCR Policy Guidance, 2009-2016
5

HIGHLIGHTS OF OCR ACTIVITIES, 2009-2016

Office for Civil Rights 

English Learners – On 

ensuring equity for EL 

students and LEP parents

Measles Prevention

– Clarifies how schools 

can implement CDC’s 

measles prevention 

recommendations without 

discriminating against 

students

Title IX Coordinators – On 

obligation to designate and 

role/importance of Title IX 

coordinators

Voluntary Youth Service 

Organizations – On how 

schools may work with 

outside organizations 

that provide single-sex 

programming

Transgender Students

– On the protection of 

transgender students under 

Title IX

Career and Technical 

Education – Reiterates that 

students must have equal 

access to full range of CTE 

programs regardless of sex

ADHD – On providing equal 

educational opportunity 

under Section 504/Title II 

to students with attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder

Use of Race/Diversity

– Clarifies permissibility 

of use of race to achieve 

diversity after Fisher II case

Investigation/Enforcement Summary Lee County Schools (AL): OCR’s investigation of this rural district 

revealed that, although the district’s student population was 23 

percent black, one of its four high schools that served more than 

90 percent black students had never, until 2008, offered a single 

Advanced Placement (AP) course, while three predominantly white 

high schools offered a wide range of AP and other high-rigor courses. The September 2013 resolution agreement requires the district 

to offer comparable high-rigor courses to all high school students 

regardless of their race or national origin.

Cleveland Metropolitan School District (OH): In January 2014, 

OCR concluded an investigation that found seats going unfilled in 

STEM schools. Yet, the district was not advertising the course availability in Spanish, the home language of 80 percent of the district’s 

English learner (EL) students. The resolution agreement ensures EL 

students have equal access to the high-rigor courses in the district.

Princeton University (NJ): In September 2015, OCR resolved a 

compliance review examining whether the university discriminated 

against Asian and Asian American applicants on the basis of race or 

national origin in its undergraduate admissions policies and practices. OCR reviewed years of admissions data and policies as well as 

other documents and conducted interviews with current and former 

staff, and determined that the university pursues a compelling interest in student body diversity and that to the extent it considers race 

or national origin in admissions, it does so in a narrowly tailored 

and nondiscriminatory manner in pursuit of that interest.

Between 2009 and 2016 (fiscal years), OCR received 414 com- 4 plaints related to resource equity and comparability and access to 

STEM/college preparatory courses and curricula (Title VI), and 750 

complaints related to admissions or desegregation (Title VI). During 

this period, OCR resolved 1,161 complaints in these areas.5

Illustrative Cases

Beaufort County School District (SC): In July 2009, OCR 

entered into an agreement with the district to amend the district’s 

March 1970 Title VI Desegregation Plan to address the district’s 

proposal to open a new charter school that would have been racially identifiable and exacerbated the racial isolation of students in 

the district, in violation of the plan. The revised desegregation plan 

permitted the district to open the new charter school only if it took 

desegregative measures related to student recruitment and admission, curriculum and course offerings, faculty and staff diversity and 

recruitment, school leadership and governance diversity, de-tracking, cultural competence and community relations training, and 

transportation. Today, the district has implemented an aggressive 

recruitment plan approved by OCR, aimed at attracting a diverse 

applicant pool for the charter school, resulting in an increase in diversity among applicants and a 2016-17 enrollment that complies 

with the revised desegregation plan.

Use of Race/Diversity – Clarifies Effective Communication – 

permissibility of use of race to Addresses interplay of IDEA with Title 

achieve diversity after Schuette case II requirement to ensure effective 

Plyler v. Doe – Replaces 2011 OCR/ communication for students with 

DOJ guidance on nondiscrimination hearing, vision, or speech disabilities

in student enrollment in public Single-Sex Classes – Clarifies 

schools based on race, color, national Title IX requirements for offering 

origin, citizenship, immigration status single-sex non-vocational classes or 

Charter Schools – Reminder that activities

charter schools are subject to same Juvenile Justice Facilities – 

federal civil rights obligations as Reiterates applicability of federal 

traditional public schools civil rights laws to juvenile justice 

Resource Equity – On providing residential facilities

equal access to educational Ebola – Clarifies how schools can 

resources without regard to race, implement the CDC’s Ebola guidance 

color, national origin without discriminating against 

Bullying of Students with students

Disabilities – Discusses schools’ 

obligations to respond to bullying of 

students with disabilities

2014 2015 2016

Figure 4 (continued): OCR Policy Guidance, 2009-2016
6

ACHIEVING SIMPLE JUSTICE

United States Department of Education 

Expanding Equity for Students of 

All Abilities

Through its enforcement work, OCR continued to ensure that students with disabilities have equitable access to instruction, opportunities, and resources, and receive appropriate accommodations for 

themselves and their families. 

Policy Guidance

June 2010 Dear Colleague letter and May 2011 Questions and 

Answers document on accessibility of emerging technologies

s explain that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(Section 504) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(Title II) require schools and colleges to ensure that the technology they use is fully accessible to individuals with disabilities or 

otherwise to provide equal access to the educational benefits 

and opportunities afforded by the technology

January 2013 Dear Colleague letter on equity in athletics for 

students with disabilities

s clarifies that students with disabilities have the right under 

Section 504 to receive an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular athletic programs and provides concrete examples 

of how districts may modify policies, practices, and procedures 

in support of students with intellectual, developmental, physical, 

and other disabilities

November 2014 Dear Colleague letter, Frequently Asked Questions 

document, and fact sheet on effective communication with students 

with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities (with the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services and DOJ)

s clarify obligation of schools to facilitate effective communication 

with students with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities and 

provide an overview of relevant laws, including the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title II, and Section 504

Investigation/Enforcement Summary

Between 2009 and 2016 (fiscal years), OCR received 36,790 disability-related complaints overall, including 818 complaints related 

to accessibility of technology ( including web accessibility – see

Figure 5); 2,484 complaints related to accessibility of programs 

and facilities; 6,927 complaints related to different treatment/exclusion or denial of benefits; 589 complaints related to admissions 

and recruitment; and 14,937 complaints related to providing a free 

appropriate public education (FAPE). The number of complaints we 

received in these areas collectively increased by 76 percent from 

FY 2009 to FY 2016. During this period, OCR resolved 21,722 

complaints in these areas.

Illustrative Cases

Shenendehowa Central Schools (NY): OCR determined that the 

district applied a modified grading formula to downgrade the grades 

of students with disabilities by 0.69, thereby treating students 

differently on the basis of disability in violation of the law. In the 

January 2014 resolution agreement, the district agreed to cease 

this practice and to restore unadjusted grades to all students with 

disabilities whose grades had been adjusted downward. 

Ohio High School Athletic Association (OH): In February 2014, 

OCR resolved a complaint against the Ohio High School Athletic 

Association (as well as a complaint against a school district and 

directed investigations against four additional school districts within 

the same athletic conference) to ensure that a student who uses 

a wheelchair was provided an equal opportunity to participate on 

his school’s track team. After OCR started its investigations of the 

Association and member districts, the Association clarified that its 

policies did not prohibit the student’s participation, and the school 

districts worked together to allow the student to participate in mixed 

heat races and earn points for his team at regular season track 

meets.

Shaw University (NC): The complaint alleged that the university rescinded a student’s admission 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.” The investigation revealed that the university did not admit any student with a 

disability where there was a concern it might not be able to meet 

the student’s disability-related needs. In June 2015, the university 

committed to revise its policies and procedures and review the 

applications of students with disabilities whose admission was 

denied or rescinded to offer them a chance to enroll if they qualified 

Figure 5: Increase in Number of Complaints Over Time Involving 

Web Accessibility for Students with Disabilities*

‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16

Fiscal Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

‘11

9 7 8

16

28

55

Web Accessibility Complaint Receipts 

– Section 504/Title II

* OCR’s case management database did not track this discrete issue prior to FY 2011. 
7

HIGHLIGHTS OF OCR ACTIVITIES, 2009-2016

Office for Civil Rights 

for admission – and to report to OCR for review regarding these 

decisions.

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 to resolve a complaint that the 

university’s online learning management program and other webbased services were inaccessible to students with disabilities who 

use assistive technology. The resolution agreement requires the 

university to give the complainant the opportunity to complete her 

degree tuition-free, to provide reimbursement for courses in which 

she did not have an equal opportunity to participate, and to create 

a plan to ensure its new online technology is accessible and that 

students who use assistive technology are supported.

Yonkers Public Schools (NY): In November 2016, OCR resolved 

an investigation of whether the district discriminated against students with disabilities, who comprised 16 percent of the district’s 

approximately 26,000 enrolled students, by failing to place them 

in the regular educational environment unless it was demonstrated 

that placement in the regular education environment, even with 

the use of supplementary aids and services, could not be achieved 

satisfactorily. OCR found that 81 percent of students with disabilities spent some time out of the regular education classroom, and 

that of these, half were placed outside of the regular education 

classroom for 75 percent or more of each school day. OCR also 

found that students’ special education files often lacked documentation of interventions attempted prior to, or individualized 

rationales to support, placement in self-contained classrooms. The 

resolution agreement commits the district to ensure appropriate 

documentation, staff training, and placement of students with 

disabilities.

Rethinking Discipline, Resisting Restraint 

and Seclusion

OCR’s policy guidance and enforcement efforts endeavor to end 

discriminatory discipline in schools, contributing to the national 

conversation this Administration has led about rethinking discipline 

and ending the school-to-prison pipeline. OCR has also worked to 

redress the discriminatory use of restraint and seclusion in schools.

Policy Guidance

January 2014 Dear Colleague letter, issued jointly with DOJ, on 

student discipline

s explains how schools can meet their obligations under federal 

law to administer school discipline without discriminating on the 

basis of race, color, or national origin

Investigation/Enforcement Summary

Between 2009 and 2016 (fiscal years), OCR received 4,213 

discipline-related complaints (Title VI and Section 504) and 328 

complaints6 related to restraint and seclusion (Section 504) (see

Figure 6). During this period, OCR resolved 3,875 discipline-related complaints (Title VI and Section 504) and 223 restraint and 

seclusion-related complaints (Section 504). 

Illustrative Cases

John Doe School7: In January 2014, OCR reached a resolution 

agreement with a North Carolina charter school after the school 

discriminated against an elementary school student on the basis 

of his disability by improperly using manual restraints (more than 

Figure 6: Increase in Number of Complaints Over Time Involving 

Restraint and Seclusion* of Students with Disabilities**

* 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

20

40

60

80

100

‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15

37 33 40

55

83 74

‘16

Fiscal Year

Restraint and Seculsion Complaint Receipts 

– Section 504/Title II

CRDC Fast Fact: Students with disabilities served by 

IDEA represent 11 percent of all students in schools that offer 

AP courses, but fewer than 2 percent of students enrolled in 

at least one AP course.
8

ACHIEVING SIMPLE JUSTICE

United States Department of Education 

211 times in one school year totaling almost 23 hours) without ever 

discussing the use of restraints with his Individualized Education 

Program (IEP) team or reflecting the use of restraints in the student’s behavior intervention plan. The school entered a resolution 

agreement that obligates the school to conduct training on Section 504 procedural requirements, comply with the Department’s 

restraint and seclusion resource document, and pay for counseling 

services for the student. 

Tupelo Public School District (MS): OCR’s investigation revealed 

that, in school years 2010-11 and 2011-12, black students at the 

three schools in the district constituted 78-81 percent of discipline 

referrals while making up 48-49 percent of enrollment. Additionally, 

the district’s discipline codes included undefined terms such as 

“improper behavior at school” and “other misbehavior as determined by the administration.” The district entered into a resolution 

agreement to address these concerns in 2014, committing the 

district to employ a range of corrective measures before referring 

students to disciplinary authorities or law enforcement, revise 

its discipline policies and practices to remove ambiguities, and 

establish a discipline review team to evaluate and assess discipline 

practices and reforms. 

Oakland Unified School District (CA): In June 2016, OCR found 

that a nine-year-old student faced discrimination on the basis of 

disability when school officials at the non-public school in which 

the district placed the student restrained him 92 times over an 

11-month period starting in April 2013 and continuing through 

February 2014. The investigation confirmed that, in total, the student was held face down for 2,200 minutes. OCR found the district 

in violation of Section 504 and Title II for its failure to implement 

the student’s IEP. The resolution agreement commits the district to 

cease contracting with non-public institutions that condone prone 

restraint and to develop a master contract for all non-public schools 

it contracts with regarding use of restraint; evaluate the student 

to assess the adverse effects related to the use of prone restraint; 

convene an IEP team to develop a plan for compensatory education 

and services for the student; and train staff regarding the adverse 

effects of restraint and successful alternative intervention methods.

Lodi Unified School District (CA): In August 2016, OCR resolved 

a complaint alleging that a black student was discriminated against 

on the basis of race when he was disciplined more harshly than 

a white student. OCR’s investigation raised concerns because the 

district had identified the behaviors as having similar consequences but a harsher punishment was applied to the black student. 

Additionally, black students were almost seven times more likely 

than white students to receive in- or out-of-school suspensions for 

tardiness or truancy in 2014-15, even though suspending students 

for these reasons is not permitted by California state law. Among 

other remedies, the agreement requires the district to provide student-focused supports and interventions; identify the root causes 

for the district’s racial disparities; develop a way to distinguish 

between disciplinary infractions to be handled by school staff and 

serious threats to school safety or criminal conduct to be handled 

by law enforcement; revise its Memoranda of Understanding with 

local police departments to include clear definitions and limits to 

the role of school resource officers (SROs) in their interactions with 

students; and collect data on SRO involvement in discipline.

CRDC Fast Fact: Black K-12 students are 3.8 times as 

likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as 

white students, and students with disabilities served by IDEA 

(12 percent) are more than twice as likely to receive one or 

more out-of-school suspensions as students without disabilities (5 percent).

ED’s Discipline Reform Initiative

ED issued a School Discipline Guidance Package, which 

includes the OCR/DOJ Dear Colleague letter, as part of the 

#RethinkDiscipline campaign to increase awareness about the 

detrimental impacts of exclusionary discipline. In addition to 

the Dear Colleague letter, the Guidance Package contains:

• a Guiding Principles document that describes key principles and related action steps that can guide efforts to 

improve school climate and school discipline;

• a Directory of Federal School Climate and Discipline 

Resources; and

 • a Compendium of School Discipline Laws and Regulations for each of the 50 States, District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico. 
9

HIGHLIGHTS OF OCR ACTIVITIES, 2009-2016

Office for Civil Rights 

Enforcing Equal Access to Programs and 

Activities on the Basis of Sex

OCR has issued guidance and investigated schools to preserve the 

prohibition under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 

(Title IX) against sex discrimination, which applies to all aspects 

in education – such as the treatment of pregnant and parenting 

students, sex-segregated classrooms, affording equitable athletic 

opportunities, and nondiscrimination in career and technical education programs.

Policy Guidance

April 2010 Dear Colleague letter on providing equitable opportunity 

in athletics 

s articulates the standards for assessing compliance with Part 

Three of the “Three-Part Test” used to determine whether 

institutions are meeting the Title IX regulatory requirement to 

accommodate students’ athletic interests and abilities

June 2013 Dear Colleague letter and pamphlet on treatment of 

pregnant and parenting students

s clarify that schools must treat pregnant and parenting students 

equitably and appropriately with respect to participation in educational programs and activities, services offered or provided, 

and excused absences because of pregnancy or childbirth

December 2014 Questions and Answers document on non-vocational single-sex classes and extracurricular activities

s clarifies the requirements under Title IX regulations for single-sex classes and activities, including that schools must 

demonstrate that the single-sex nature of a class is substantially related to an important objective, ensure that enrollment is 

completely voluntary, offer a substantially equal coeducational 

class in the same subject, and avoid relying on gender stereotypes

June 2016 Dear Colleague letter on gender equity in career and 

technical education

s explains that all students, regardless of their sex, must have 

equal access to the full range of career and technical education 

programs offered

Investigation/Enforcement Summary

Between 2009 and 2016 (fiscal years), OCR received 737 complaints related to athletics8

; 199 Title IX complaints related to 

pregnancy and parenting; and 30 complaints related to single-sex 

education. The number of complaints OCR received in these areas 

collectively increased by 21 percent9

 from FY 2009 to FY 2016. 

During this period, OCR resolved 898 complaints in these areas.10

Illustrative Cases

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 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.

Virginia Military Institute (VA): In May 2014, OCR found Virginia 

Military Institute (VMI) in violation of Title IX because VMI’s marriage 

and parenthood policy rendered pregnant cadets ineligible to participate in VMI’s program. Under VMI’s policy, pregnant and parenting 

cadets were required to resign or face separation from the school. 

Working with OCR, VMI revised its policy to allow pregnant cadets 

to remain enrolled as long as they are able to perform their duties 

and to provide them with the same opportunity to take medical 

leave as is available to cadets with other temporary medical conditions. 

Broward County Public Schools (FL): In August 2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that schools in the district fostered sex 

discrimination by instituting single-sex programs in the schools’ English, math, science, and social studies classes. OCR found that the 

schools implementing single-sex education violated Title IX because 

they lacked justification or sufficient information to demonstrate 

why single-sex education helped the district achieve its academic 

goals, enrollment in the single-sex curriculum was not voluntary, 

and the district did not offer a substantially coeducational alternative. The agreement commits the district to discontinue offering 

single-sex classes at all schools and to notify students’ parents and 

guardians of this discontinuation.
10

ACHIEVING SIMPLE JUSTICE

United States Department of Education 

Preventing and Responding 

to Sexual Violence

In the last eight years, the issue of sexual violence on campuses 

has gained greater national attention and galvanized action across 

the Administration and by the public. OCR has worked to enforce 

the Title IX requirement that no student suffer discrimination on the 

basis of sex, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in 

educational programs.

Policy Guidance

April 2011 Dear Colleague letter and April 2014 Questions and 

Answers document and Know Your Rights fact sheet on Title IX and 

sexual violence

s explain the legal obligations under Title IX to address and 

respond to sexual violence, and provide further information 

about topics such as maintaining confidentiality; training, 

education, and prevention; the intersection among Title IX, the 

Clery Act, and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization 

Act; designating a Title IX coordinator; disseminating a notice of 

nondiscrimination; evidentiary standards in campus disciplinary 

proceedings; and schools’ obligation to provide interim relief to 

complainants

Investigation/Enforcement Summary

Between 2009 and 2016 (fiscal years), OCR received 265 sexual violence-related complaints at the elementary and secondary 

education level and 534 such complaints at the postsecondary 

level (see Figure 7). The number of complaints we received in this 

area increased by 1,170 percent from FY 2009 to FY 2016. During 

this period, OCR resolved 371 sexual violence complaints at the 

elementary and secondary and postsecondary levels. 

Illustrative Cases

State University of New York (NY): OCR reviewed 159 individual 

cases of alleged sexual harassment from four campuses of SUNY, 

the largest comprehensive statewide system of public higher education in the United States, and determined that the vast majority 

of these complaints involved reports of sexual violence incidents 

sufficiently serious to create a sexually hostile environment for 

the affected students. In the October 2013 resolution agreement, 

SUNY committed to widespread distribution of Title IX coordinator 

contact information; significant 

revisions to the SUNY-wide 

Discrimination Complaint 

Procedure; designation and 

comprehensive training of Title 

IX coordinators; and development, distribution, and analysis 

of annual climate surveys to 

gauge the educational environment.

West Contra Costa Unified 

School District (CA): In 

November 2013, OCR resolved 

a compliance review of the 

district that OCR launched after 

a gang rape at a district high 

school. OCR’s investigation revealed that sexually harassing 

behavior among students permeated the district’s elementary and secondary schools. OCR’s resolution agreement committed 

the district to designate a Title IX coordinator; revise and implement 

grievance procedures for promptly and equitably addressing sexual 

and gender-based harassment; develop a comprehensive plan for 

educating students, parents, and employees to ensure that they are 

aware of Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination; and ensure 

appropriate supervision of students during times the students are 

on campus but not in class.

Wesley College (DE): In September 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint that the college discriminated against a student who 

had been accused of sexual misconduct. OCR determined that the 

college violated Title IX by failing to provide the student and three 

other accused students with essential procedural protections and to 

adhere to the safeguards provided for in its own disciplinary policies 

and procedures. Among other issues, the accused students were 

not afforded an opportunity for an interview and thus were not given 

the opportunity to provide witnesses or other evidence during the 

investigation. In the resolution agreement reached with OCR, the 

college committed to determine whether it had engaged in a sufficient level of inquiry prior to imposing an interim suspension on the 

accused students, to complete its investigation of the incident, and 

to re-investigate or address investigative deficiencies and provide 

further remedies, as warranted.

Figure 7: Increase in Number of Complaints Over Time Involving Sexual Violence*

20 35 41 33 63 127 226 260

‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16

Fiscal Year

Total ESE and 

PSE Title IX

Sexual Violence

Complaints

21 0

100

50

200

150

250

300

11 106 9

31

32

165

61

177

83

Postsecondary 

(PSE)

Title IX 

Sexual

Violence

Elementary and 

Secondary (ESE)

Title IX 

Sexual

Violence

Elementary and Secondary (ESE) 

and Postsecondary (PSE) Title IX 

Sexual Violence Complaints 

24

11

22

19

16

17

* OCR’s case management database did not track this discrete issue prior to FY 2009.
11

HIGHLIGHTS OF OCR ACTIVITIES, 2009-2016

Office for Civil Rights 

Removing Barriers to Opportunity Due to 

Language or National Origin

OCR continued its strong enforcement measures to ensure equitable access to instruction, opportunities and resources for English 

learners (ELs), as well as effective communication with limited 

English proficient (LEP) parents or guardians.

Policy Guidance

May 2014 Dear Colleague letter (superseding the May 2011 Dear 

Colleague letter) on schools’ enrollment procedures and the obligation to enroll all students of school age regardless of their race, 

color, national origin, immigration, or citizenship status

s clarifies that districts may not require information from students 

or their parents—such as birth certificates and Social Security numbers—that have the purpose or result of denying the 

students access to public schools on the basis of their or their 

parents’ immigration or citizenship status

January 2015 Dear Colleague letter and two fact sheets on educational equity for EL students and LEP parents (issued jointly with 

DOJ)

s outline common civil rights concerns pertaining to EL students 

such as providing timely, valid and reliable identification and 

assessment; educationally sound language assistance with 

qualified staff and sufficient resources; meaningful access to all 

curricular and extracurricular programs; appropriate evaluation 

of and services for EL students with disabilities; and meaningful 

communication with LEP parents

Investigation/Enforcement Summary

Between 2009 and 2016 (fiscal years), OCR received 681 complaints concerning discrimination based on national origin related 

to EL students. The number of complaints OCR received in this area 

increased by 71 percent from FY 2009 to FY 2016. During this 

period, OCR resolved 599 complaints related to EL students.

Illustrative Cases

Boston Public Schools (MA): In September 2010, OCR resolved 

a joint investigation with DOJ into whether the district was taking 

appropriate action to provide language support services to its EL 

students. The Departments found that the district had violated Title 

VI and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act by failing to conduct 

appropriate English language proficiency assessments for 7,000 

students who were previously tested in only listening and speaking 

but not in reading and writing, or to serve the language needs of 

students inappropriately designated as “opt outs.” In April 2012, 

OCR and DOJ found issues of non-compliance concerning the 

delivery of educational services to EL students, including staffing 

for EL programs, hours of service for EL students, services to EL 

students with special needs, and communication with parents of 

EL students. In April 2012, OCR and DOJ entered into a successor agreement to the 2010 agreement, committing the district 

to provide all EL students with Sheltered English Immersion in 

their core content classes; deliver English as a Second Language 

instruction to all EL students consistent with state guidance; train 

and hire a sufficient number of teachers to meet the needs of its EL 

population; ensure that special education EL students are properly 

assessed and served; monitor the academic performance of current 

and former EL students; offer compensatory services to EL students 

who were recently identified and formerly misidentified as “opt 

outs”; and give parents of EL students the necessary information to 

make informed decisions regarding their children’s EL services.

Resource Tip: The English Learner Toolkit, produced 

by the Office of English Language Acquisition, provides an 

overview, sample tools, and resources on key issues related 

to serving EL students.

CRDC Fast Fact: While English learners are 11 percent 

of students in schools offering gifted and talented education 

(GATE) programs, fewer than 3 percent of GATE students 

nationwide are English learners.
12

ACHIEVING SIMPLE JUSTICE

United States Department of Education 

Orleans Parish School Board (LA): In July 2014, OCR successfully resolved an investigation of the school board regarding allegations of discrimination against Vietnamese- and Spanish-speaking 

LEP families in three district charter schools. The voluntary resolution agreement obligates the district to implement a comprehensive 

language assistance plan and to provide annual staff training regarding Title VI obligations to notify LEP parents of school programs 

and activities that are called to the attention of other parents. 

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

an investigation examining the district’s provision of services to 

EL students and LEP parents. OCR found that the district was not 

in compliance with Title VI regarding the district’s implementation 

of its alternative language program; exiting and monitoring 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. To remedy these issues, the district committed to 

provide English language services and instruction to all EL students 

in all educational settings, including special education; address 

the needs of students who have exited the alternative language 

program; evaluate teachers who provide EL instruction; and engage 

parents in a language they understand about the district’s alternative language program. 

Arizona Department of Education (AZ): In April and May of 

2016, OCR and DOJ jointly entered into two resolution agreements 

with the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) ensuring correct 

identification of EL students as well as language support services 

to students who had been either prematurely exited or incorrectly 

identified as not requiring these services. In 2012, OCR and DOJ 

had found that thousands of EL students in the state were prematurely classified as English proficient and removed from EL services 

or were incorrectly labelled as English proficient and denied services altogether. The 2012 resolution agreement expressly contemplated evaluation of progress during monitoring and securing 

additional steps as necessary, and in the course of this monitoring 

OCR’s and DOJ’s analysis showed that, without additional remedies, 

thousands of EL students across the state each year would not be 

served effectively. The 2016 resolution agreements require ADE 

to raise its proficiency criteria for English proficiency tests, retest 

and provide support services for potentially affected students, and 

submit testing reports and results to OCR and DOJ for the next 

three years. 

CRDC Fast Fact: Ensuring equity and safety is a key 

responsibility for civil rights coordinators; for the first time, the 

public can look up the names and contact information for the 

civil rights coordinators (Title IX coordinators, 504/Title II disability coordinators, and Title VI coordinators) of virtually every 

school district in the country via the CRDC website or the OCR 

Civil Rights Coordinators website.
13

HIGHLIGHTS OF OCR ACTIVITIES, 2009-2016

Office for Civil Rights 

Protecting Students’ Right to Equitable, 

Safe, and Supportive Learning 

Environments

Over the last several years, OCR committed to protecting all 

students’ right to attend safe and supportive schools, including 

protecting students from bullying, harassment, or discrimination.

Policy Guidance

October 2010 Dear Colleague letter on bullying and harassment 

s

i

explains that the civil rights laws OCR enforces require that if an 

nstitution knows or has reason to know about student-on-student harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, 

or disability, it must take immediate and effective action to 

eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and, where 

appropriate, address its effects on the harassed student and 

the school community

October 2014 Dear Colleague letter and fact sheet on bullying of 

students with disabilities

s explain the obligation under Section 504 and Title II and their 

implementing regulations for schools to respond appropriately 

to bullying of students with disabilities, including remedying 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 a free 

appropriate public education (FAPE)

April 2015 Dear Colleague letters to schools and to Title IX coordinators and a resource guide on the importance and role of Title IX 

coordinators

s remind schools (K-12 and postsecondary) of their obligation to 

designate a Title IX coordinator and provide 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 

May 2016 Dear Colleague letter on schools’ Title IX obligations 

regarding transgender students (issued jointly with DOJ)11

s explains schools’ obligation to respond promptly and effectively 

to sex-based harassment of all students, including harassment based on a student’s actual or perceived gender identity, 

transgender status, or gender transition, and to treat students 

consistent with their gender identity even if their school records 

or identification documents indicate a different sex

Investigation/Enforcement Summary

Between 2009 and 2016 (fiscal years), OCR received 10,122 complaints related to bullying or harassment on the bases of race (see

Figure 8), sex, or disability and 140 complaints12 related to transgender discrimination. The number of complaints OCR received in 

these areas collectively increased by 122 percent from FY 2009 

to FY 2016. During this period, OCR resolved 9,144 complaints in 

these areas.

Illustrative Cases

Hillsborough County Public Schools (FL): In June 2009, OCR 

resolved a Title IX compliance review of whether the district had 

a properly trained and designated Title IX coordinator, provided 

students and employees with contact information for the coordinator, and established nondiscrimination policies and procedures as 

required by Title IX. OCR also examined the district’s responses to 

a random sample of sexual harassment and assault reports from 

Spring 2007 through Spring 2009. The resolution agreement commits the district to have Title IX-compliant policies, procedures, and 

Figure 8: Increase in Number of Complaints Over Time Involving Racial Harassment

‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16

354

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

176

266 236

289

362 404

96 137

176

166

173

163

321

198

344

362 373 465 528 577 530 484 542

Postsecondary 

(PSE)

Title VI 

Racial

Harassment 

Elementary and 

Secondary (ESE)

Title VI 

Racial

Harassment

Fiscal Year

Total ESE and 

PSE Title VI

Racial Harassment

Complaints

Elementary and Secondary (ESE) 

and Postsecondary (PSE) Title VI 

Racial Harassment Complaints
14

ACHIEVING SIMPLE JUSTICE

United States Department of Education 

nondiscrimination notices; provide annual training for the coordinator(s); revise its online sexual harassment training; conduct annual 

climate surveys; review two years of sexual harassment investigations to ensure that the district followed the Title IX statutory and 

regulatory requirements; develop a system for maintaining records 

of all complaints of sexual harassment; and provide a summary of 

students’ Title IX rights during all new student orientations. 

St. Cloud Area School District 742 and Owatonna Public 

Schools ISD761 (MN): In November 2011, OCR, with DOJ, 

jointly resolved two complaints in Minnesota involving allegations 

of harassment and/or disproportionate discipline against Somali 

students. The resolution agreements commit the districts to take 

reasonable steps to ensure that all students enrolled in their respective districts are not subject to harassment or discrimination on 

the basis of race, color, or national origin, and to respond promptly 

and appropriately to all reports of harassment. Among other remedies, the districts also agreed to review and revise their harassment 

and disciplinary policies and procedures, conduct training of district 

personnel on discrimination and harassment, meet with the Somali 

students to discuss the students’ concerns, establish a working 

group to make recommendations regarding the effectiveness of 

the districts’ anti-harassment programs, and develop district-wide 

orientation programs and student committees at each high school 

to discuss harassment issues.

Anoka-Hennepin School District (MN): On March 5, 2012, 

OCR and DOJ filed a complaint-in-intervention and consent decree 

in federal court resolving allegations of sex-based harassment of 

middle and high school students in the school district. On March 6, 

2012, the U.S. District Court Judge signed the consent decree into 

effect. OCR and DOJ had jointly investigated allegations that the 

district had failed to properly address severe and pervasive gender-based harassment of gender-nonconforming students, including LGBT students, who told investigators that they were frequently 

harassed (some almost daily for years) because of their failure to 

conform to gender stereotypes. The court-approved consent decree 

requires the district to take all reasonable steps to prevent and 

eliminate sex-based harassment, implement policy changes, hire 

new staff to ensure equity and safety, train students and staff, provide mental health counseling for bullying victims, survey students 

to assess school climate, and establish a peer-based leadership 

program. 

University of California, San Diego (CA): In April 2012, OCR, 

jointly with DOJ, resolved an investigation involving allegations of 

multiple incidents of racial harassment on campus, including public 

displays of nooses and a Ku Klux Klan-style hood and the hosting 

of an off-campus party where students were invited to dress as 

stereotypes of African Americans. OCR reviewed the university’s 

policies and procedures for responding to student complaints of 

racial discrimination and racially-biased incidents. In the resolution 

agreement, among other remedies, the university committed to fully 

and appropriately resolve complaints of discrimination and harassment; remedy the effects of discrimination and harassment and 

eliminate any hostile environment that may have resulted; revise its 

policies and procedures concerning discrimination and harassment 

to ensure that they are designed to prevent harassment from occurring; and develop a comprehensive plan to train faculty, staff, and 

students on those policies. 

Arcadia Unified School District (CA)13: In July 2013, OCR 

and DOJ jointly resolved complaints alleging that the district was 

discriminating against a student based on sex by denying him equal 

access to the district’s education program and activities because 

he is transgender. The resolution agreement committed the district 

to permit the student to use male-designated facilities at school 

and on school-sponsored trips, and to ensure that it continues to 

treat this student and all students, including transgender students, 

in a nondiscriminatory manner, including by amending its policies 

and procedures, training staff, and ensuring appropriate support for 

those who request it.

John Doe School District14: In January 2015, OCR resolved a 

complaint alleging that a student’s peers harassed him using negative stereotypes about Jews and verbally and physically bullied him 

for several years. 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 IEP team to ensure that the student continues to 

receive FAPE. 

John Doe School District15: In August 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint involving a teacher who made derogatory comments to a 

student with multiple mental health diagnoses about the student’s 

prior suicide attempt and, in the presence of other students, urged 

the student to kill herself. The investigation revealed that the school 

suspended the student out of school for 10 days for assaulting the 

teacher in response to the teacher’s comments and assigned her 

to an alternative school. OCR concluded that the school operated a 

disability-based hostile climate for the student that the district failed 

to assess or address. The resolution agreement requires, among 

other remedies, a meeting to determine whether the student’s 

charged offense for assaulting the teacher and other disciplinary incidents during that school year were manifestations of the student’s 

disabilities; investigation of whether the staff subjected the student 

to any other instances of disability harassment; revision of the nondiscrimination notice and Section 504 grievance procedures; and 

annual staff training and climate checks with students and staff.
15

HIGHLIGHTS OF OCR ACTIVITIES, 2009-2016

Office for Civil Rights 

The Future

From 2009 to 2016, OCR has strived to ensure that simple 

justice is achieved and that all students – irrespective of 

their race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or ability status – are 

afforded equity and opportunity in schools, from preschool to 

postsecondary education. 

The thousands of cases we review and investigate each year 

have taught us that millions of adults act heroically and honorably every day to support and uplift students; yet they also 

remind us that discrimination persists. We still bear witness 

to devastating acts of discrimination that would surely have 

seemed as shocking and retrograde a century ago as they are 

today. And we encounter new manifestations of discrimination 

that, while no longer sanctioned by law, still divide students 

into haves and have nots because of some aspect of who 

they are. 

As we reflect upon the past eight years, the challenges for 

OCR ahead are clear. First, OCR must continue to enforce 

the civil rights laws by evaluating, investigating, and monitoring cases with thoroughness, speed, and sensitivity, always 

remaining attuned to how discrimination manifests in today’s 

schools and today’s students and faithful to what the law requires to reach full satisfaction of students’ civil rights. Second, the exponential rise in the number of complaints OCR has received is likely to continue and must be addressed by a substantial increase in agency 

resources and staffing (see Figure 9). Third, OCR must continue to find the capacity to be proactive and transparent to respond to the 

public’s need for useful guidance, technical assistance, and information to prevent civil rights violations before they occur. Fourth, OCR 

must keep pace with the considerable interest in and demand for accurate and timely civil rights data revealing equity and opportunity 

gaps in schools. And finally, OCR must remain dedicated to supporting and developing its staff, on whom all else depends. 

Even with these formidable challenges, OCR’s commitment to stand sentinel to protect against discrimination in schools remains strong. 

We look forward to continuing to enforce the civil rights laws so that all students have an equal opportunity to succeed. 

Figure 9: OCR Staff Level (FTE*) and Complaints Received, 

FY 1981-2016

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 1,500

3,500

5,500

7,500

9,500

11,500

13,500

15,500

17,500

Staff Level 

(FTE) 1,099 870 797 744 696 630 619 563

Complaint 

Receipts 2,887 2,648 3,809 4,828 4,571 5,805 7,841 16,720 Staff Level (FTE)

Complaints

Fiscal Year

* Full Time Equivalents
United States Department of Education

John B. King, Jr., Secretary 

Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

Lyndon Baines Johnson Building

Department of Education 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW , Washington, DC 20202-1100 

Telephone: 800-421-3481 | FAX: 202-453-6012 

TDD: 877-521-2172 

Email: OCR@ed.gov | www.ed.gov/ocr

U.S. Department of Education 

Office for Civil Rights

Availability of Alternate Formats:

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the Alternate Format Center by calling 202.260.0852 

or by contacting the Section 508 Coordinator via e-mail at om_eeos@ed.gov.

Notice to Limited-English-Proficient Persons:

If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to the public. 

These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please 

call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1.800.872.5327) (TTY: 1.800.877.8339) or e-mail us at ED.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. You also can write to U.S. 

Department of Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC, 20202.

Endnotes

1 Throughout this document, enforcement data for FY 2016 are generally up to date as of October 14, 2016; however, due to the ongoing 

nature of updates in OCR’s case management system, the data in this 

document may not reflect all issue areas included or addressed in a 

small percentage of complaints received or resolved in FY 2016.

2 Throughout this document, CRDC Fast Facts are derived from the 

2013-14 Civil Rights Data Collection.

3 “High/low black and Latino enrollment” refers to schools with more 

than 75 percent and less than 25 percent black and Latino student 

enrollment, respectively.

4

 In FY 2009 and 2010, OCR maintained a broader definition of resource 

equity and comparability than in subsequent years; therefore, the 

number of resource equity and comparability cases from those years 

reflected here may be slightly inflated.

5

 Throughout the enforcement summaries in this document, “resolved 

cases” include cases that resulted in a resolution agreement, an Early 

Complaint Resolution, a resolution requiring action by institutions without a resolution agreement, a finding of no violation, and an administrative closure or dismissal. 

6

 This paragraph does not reflect restraint and seclusion complaints 

between FY 2009-10; OCR started tracking complaint volume in this 

area beginning in FY 2011.

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

because of privacy considerations.

8

 This figure excludes complaints involving Title IX athletics in which 

multiple complaints were filed by an individual.

9

 This figure excludes complaints involving Title IX athletics in which 

multiple complaints were filed by an individual.

10 OCR resolved 6,947 complaints in these areas when counting complaints involving Title IX athletics in which multiple complaints were 

filed by an individual.

11 This guidance is the subject of litigation against several federal 

agencies and officials pending before a federal district court in Texas 

v. United States, 7:16-cv-00054 (N.D.Tex. 2016). On August 21 and 

on October 18, 2016, the court issued a preliminary injunction and 

clarification order, respectively, regarding the Departments’ ability to 

rely on parts of the May 13 guidance related to “intimate” facilities. The 

Departments have appealed the August 21 and October 18 rulings to 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Texas v. United States, No. 16-

11534 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016). In the meantime, OCR has taken steps 

to ensure compliance with the preliminary injunction, as clarified. Since 

the ruling in Texas, several other courts have issued preliminary injunctions in favor of individual transgender plaintiffs under Title IX or denied 

preliminary injunctions sought against the government. See, e.g., 

Students & Parents for Privacy v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 16-cv-4945, 

ECF No. 134 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2016); Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. 

Dist. No. 1, No. 16-cv-943, ECF No. 10 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 22, 2016); 

Highland Bd. of Ed. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 2016 WL 5372349, at *11 

(S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2016); Carcaño v. McCrory, No. 1:16-cv-236, 

ECF No. 127 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2016). The only court of appeals to 

consider the issue held that OCR’s interpretation of its Title IX regulations was the result of its “fair and considered judgment,” and was “in 

line with the existing guidances and regulations of a number of federal 

agencies.” See G.G. v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709, 720 

(4th Cir. 2016), mandate recalled and stayed, Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. 

v. G.G., No. 16A52 (Aug. 3, 2016), cert. granted, No. 16-273 (Oct. 28, 

2016).

12 OCR began tracking cases on transgender discrimination in FY 2016, 

and has retroactively included additional complaints in this category 

that were received as early as FY 2011. See also Endnote 11.

13 The treatment of transgender students is the subject of litigation 

against several federal agencies and officials pending before a federal 

district court in Texas v. United States, 7:16-cv-00054 (N.D.Tex. 2016). 

See also Endnote 11.

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

because of privacy considerations.

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

because of privacy considerations.