US Department of Education 

Offce for Civil Rights 

Annual Report to the

Secretary, the President,

and the Congress 

Fiscal Year 2019 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

US Department of Education 

Offce for Civil Rights 

Kenneth L. Marcus, Assistant Secretary 

July 2020 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report’s citation should be: 

US Department of Education, Offce for Civil Rights 

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

Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act, FY 2019, Washington, DC. 

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

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

2 
Table of Contents 

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

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

The Offce for Civil Rights: Overview................................................................................................. 7 

OCR’s Caseload.............................................................................................................................. 9 

Promoting Free Inquiry.....................................................................................................................13 

Improvements to Case Processing....................................................................................................14 

Nationwide Initiative: Inappropriate Use of Restraint and Seclusion................................................ 15 

Nationwide Initiative: Website Accessibility................................................................................... 17 

Title IX: Discrimination Based on Sex................................................................................................18

 Issue Spotlight: Addressing Sexual Violence in Schools...............................................................21 

Title VI: Discrimination Based on Race, Color, or National Origin......................................................... 25

 Issue Spotlight: Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or National Origin................................29 

Section 504 and Title II: Discrimination Based on Disability................................................................ 30 

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001............ 34 

The Civil Rights Data Collection........................................................................................................35 

Freedom of Information Act Requests............................................................................................... 37 

Looking Ahead................................................................................................................................38 

Endnotes........................................................................................................................................41 

3 

Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

Message from the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

Over the last two years, it has been my honor to direct the talented and 

committed staff of the US Department of Education’s Offce for Civil Rights 

(OCR) under the leadership of President Donald Trump and Secretary 

Betsy DeVos. There are few more important tasks than educating our 

children and few nobler efforts than to ensure that we protect the students 

in our nation’s schools. It is my belief that OCR has discharged this duty in 

a manner that has strengthened educational opportunities for all. 

Throughout my tenure, OCR has reinforced its status as a neutral, 

impartial civil rights law enforcement agency that fully and faithfully 

executes the laws as written—no more and no less—focusing carefully 

on the needs of each individual student. The data demonstrate that this 

approach works. Thanks to the hard work of OCR’s talented staff, we have 

achieved remarkable things during challenging times, including resolving 

thousands of civil rights complaints with change and greatly reducing 

OCR’s backlog. 

Last year, my Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the 

Congress for fscal years (FYs) 2017–2018 showed how much we had 

improved civil rights enforcement throughout our educational system. 

During the frst two fscal years under the Trump Administration, we 

nearly doubled the number of complaints resolved per year and achieved 

a 60 percent increase in complaints resolved with change compared 

to the previous eight years under the prior administration. In this year’s 

Report, you will see that we have built on those successes investigating 

individual cases at a heightened pace and achieving historic rates of 

change throughout OCR’s enforcement caseload. At the same time, OCR 

accomplished several additional milestones during FY 2019: 

n Launching over three times more proactive investigations in just 

one year than the prior administration launched in all eight years 

combined: over 700 proactive investigations in two national 

initiatives focused on improving outcomes for students with 

disabilities; 

n Reducing the number of complaints older than 180 days in every 

one of OCR’s 12 regional offces for the frst time in at least the last 

10 years (if not ever); 

n Resolving one of the most extensive investigations that the Offce 

has ever conducted in American higher education, requiring 

Michigan State University to make sweeping changes to the way 

it addresses sexual assault in light of its mishandling of sexual 

misconduct by Dr. Larry Nassar and others; 

n Completing the largest investigation that the Offce has ever 

conducted into systemic sexual assault problems in an urban public 

school system, requiring Chicago Public Schools to substantially 

reform its handling of reports of student-on-student sexual 

harassment and employee-on-student sexual harassment; 

n Establishing the National Web Accessibility Team, a nationwide 

team of dedicated OCR staff, including attorneys, investigators, and 

information technology experts to resolve technology accessibility 

problems in educational institutions and help recipients achieve 

compliance with federal disability laws; 

n Improving the quality of OCR’s authoritative Civil Rights Data 

Collection by instituting a number of reforms facilitated through a 

newly expanded partnership with the Department’s National Center 

of Education Statistics; and 

n Conducting game-changing regulatory reform by issuing a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking to initiate the formal rulemaking process 

and codify, for the frst time, a recipient’s obligations under Title IX 

with respect to claims of sexual misconduct. 

4 
 

In the pages that follow, we summarize OCR’s 2019 achievements and 

show how they advance progress made throughout the frst three fscal 

years of the Trump Administration. As this Report will demonstrate, OCR 

has substantially reduced the substantial backlog of pending complaints 

inherited from the prior administration while resolving signifcantly more 

complaints with change compared to the prior three years. Just during FYs 

2018 and 2019, OCR: 

n Resolved a total of 24,718 complaints alleging one or more 

violations of federal civil rights laws, which is 6,834 more 

resolutions than the Obama Administration obtained during their 

last two years in offce; 

n Resolved nearly 1,000 more allegations of discrimination by 

requiring corrective action protective of students’ civil rights than 

the previous administration in FYs 2015 and 2016; and 

n Achieved a 45 percent increase in the total number of Title VI 

allegations resolved with change and a 78 percent increase in the 

total number of Title IX allegations resolved with change compared 

to the last two fscal years under the previous administration. 

Over the course of FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR: 

n Closed 6,431 of the 7,854 complaints inherited in January 2017; 

n Resolved 42,515 complaints—nearly 15,000 more resolutions 

than the previous administration achieved during FYs 2014, 2015, 

and 2016 combined; and 

n Achieved a total of 4,656 complaint resolutions with change over 

three years, or 1,507 resolutions with change more than the 

previous administration achieved during FYs 2014, 2015, 

and 2016. 

At the conclusion, of this Report, we summarize a few 2020 achievements 

that have already advanced the protection of students’ rights: 

n Upon the issuance of President Trump’s historic Executive Order on 

Combating Anti-Semitism in December 2019, OCR recommitted to 

vigorous enforcement of Title VI. 

n In January 2020, OCR launched the Outreach, Prevention, 

Education, and Non-Discrimination Center, or OPEN Center, to focus 

on outreach and proactive compliance with federal civil rights laws. 

n In February 2020, OCR commenced a new nationwide Title IX 

enforcement initiative to combat the troubling rise of assault in 

K-12 public schools, correct noncompliance, and raise public

awareness of the issue.

n That same month, OCR, together with the Offce for Career and 

Technical Adult Education, released an updated Memorandum 

of Procedures that allows state agencies to coordinate their civil 

rights activities under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act with their civil rights activities under the Methods of 

Administration Guidelines, resulting in greater fexibility for state 

education agencies. 

n In February and March 2020, OCR resolved two more major 

systemic Title IX investigations—one against the University of 

Southern California and the other against Pennsylvania State 

University—after concluding that the universities failed to 

appropriately address reports of sexual misconduct and requiring 

each university to make sweeping changes to their Title IX policy 

and procedures for responding to complaints of sexual assault. 

n On March 4, 2020, I issued a Letter to Education Leaders 

reminding them of their obligations to prevent and address 

potential anti-Asian discrimination associated with COVID-19. 

n In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, OCR continued to provide 

crucial guidance and technical assistance to recipients and 

students in the form of webinars, fact sheets, letters, and Questions 

and Answers documents to ensure recipients were aware of their 

continuing civil rights obligations during these unprecedented 

times. 

n On May 6, 2020, the Department released its Title IX Final Rule, 

marking a historic step to strengthen Title IX protections for 

survivors of sexual misconduct and restore due process in campus 

proceedings to ensure all students can pursue education free from 

sex discrimination. 

n OCR established a separate team of dedicated Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) professionals to facilitate the expeditious 

processing of FOIA requests for OCR records. 

As I look back at what OCR has accomplished over the last few years, 

I am deeply proud to have been a part of this work and grateful to my 

hardworking and dedicated colleagues who enforce the federal civil rights 

laws on behalf of our nation’s students and their families. Together we 

have made a real difference in so many areas and, more importantly, in 

the lives of so many students. As a result of our focus on enforcement and 

fdelity to the law, we have in fact achieved better results for our nation’s 

children. As the following Report demonstrates, if a child had faced a 

violation of his or her civil rights during any time in recent years, that child 

would have been best served if the Trump Administration were in offce at 

the time. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Kenneth L. Macus 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

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

 

Executive Summary and 

Report Highlights 

During the frst three fscal years of the Trump Administration, the US 

Department of Education’s Offce for Civil Rights (OCR) has launched 

major nationwide proactive compliance initiatives, improved the quality of 

data submitted and reported by the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

reduced the backlog of unresolved civil rights complaints, strengthened 

resolutions of new complaints, clarifed obligations under civil rights laws, 

and restored local fexibility through regulatory reform and 

technical assistance. 

In January 2019, the Department announced a major nationwide initiative 

to protect students with disabilities from the inappropriate use of restraint 

and seclusion in public elementary and secondary schools.1

 This ongoing 

initiative encompasses compliance reviews by OCR’s enforcement division, 

CRDC data quality reviews (DQRs) by OCR’s program legal division, and 

technical assistance by OCR and the Offce of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). 

Beginning in December 2018, OCR launched a second national initiative 

to increase online and website accessibility for students with disabilities. 

OCR opened over 600 directed investigations of elementary, secondary, 

and postsecondary schools and forged an innovative, nationwide team 

of experienced civil rights attorneys, investigators, and information 

technology experts to address technology accessibility issues. The 

value of this project was underscored during the COVID-19 outbreak as 

educational institutions increasingly moved their services online. As one 

educational institution stated, “The trainings/policies we put in place as 

part of [our] Resolution Agreement [with OCR] were extremely valuable 

with the unexpected shift to entirely remote learning this semester.” 

In addition, OCR dedicated substantial resources and focused large efforts 

on addressing sexual misconduct in our nation’s schools. During FY 

2019, OCR enforcement offces proceeded with a number of major sexual 

violence investigations that OCR ultimately resolved with agreements 

requiring the schools to overhaul their organizational structures and Title IX 

procedures, among other changes, beneftting hundreds of thousands 

of students. 

More generally, OCR continued in 2019 to improve its processing of civil 

rights complaints. In November, OCR issued a revised Case Processing 

Manual which promotes transparency, due process, and First Amendment 

protections. OCR’s number of case resolutions continued to outpace the 

number of complaints received. Over the course of FYs 2017, 2018, and 

2019, OCR received a total of 35,267 complaints and resolved a total of 

42,515 complaints—7,248 more than OCR received and nearly 15,000 

more resolutions than the previous administration achieved during its last 

three fscal years combined. By the end of the third year under the current 

administration, OCR has resolved a total of 4,656 complaints with change 

over three years, or 1,507 resolutions with change more than the previous 

administration achieved during its last three years in offce. 

At the same time, during FY 2019, OCR signifcantly strengthened systems 

for ensuring the accuracy of data collected through the CRDC. During FY 

2019, OCR conducted targeted outreach to school districts with potentially 

anomalous data submissions to the 2015-16 and 2017-18 collections, 

worked with school districts to ensure that detailed written corrective 

action plans were put into place if needed, allocated signifcant resources 

to increasing technical assistance and support to recipients, increased 

its collaboration with the Department’s National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), and clarifed proper understandings of reporting 

requirements for recipients. In addition, OCR proposed changes to the 

2020-21 collection to reduce the administrative burden of collecting and 

reporting civil rights data and further OCR’s ongoing mission of protecting 

students’ civil rights. 

Finally, in FY 2019 the Department began the formal rulemaking process 

to amend the Title IX regulations to provide greater clarity on schools’ 

obligation to respond to reports of sexual harassment. After more than a 

year of research and outreach to stakeholders, in November 2018, the 

Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which would, 

inter alia, defne sexual harassment, including sexual assault, as unlawful 

sex discrimination for the frst time under the Department’s regulations. 

Over the course of FY 2019, the Department reviewed over 124,000 

public comments on the proposed rule before issuing the Title IX Final Rule 

on May 6, 2020. 

“Never again should incidents of sexual 

misconduct on campuses—or anywhere— 

be swept under the rug. Students, faculty, 

and staf must all feel empowered to come 

forward, know that they will be taken 

seriously, and know that the Department of 

Education will hold schools accountable.” 

US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos 

6 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

The Offce for Civil Rights:

Overview 

OCR’s Mission 

The mission of OCR is to ensure equal access to education and to promote 

educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of the federal civil rights laws. 

The laws OCR enforces protect millions of students attending or seeking 

to attend our nation’s education institutions from unlawful discrimination. 

OCR’s work to eliminate discriminatory barriers to education directly 

supports the US Department of Education’s mission to promote student 

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring equal access. 

Jurisdiction 

OCR is responsible for enforcing the following fve federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

disability, and age by recipients of federal fnancial assistance: 

n Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits 

discrimination based on race, color, and national origin; 

n Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits 

discrimination based on sex; 

n Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits 

discrimination based on disability; 

n The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which prohibits age 

discrimination; and 

n Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which 

prohibits disability discrimination by public entities (e.g., public 

elementary and secondary school systems, postsecondary schools, 

and vocational education programs) regardless of whether or not 

they receive federal fnancial assistance. 

OCR also enforces the Boy Scouts of American Equal Access Act. Under 

the Act, no public elementary school, public secondary school, or state 

or local education agency that provides an opportunity for one or more 

outside youth or community groups to meet on school premises or in 

school facilities shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or 

otherwise discriminate against, any group offcially affliated with the Boy 

Scouts of America or any other youth group listed as a patriotic society in 

Title 36 of the United States Code. 

Together these laws represent a national commitment to end discrimination in our nation’s schools. These laws apply throughout the nation and 

extend to all education entities and programs that receive federal fnancial 

assistance, including: 

n All state education agencies; 

n All public local educational agencies (LEAs), also known as public 

school districts; 

n Elementary and secondary schools receiving federal fnancial 

assistance, including juvenile justice facilities, charter schools, 

alternative schools, and schools serving only students 

with disabilities; 

n Most colleges and universities; 

n Adult education and career and technical education (CTE) 

institutions, such as community colleges, high schools, and 

technical centers; and 

n Other entities, including libraries, museums, and vocational 

rehabilitation agencies. 

Since most education institutions receive some type of federal fnancial 

assistance, these laws protect millions of students attending or seeking to 

attend our nation’s elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions. 

In certain situations, the laws also protect persons who are employed or 

seeking employment at education institutions from unlawful discrimination. 

Organizational Structure and Functions 

OCR is composed of a headquarters offce, located in Washington, DC, and 

12 regional enforcement offces located throughout the United States. The 

headquarters offce provides overall leadership, policy development, and 

coordination of enforcement activities. It consists of the immediate offce 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, OCR’s Program Legal Group, 

OCR’s Resources and Management Group, and, as of January 2020, 

OCR’s Center for Outreach, Prevention, Education, and Non-Discrimination 

Figure 1: OCR Enforcement Jurisdiction Timeline 

Boy Scouts of America

Equal Access Act (2001) 

Age Discrimination Act of 1975

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title II of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

7 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

Figure 2: Map of OCR Regional Offices 

Guam 

Northern 

Mariana 

Islands 

Puerto 

Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

American Samoa 

HI 

WA 

OR 

ID 

MT 

NV 

CA CO 

TX 

IL OH 

WY 

UT 

AZ NM 

OK 

KS 

MI 

NE 

SD 

ND 

MN 

IA 

IN 

AR 

MS AL 

TN 

KY 

WV 

LA 

WI 

MO 

GA 

PA 

MA 

VT 

NH 

ME 

VA 

NC 

SC 

FL 

NY Boston 

NJ 

DE 

CT 

AK 

RI 

Seattle 

Denver Kansas 

City 

Dallas 

Atlanta 

Chicago Cleveland 

San 

Francisco 

Philadelphia 

Washington, DC 

(Metro) 

New York 

OCR REGIONAL OFFICE STATE, DISTRICT, OR TERRITORY 

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

Atlanta, GA GA, AL, FL, TN 

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

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

Cleveland, OH OH, MI 

Dallas, TX TX, LA, MS 

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

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

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

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

San Francisco, CA CA 

Seattle, WA WA, AK, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands 

(OPEN Center). The immediate offce is led by the Assistant Secretary for 

Civil Rights, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, and the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Policy and Development (who oversees OCR’s Program 

Legal Group). 

The Program Legal Group develops legal and policy guidance on the 

laws enforced by OCR and also regularly coordinates with and provides 

direct case-specifc legal support to the Assistant Secretary and OCR’s 

12 enforcement offces on cases of frst impression, cases that raise 

controversial issues, or matters of nationwide signifcance. The Program 

Legal Group is also responsible for conducting the Department’s CRDC, a 

biennial data collection on civil rights indicators in primary and secondary 

schools. The Resources and Management Group is comprised of OCR’s 

budget, human resources, customer service, and technology staff. The 

OPEN Center, discussed more fully in “Looking Ahead,” provides support 

and technical assistance to schools, educators, families, and students to 

promote greater awareness of the requirements and protections of federal 

civil rights laws. The OPEN Center is a dedicated team of OCR attorneys 

and led by a director, which provides technical assistance and support to 

recipients by responding to email inquiries, creating webinars, and issuing 

technical assistance documents. 

The 12 enforcement offces are responsible for investigating and resolving 

complaints of discrimination, conducting proactive investigations, monitoring corrective action agreements, and providing technical assistance to 

schools and other state and local education agencies. The bulk of OCR’s 

enforcement activities consist of investigating over 10,000 complaints 

fled with OCR, on average, each year. Therefore, the majority of OCR’s 

staff is assigned to the various enforcement offces, which are located in 

Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, New York, 

Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC. 

8 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

OCR’s Caseload 

OCR’s enforcement caseload from year to year consists of individual 

complaints and appeals fled with OCR, compliance reviews and directed 

investigations initiated by OCR, and monitoring recipients’ compliance with 

resolution agreements. In addition, OCR’s enforcement offces provide 

technical assistance to recipients throughout the year. OCR’s approach to 

enforcement follows certain guiding principles that have allowed OCR to 

be not only more effcient but also more effective in its handling of civil 

rights complaints. These principles are refected in recent changes to 

OCR’s Case Processing Manual (CPM) and proceed from the belief that 

OCR is a neutral, impartial law-enforcement agency that faithfully executes 

the laws as written, no more and no less, and focuses on the needs of 

each individual student. As a result, over the last three fscal years OCR 

has simultaneously reduced its backlog of pending complaints, achieved a 

greater number of case resolutions—including resolutions with change— 

and launched an unprecedented number of proactive investigations.2 

Complaints 

OCR carries out its responsibilities in large part by investigating and resolving the large number of complaints that are fled each year. Any person 

who believes there has been a violation of the civil rights laws enforced 

by OCR may fle a complaint with the appropriate enforcement offce. The 

individual or organization fling the complaint does not need to be a victim 

of the alleged discrimination but may fle a complaint on behalf of another 

person or group.3 Upon receiving a complaint, OCR’s primary objectives are 

to investigate the allegations of discrimination promptly, determine whether 

a civil rights violation has occurred, and, where a violation is established, 

remedy the violation by requiring recipients to take corrective action or 

make substantive changes to address civil rights violations and compliance 

concerns (i.e., resolutions with change).4 In FY 2019, OCR received 9,990 

new civil rights complaints and resolved 10,644 complaints—654 more 

complaints than OCR received. Of the 10,644 

complaint resolutions, 1,214 resolutions were 

considered resolutions with change. Figure 4: Complaint Backlog at the End of Each FY 

Reducing the Backlog of 

Pending Complaints 

Resolving civil rights complaints in an effective and timely manner is important for both 

students and schools. As Secretary DeVos 

has emphasized, “Justice delayed is justice 

denied.” Despite an increasing caseload and 

fuctuating staff levels, OCR has continued to 

prioritize the timely and effective resolution 

of complaints. 

When the Trump Administration took offce 

on January 20, 2017, OCR had a backlog 

of 7,854 pending civil rights complaints. Of 

these pending complaints, 3,397 were over 

180 days old. By the end of FY 2019, OCR 

had resolved 6,431 of the inherited complaints and reduced the overall number of 

pending complaints to 4,718. Over the course 

of the last three years, OCR has reduced the number of pending complaints older than 180 days to 2,817 (see fgure 4). For the frst time in at 

least the last 10 years, in FY 2019, every one of OCR’s 12 regional 

BY THE NUMBERS 

In FY 2019, OCR 

n Received 9,990 complaints 

n Resolved 10,644 complaints 

n Resolved 1,800 total allegations in 1,214 complaints 

with change 

This was the third consecutive year in which OCR’s resolved 

complaints have outpaced the number of complaints received. 

Figure 3: OCR Allegations Received in FY 2019 Complaints, by Statute 

9 

0.09% 

Section 504/Title II 

Title IX 

Title VI 

Other 

Age Discrimination Act 

Boy Scouts of America 

Equal Access Act 

52%

14%

21% 

8% 

4% 

14,000

12,000 

10,000

8,000

6,000 

4,000 

2,000

0 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Total pending complaints 2,195 2,604 2,273 2,098 2,691 3,848 11,970 7,019 5,376 4,718 

Pending complaints >180 days 476 470 436 389 630 1,312 2,715 4,045 3,323 2,817 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

offces reduced its number of complaints older than 180 days (see fgure 

5). Collectively, in FY 2019, the regional offces reduced the number of 

complaints older than 180 days by 510, resulting in the lowest overall 

number of complaints older than 180 days in three years. 

After two years of digging out from the backlog of cases, including 

cases older than 180 days, in FY 2019, OCR began to focus on reducing 

the number of pending complaints older than two years. As a result or 

by-product of this new focus, in FY 2019, OCR achieved a reduction in 

the number of aged cases (cases older than one year). As demonstrated 

by fgure 6, in just one year, OCR reduced the total number of pending 

complaints older than 356 days by 336 complaints. As explained more 

Figure 5: OCR Regional Offices Each Year that 

Reduced the Number of Cases 181+ Days Old 

12 

OCR regional offces 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

2 5 5 8 2 0 0 0 10 12 

fully below, OCR has done this while processing the 10,000+ complaints 

received in FY 2019 and opening record numbers of proactive investigations to ensure equal access for students with disabilities. See fgures 4, 5, 

and 6 for more information on OCR’s complaint backlog from year to year. 

Strengthening Case Resolutions 

In addition to the backlog inherited by the current administration, in recent 

years there has been an increase in the annual number of complaints 

fled with OCR. For instance, OCR received 6,936 complaints in FY 2010 

compared to 9,990 complaints in FY 2019, which is a 44 percent increase 

in the number of annual complaints received. Comparing other fscal years 

to FY 2010 would reveal an even more dramatic increase. 

Based on more effcient case processing, in recent years, OCR case 

resolutions have substantially outpaced the number of complaints 

received.5 During FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR received a combined 

total of 35,267 complaints. A comparable number of complaints were 

received during the previous three years (37,153). However, during 

FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR resolved a combined total of 42,515 

complaints, compared to only 27,291 complaints resolved during 

FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 combined. As illustrated by fgure 7, OCR 

previously struggled to keep pace with the number of complaints received, 

but the Offce resolved 7,248 more complaints than it received during FYs 

2017, 2018, and 2019. 

Figure 7: Complaints Received and Resolved: Last Three Years of 

Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current Administration 

10 

45,000 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Complaints received 37,153 35,267 

Complaints resolved 27,291 42,515 

Figure 6: Pending Complaints > 365 Days at the End of Each FY 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

267 296 293 250 343 740 1,640 2,752 2,808 2,472 
OCR has also increased the number of resolutions with change. 

Comparing the number of resolutions with change achieved in FY 2010 

to the number of resolutions with change achieved 10 years later, in FY 

2019, reveals a 20 percent increase in the annual number of resolutions 

with change. Signifcantly, during the last three years, OCR resolved 

a combined total of 4,658 complaints with change, or 1,509 more 

complaints than OCR resolved the prior three years. Specifcally, the 

current administration resolved 6,957 allegations of discrimination with 

change—nearly 2,000 more allegations resolved with change than OCR 

achieved during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 (see fgure 8). 

Achieving Timely Complaint Resolutions 

Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, OCR’s goal 

has been to resolve at least 80 percent of new complaints within 180 

days of receipt. In FY 2019, each of OCR’s 12 regional offces achieved 

this goal for the frst time since FY 2014, resulting in OCR’s regional 

offces collectively resolving 92 percent of its cases within the 180-day 

timeline—the highest percentage since FY 2014 (see fgure 9). 

Proactive Investigations 

OCR is required by regulation to initiate “periodic compliance reviews” to 

assess the practices of recipients to determine whether they comply with 

the anti-discrimination laws enforced by OCR,6 although these regulations 

afford OCR broad discretion to determine the substantive issues for 

investigation and the number and frequency of the investigations. OCR 

also has the authority to initiate directed investigations when information 

indicates a possible failure to comply with the civil rights laws and 

regulations, the matter warrants attention, and the compliance concern 

is not otherwise being addressed through OCR’s complaint, compliance 

review, or technical assistance activities. Together, the compliance reviews 

and directed investigations comprise OCR’s “proactive investigations.” 

Figure 8: Complaints Resolved with Change: Last Three Years of 

Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current Administration 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Allegations resolved with change by statute 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Other 0 1 

Boy Scouts 17 0 

Age 39 42 

Title IX 573 918 

Title VI 448 520 

Section 504/Title II 3,886 5,476 

Figure 9: Percentage of OCR Cases Resolved Within 180 Days 

11 

20,000 

18,000 

16,000 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

93% 95% 93% 92% 90% 92% 

86% 

78% 

81% 84% 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Complaints reaching day 180 by end of FY 6,671 7,159 8,051 9,251 10,551 10,004 9,823 17,476 12,453 12,250 

Complaints resolved by day 180 6,025 6,580 7,491 8,790 9,864 8,649 7,625 14,185 10,474 11,303 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

During the last few years, especially 2018 and 2019, OCR has taken 

on an ambitious proactive agenda. Over the course of FYs 2017, 2018, 

and 2019, OCR initiated 703 proactive investigations—over 10 times 

the number of proactive investigations launched over the course of FYs 

2014, 2015, and 2016 and over three times the number of investigations 

launched by the prior administration in all eight years combined (see 

fgure 10). In FY 2019, OCR launched compliance reviews across all 

of its 12 regional offces as part of a nationwide initiative to address 

the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion against students with 

disabilities, which is discussed at greater length below. Additionally, and in 

response to media reports of three universities grossly mishandling reports 

of sexual misconduct on their campuses, in FY 2018, at the direction of 

Secretary DeVos, OCR launched three directed investigations focused on 

addressing sexual violence at postsecondary institutions. Finally, in FY 

2019, OCR initiated 674 directed investigations to determine whether 

recipients were violating the civil rights laws by failing to make their online 

programs and websites accessible to students with disabilities, also 

discussed further below. 

Over the last three years, OCR has not only launched more proactive 

investigations but has also resolved more proactive investigations 

compared to the prior three-year period. During the last three years, OCR 

resolved a total of 103 proactive investigations—more than double the 

number resolved during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 combined. Of the 103 

proactive investigations resolved, 65 were compliance reviews—21 more 

than OCR resolved during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016. This is a 48 percent 

increase in the total number of compliance reviews closed over a threeyear period. In FY 2019 alone, OCR resolved 36 directed investigations, 

including several related to website accessibility and at least one major 

Title IX investigation (see fgure 11). 

Figure 10: Proactive Investigations Initiated: Last Three Years of 

Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current Administration 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Directed investigations 0 677 

Compliance reviews 70 26 

Figure 11: Proactive Investigations Resolved: Last Three Years of 

Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current Administration 

12 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Directed investigations 4 38 

Compliance reviews 44 65 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

Promoting Free Inquiry 

On March 21, 2019, President Trump signed Executive Order 13864, 

“Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and 

Universities.”7 With the issuance of this executive order, the administration sought to promote free and open debate on college and university 

campuses, provide greater access to critical information regarding the 

prices and outcomes of postsecondary education, and increase institutional accountability by encouraging institutions to take into account likely 

employment outcomes when establishing the cost of their degrees. In an 

effort to hold institutions of higher education accountable for both student 

outcomes and for the promotion of First Amendment principles on college 

and university campuses, the executive order: 

1. Instructs federal agencies to “take appropriate steps, in a manner

consistent with applicable law, including the First Amendment,

to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education

grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all

applicable federal laws, regulations, and policies;” and

2. Directs the Secretary of Education to collect and make available

additional program-level and institution-level information

concerning costs and employment outcomes.

The First Amendment and Case Processing 

On November 19, 2018, OCR announced revisions to its CPM consistent 

with the White House’s efforts to promote free, fair, and open debate 

in education. The CPM describes OCR’s procedures for evaluating and 

investigating complaints, compliance reviews, and directed investigations, 

as well as the actions OCR will take when it fnds civil rights violations or 

to effect voluntary compliance.8 The revised CPM replaced the previous 

March 2018 CPM and included, inter alia, a provision committing OCR to 

consider First Amendment principles throughout its enforcement of federal 

civil rights laws. 

Specifcally, OCR added Section 109, which states in part, “OCR will not 

interpret any statute or regulation to impinge upon rights protected under 

the First Amendment or to require recipients to encroach upon the exercise of such rights.” By requiring OCR staff to consider the First Amendment when evaluating, investigating, and resolving civil rights complaints, 

the CPM now clarifes that OCR’s regulations do not restrict activities that 

are protected under the First Amendment and ensures that all actions 

taken by OCR—or required of institutions under resolution agreements 

with OCR—must comport with First Amendment principles. It also signals 

to schools that, in regulating the conduct of students and faculty to 

prevent or redress discrimination, schools “must formulate, interpret, and 

apply their rules in a manner that respects the legal rights of students and 

faculty, including those court precedents interpreting the concept of 

free speech.”9 

In this important way, OCR furthers the President’s executive order on 

“Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and 

Universities.” Moreover, recent complaint resolutions highlight the importance of the new First Amendment provisions: 

Case 1: OCR dismissed a complaint alleging that a university failed 

to appropriately respond to harassment on the basis of race and sex, 

explaining that the alleged harassment constituted protected speech 

under the First Amendment. The complaint alleged that a fellow 

student harassed a student group by asking offensive questions, 

attempting to engage the group in a debate, posting offensive comments on the group’s social media pages, and suggesting that the 

college invite a speaker on campus who made members of the student group uncomfortable. In its dismissal letter, OCR explained that 

the specifc facts of the case raised First Amendment concerns and 

that OCR has long recognized that “the offensiveness of a particular 

expression, standing alone, is not a legally suffcient basis to establish 

a hostile environment under the statutes OCR enforces.” 

Case 2: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a university discriminated against students of Jewish descent by failing to appropriately 

respond to anti-Semitic harassment, contributing to a hostile environment on campus. The university entered into a voluntary resolution 

agreement with OCR to resolve the allegations, which requires the 

university to take a number of actions to address the hostile environment and to make clear to the campus community that harassment 

based on students’ actual or perceived ancestry or ethnic characteristics may constitute prohibited discrimination. The parties provided, 

in an important new provision, that “all actions taken pursuant to this 

agreement are consistent with the First Amendment of the 

US Constitution.” 

13 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

Improvements to

Case Processing 

Revisions to the Case Processing Manual 

In FY 2019, OCR revised its CPM to refect its commitment to protecting 

First Amendment rights, fostering greater transparency, and safeguarding 

due process throughout OCR’s investigatory process, including robust, 

newly reinstated appeals processes that have been coupled with a reinstated process for conducting Quality Assurance Reviews. 

In addition to the new First Amendment provisions in Section 109, the 

revised CPM also contains several revisions that foster traditional notions 

of transparency and due process: 

n The explicit requirement that recipient institutions must receive 

a copy of the complaint and/or appeal at the outset of an 

investigation or appeal process (see Revised CPM, §§ 111 

and 307); 

n Additional provisions setting forth a robust appeals process, which 

provides complainants the opportunity to submit a written appeal 

within 60 days of OCR’s determination and provides recipient 

institutions with an opportunity to submit a written response (see 

Revised CPM, §307); 

n Clarifcations that OCR will no longer dismiss allegations in a 

complaint solely because the complainant failed to raise the 

allegations in a currently pending proceeding in another forum that 

is based on the same operative facts as the complaint fled with 

OCR; and 

n An additional provision indicating that OCR will no longer dismiss 

complaints that are a continuation of a pattern of complaints 

previously fled with OCR by an individual or group. 

With these revisions to the CPM, OCR demonstrates its renewed commitment to transparency and due process. For example, automatically providing a recipient with copies of any complaints or appeals promotes open 

communication and ensures that a recipient receives suffcient notice of 

the nature of the allegations against them and can properly prepare for 

an OCR investigation. In a similar vein, revisions made to the bases for dismissals and to clarify the appropriate use of statistical data in complaints 

give rise to greater transparency in OCR’s case processing, especially its 

process of evaluating complaints on their face. 

OCR’s revised CPM also promotes procedural due process by 

reinstituting and expanding complainants’ right to appeal certain 

adverse determinations. This process serves as an essential safeguard 

against inconsistent or erroneous case outcomes and thereby increases 

confdence in OCR’s determinations. 

Quality Assurance Reviews 

To complement the revisions to the CPM, in FY 2019, OCR also introduced 

post-case resolution Quality Assurance Reviews to ensure consistency 

and quality in case processing among OCR’s 12 regional enforcement 

offces, to identify best practices, and to pinpoint areas where further 

training or instruction may be necessary. Under this new procedure, 

designated teams of OCR staff review select cases to ensure that case 

outcomes comply with the requirements of federal civil rights laws and to 

determine whether fndings of fact, analysis, and/or legal conclusions can 

be materially enhanced. 

Post-case resolution Quality Assurance Reviews ensure that OCR policies 

and procedures are implemented uniformly nationwide to the beneft of 

complainants and recipient institutions alike. In addition, they may assist 

the Assistant Secretary, headquarters staff, and regional directors in 

identifying best practices or areas for additional training which, in turn, 

can lead to greater effciency in case processing across the 12 regional 

offces. Most importantly, this new initiative ensures that in every case 

OCR meets the needs of each individual student consistent with the 

protections afforded by the federal civil rights laws. 

14 
15 

Office for Civil Rightts | s | FFiscal Year 20199 

National Initiative: 

Inappropriate Use of

Restraint and Seclusion 

On January 17, 2019, Secretary DeVos announced the Department’s 

initiative to address the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion in 

our nation’s public elementary and secondary schools.10 In some cases, 

the use of restraint and seclusion may result in unlawful discrimination 

against students with disabilities in violation of federal civil rights laws. For 

example, inappropriate seclusions can result in hours of lost educational 

instruction for students, and the inappropriate use of restraints has 

resulted in injury and even death in extreme cases. 

As with most compliance initiatives, this initiative was prompted in part 

by a sudden increase in the number of restraint and seclusion complaints 

and data collected by the CRDC. Beginning in FY 2015, OCR saw a sharp 

increase in the annual number of restraint and seclusion complaints fled 

with OCR and in the years since, OCR has continued to receive restraint 

and seclusion complaints at or near FY 2015 levels (see fgure 12). 

According to the 2015-16 CRDC, approximately 124,500 students were 

physically restrained, mechanically restrained, or secluded. During that 

period, students with disabilities represented 12 percent of all students 

enrolled but 71 percent of all students restrained and 66 percent of 

students secluded. 

OCR, together with OSERS, oversees the initiative which includes three 

components that draw on the work and expertise of OCR and OSERS: 

1. Compliance reviews conducted by OCR enforcement offces to

examine various recipients’ use of restraint and seclusion;

2. DQRs by OCR to improve the quality of restraint and seclusion data

submitted as part of the CRDC; and

3. Technical assistance provided by OCR and OSERS to schools,

districts, and LEAs.

In addition to helping schools and districts understand how federal law 

applies to the use of restraint and seclusion, the Department is also 

supporting schools seeking resources and information on the appropriate 

use of interventions and supports to address the behavioral needs 

of students with disabilities. In these ways, the initiative focuses on 

providing support to schools, districts, and LEAs while also strengthening 

enforcement activities in order to better protect students with disabilities 

and their families. 

Compliance Reviews 

In January 2019, OCR’s 12 regional offces collectively launched 23 

compliance reviews focused on recipients’ restraint and seclusion of 

students with disabilities. These compliance reviews focus on the possible 

inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion, and the effect of such 

practices on the school’s obligation to provide a free appropriate public 

education (FAPE) for all students with disabilities. In the course of each 

review, the OCR regional offces work to identify any potential compliance 

concerns and, if identifed, work with the recipient to appropriately address 

the concern. Although many of these compliance reviews are ongoing, 

Figure 12: Restraint and Seclusion Complaints Received 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

6 37 33 41 55 83 85 82 62 81 

OCR enforcement staff has been encouraged to learn that some school 

districts have detailed policies and procedures in place governing the use 

of restraint and seclusion, provide extensive staff training on the use of 

interventions and supports, and require regular team assessment following 

incidents of restraint and seclusion. 

To identify recipients for review within each region, the 12 regional offces 

and the Assistant Secretary reviewed various sources of information, 

including reported data on the number of incidents of restraint or seclusion within school districts; information from students, parents, advocacy 

groups, and community organizations; and news reports concerning 

the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion in certain localities. For 

instance, a 2018 news report indicating that a 12-year-old student died 

following the inappropriate use of restraint prompted the inclusion of one 

school district. The 12-year-old student was restrained by three staff 

members for 90 minutes and, although the student told the staff he was 

going to be sick, the student slipped into an unconscious state while 

restrained, was taken to the hospital, and died the following day. 

As part of the compliance reviews, OCR reviews information provided by 

recipients and conducts on-site visits to evaluate a recipient’s compliance 

with the requirements of Section 504 and Title II. In addition to reviewing 

data on the number of incidents of restraint and seclusion, recipients’ 

policies and procedures, and any training materials used by recipients, 

OCR has also conducted public forums for parents of students who had 

experienced restraint or seclusion and issued online surveys to parents of 

students with disabilities in the districts. OCR has selected schools for onsite visits based upon higher numbers of restraint and seclusion incidents, 

geographic diversity in the district, economic diversity, special programs, 

grade levels, and school population numbers. When reviewing the data 

and information gathered from parents, recipients, and on-site visits, OCR 

examines the events or circumstances under which the restraint or seclusion occurred or which led to the use of restraint or seclusion, the system 

or practice in place for monitoring and evaluating the use of restraint and 

seclusion of students, and any safeguards that are in place to ensure the 

use of restraint or seclusion does not discriminate against students on the 

basis of disability. 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

As it pertains to each individual student who is reportedly restrained or 

secluded, OCR investigates the student’s grade level and school, whether 

the student has a disability, the frequency with which that student was 

subjected to physical restraints or secluded, and the events or circumstances under which such restraint or seclusion occurred. For instance, 

in one case, OCR found that restraint times ranged from one minute to 

as many as 126 minutes and some students experienced 10 or more 

under-15-minute restraints during a period of approximately 90 minutes. 

In the same case, OCR also discovered that seclusion times ranged from 

one minute to as many as 315 minutes. In this case, OCR concluded that 

restraint and seclusion occurred across a broad array of students, but 54 

students—all of whom were students with disabilities—had at least 15 

restraint or seclusion incidents cumulatively during the two-year review 

period. After gathering information about incidents of restraint or seclusion, OCR examines the students’ Individualized Education Programs (also 

known as IEPs), Section 504 plans, Functional Behavior Assessments, 

and Behavior Intervention Plans (also known as BIPs), if any, as well as all 

documents relating to each incident of restraint or seclusion. 

The compliance reviews initiated by OCR are focused on correcting noncompliance with federal civil rights laws. Where violations are found as a 

result of OCR’s investigation, the Offce works with the recipients to ensure 

that any discrimination is addressed and recipients gain a better understanding of their obligations under Section 504 and Title II with respect to 

the restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities. 

Data Quality Reviews 

In a pioneering initiative to improve civil rights data quality, OCR reached 

out to 50 school districts that had reported anomalous data to the CRDC. 

For the frst time, DQRs involved OCR examining districts’ data submission 

for a particular data module, in this case the restraint and seclusion data 

module, and determining if anomalous data were submitted. As a result 

of this outreach, OCR had a large majority of the school districts submit 

amended restraint and seclusion data. Through DQRs and technical 

assistance, OCR is assisting school districts with the timely and accurate 

submission of data for future collections. 

In order to conduct the DQRs, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kenneth 

L. Marcus contacted 50 school districts whose recent CRDC restraint and

seclusion submissions raised data quality concerns. Two criteria were

used to select the 50 school districts for the DQRs: 1) school districts with

total enrollment greater than 10,000 students that reported no instances

of students subjected to mechanical restraint, physical restraint, and

seclusion, and 2) school districts with repeated counts for the number of

instances of mechanical restraint, physical restraint, and seclusion. As

a result, nearly two-thirds of these school districts worked with OCR to

submit amended data.11 

Technical Assistance 

The Department is also proactively providing restraint and seclusion 

technical assistance to state education agencies (SEAs) and school 

districts to ensure they are collecting and reporting accurate data to the 

CRDC and understand the legal requirements of Section 504, Title II, and 

the Individuals with Disabilities Act, also known as IDEA. Beginning in July 

2019, OCR and other Department staff led a number of presentations on 

the topic of collecting and reporting accurate restraint and seclusion data. 

OCR and OSERS launched a webinar, “Students with Disabilities and the 

Use of Restraint and Seclusion in K-12 Public Schools,” to ensure that the 

schools who serve those students are aware of their legal obligations under federal civil rights laws. Viewers have seen this webinar nearly 18,000 

times. In addition to the webinar, technical assistance was provided via 

departmental presentations: 

n Civil Rights Data Collection Overview and Data Quality (July 25, 

2019), Institute of Education Sciences, NCES, STATS-DC Data 

Conference (see PDF [563K]) 

n When Zeros Are Really Zeros: Ensuring High Quality Data in the 

2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection (July 25, 2019), Institute of 

Education Sciences, NCES, STATS-DC Data Conference 

(see PDF [553K]) 

n Students with Disabilities and the Use of Restraint and Seclusion 

in K-12 Public Schools (July 23, 2019), 2019 Offce of Special 

Education Programs Leadership Conference (see PDF [3.8MK]) 

n Civil Rights Data Collection: Technical Assistance for Reporting 

Quality Restraint and Seclusion Data (July 21, 2019), 2019 Offce 

of Special Education Programs Leadership Conference 

(see PDF [2.3M]) 

Between the compliance reviews conducted by the regional offces, CRDC 

DQRs conducted by the headquarters offce, and the provision of technical 

assistance, OCR will interact with countless recipients and help them to 

better understand their obligations under Section 504 and Title II, address 

any data quality concerns, and correct violations of federal disability laws. 

16 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

National Initiative: 

Website Accessibility 

Beginning in December 2018, OCR launched over 600 directed 

investigations nationwide to increase website and online accessibility for 

students with disabilities and bring long-lasting change in schools. In June 

2019, OCR organized a dedicated national team of enforcement staff, 

supported by technology consultants, to ensure that more schools achieve 

compliance in this area. Today, more than ever, education has moved 

online and is delivered through digital technology. Students and parents 

visit websites for up-to-date information, correspond with educators 

through online portals, obtain and turn in assignments through learning 

management systems, and rely on the convenience of mobile applications. 

National Team 

In June 2019, OCR created its frst full-time dedicated National Web 

Accessibility Team (the Team), which includes experienced civil rights 

attorneys, investigators, and information technology experts dedicated 

to technology accessibility. Each of OCR’s 12 regional offces has 

representation on the Team, supported by senior headquarters enforcement 

and policy experts. OCR brought on information technology accessibility 

consultants to add a depth of knowledge in the areas of testing and 

remediation. Team members immediately began establishing themselves 

nationally as solution-oriented, leading subject matter experts in a 

time when technology accessibility challenges and solutions are 

constantly evolving. 

The Team goes beyond traditional investigations, offering recipients 

in-depth technical assistance. Team members use consistent, validated 

protocols to achieve impactful and long-lasting change. They help schools, 

libraries, and their vendors better understand how to remediate—or avoid 

altogether—technological barriers to access for individuals with disabilities. 

They begin by testing a sample of the recipients’ websites and online 

programs to identify barriers, then hold video conference calls to explain 

the impact of the identifed concerns on the recipients’ pages. Schools, 

libraries, and vendors remove barriers identifed by OCR, learn during the 

process, and affrm their commitment to maintaining a high degree of 

accessibility for all students. Recipients that need more time to achieve 

compliance enter into short-term resolution agreements. 

Typically, for investigations involving general allegations that a recipient’s 

website or other online programs are inaccessible, Team members test a 

variety of high-traffc web pages of importance to students, parents, and 

members of the public. For school districts and charter schools, these 

include pages with topics such as the district home, special education, 

disability grievance processes, and school board policies. For colleges and 

universities, these include pages such as admissions, athletics, library 

services, and disability services. For libraries, these include pages such as 

the home page, the card catalog, and the calendar of events. 

The Team’s testing protocols include, but are not limited to: 

n Checking for keyboard access at standard resolution at a point of 

refow, to ensure people who are unable to use a computer mouse 

have access to all content and functionality; 

n Manually checking for adequate color contrast, to ensure people 

with low vision have access to content; 

n Checking for accurate form labels, so people who use audible 

screen readers are able to understand the purpose of form felds; 

n Verifying the presence of meaningful alternative text labels for 

graphic images and photographs, and for appropriate heading 

structure, for screen reader users; 

n Where videos are present, checking for accurate video captioning; 

and 

n Verifying document accessibility. 

The mere presence of technological barriers to access does not mean 

recipients have violated Section 504 or Title II. When Team members 

identify technological barriers, they perform a secondary analysis to 

determine whether the barriers impede individuals with disabilities from 

having an equal opportunity to enjoy recipients’ digital programs, services, 

or activities. If, for instance, the same information or functionality is 

provided in an accessible way, or equally effective alternate access is 

provided, recipients are in compliance with the laws enforced by OCR 

despite the presence of a technological barrier to access. 

Before resolving its investigations, OCR also looks for indications that the 

recipient has an effective strategy for maintaining compliance. 

Results 

Although launched in June 2019, the Team quickly improved access to 

education for individuals with disabilities by: 

n Resolving 24 investigations through a rapid resolution process, 

where recipients removed barriers to access for people with 

disabilities; 

n Resolving seven investigations through voluntary resolution 

agreements; and 

n Pursuing 643 other systemic investigations of recipients’ 

online programs. 

Two specifc examples of the Team’s success are provided below: 

OCR collaborated with a statewide assistive technology program, which 

hosted a three-day digital accessibility training for all libraries, school 

districts, charter schools, and postsecondary institutions throughout the 

state. On the frst day, OCR was a highlighted speaker, and an in-depth 

technical training was provided for all participants the other two days. As 

a result of its participation, OCR educated a large number of recipients on 

the requirements of Section 504 and Title II and helped recipients achieve 

proactive compliance, beneftting thousands of students with disabilities 

who receive education in the state. 

OCR had multiple directed investigations against public universities in the 

same state, all of which were represented by one state assistant attorney 

general. The Offce worked closely with the assistant attorney general, 

explaining why some universities would need to sign resolution agreements 

while others, having already developed stronger foundations in the area of 

technology accessibility, could remediate their barriers more quickly. 

OCR’s bold move to supplement its regional enforcement offces by 

creating this specialized Team helps LEAs and SEAs meet the technological 

challenges of our evolving educational landscape. The Team manifests 

OCR’s commitment to ensuring equal access to education for people with 

disabilities while adhering to consistent, validated enforcement protocols. 

17 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

Title IX: Discrimination 

Based on Sex 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education program and activities that receive 

federal funds. Title IX states: “No person in the United States shall, on the 

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

or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity 

receiving Federal fnancial assistance.” 

Title IX applies to all recipients of federal fnancial assistance, including, 

among others, colleges and universities, public school districts, charter 

schools, alternative schools, vocational schools, and proprietary schools. 

Cases that OCR investigates under Title IX include those involving sexual 

harassment, sexual violence, different treatment in athletic programs, 

bullying and harassment based on sex that is not sexual in nature, and 

retaliation for fling a complaint. 

Key Facts 

In FY 2019, OCR received 1,802 complaints containing 2,418 alleged Title 

IX violations and resolved 2,713 Title IX allegations in 2,005 complaints. 

Of these resolutions, 250 Title IX allegations raised in 180 complaints 

were resolved with change. The largest number involved claims of sexual 

harassment (excluding sexual violence), different treatment based on sex, 

retaliation, and sexual violence. See fgure 13 for more specifc information 

on the variety of Title IX allegations received and resolved by OCR during 

FY 2019. In addition, OCR resolved one 2016 compliance review involving 

BY THE NUMBERS 

In FY 2019, OCR 

n Received 1,802 Title IX complaints 

n Resolved 2,005 Title IX complaints 

n Resolved 250 Title IX allegations in 180 complaints with change 

issues related to athletics and two major sexual violence investigations, one 

against Michigan State University and one against Chicago Public Schools. 

During the frst three years of the current administration (FYs 2017–2019), 

OCR increased Title IX resolutions and resolutions with change when 

compared to the last three years of the previous administration. In FY 

2019, OCR resolved more Title IX allegations with change than in FYs 

2014, 2015, and 2016. Just in the last two fscal years, FYs 2018 and 

2019, OCR resolved 106 more Title IX allegations with change than during 

FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 combined. When comparing the last three 

years under the prior administration to the frst three years of the current 

administration, the difference in the number of resolutions with change is 

more striking. In FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019 combined, OCR resolved a 

total of 918 Title IX allegations with change—345 (or 60 percent) more 

than those resolved with change in FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 combined 

(see fgure 14). In FY 2018, OCR resolved 47 more Title IX allegations with 

change than in FYs 2015 and 2016 combined. These increases occurred 

across Title IX issue areas, the most notable of them being sexual violence 

and sexual harassment.12 

Figure 13: Title IX Allegations Received and Resolved in FY 2019 

18 

Sexual/gender harassment 

Different treatment/denial of benefts 

Retaliation 

Sexual violence 

Athletics 

Employment 

Grievance procedures 

Dissemination of policy 

Admissions 

Discipline 

Designation of responsible employee 

Grading 

Financial assistance/scholarships** 

Pregnancy/parenting 

Access to courses, GATE, and single-sex courses* 

Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) 

Housing 

Other 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 

Resolved Received 

223 

242 

487 

123 

127 

67 

76 

62 

29 

18 

13 

96 

10 

7 

2 

2 

140 

161 

537 

551 

429 

83 

131 

137 

81 

49 

15 

16 

34 

3 

8 

1 

39 

3 

568 

561 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

During the frst three years of the current administration, OCR resolved 

over three times the total number of sexual violence allegations resolved 

in the last three years of the prior administration. During FYs 2017, 2018, 

and 2019, OCR resolved 790 sexual violence allegations, compared to 

222 during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016. OCR also achieved a sevenfold 

increase in resolutions with change in the category of sexual violence. In 

FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR resolved a total of 158 sexual violence 

allegations with change—134 more sexual violence allegations resolved 

with change than achieved during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 combined 

(see fgure 15). In 2018 alone, OCR resolved more sexual violence allegations by requiring corrective action to protect students’ civil rights than the 

prior administration resolved in eight years. 

The total number of resolved sexual harassment (excluding sexual 

violence) allegations increased 89 percent during the frst three years 

under the current administration compared to the total number of sexual 

harassment allegations resolved during last three years under the prior 

administration—from 974 sexual harassment allegations resolved in 

FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 to 1,836 in FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019. The 

number of sexual harassment allegations resolved with change nearly 

doubled. During FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016, OCR resolved 109 sexual 

harassment allegations with change. By contrast, in FYs 2017, 2018, and 

2019, OCR achieved a total of 209 sexual harassment allegations resolved 

with change (see fgure 16). 

The complaints and compliance reviews summarized below are a 

small but representative sampling of the types of Title IX investigations 

conducted by OCR and the remedies that were obtained as a result of the 

investigations. The remedies imposed were deemed appropriate for the 

facts of the specifc case. 

Case Summaries 

Combating Sexual Harassment in K-12 

Case 1: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a school failed to adequately respond to allegations that a coach of a combined middle and high 

school volleyball team sexually harassed female volleyball players and that 

the school violated Title IX with respect to its policy on sex discrimination, 

grievance procedures, and failure to designate a Title IX coordinator. 

During its investigation, OCR reviewed the school’s relevant policies and 

procedures, emails exchanged between both parties, meeting notes 

regarding the allegations, and information relating to the school’s initial 

investigation and the complainant’s subsequent grievance. OCR found 

evidence that the school inadequately investigated the matter due to the 

failure to interview all witnesses, an imposition of a gag order that limited 

the ability of the parties to obtain and present evidence, and failure to provide the complainant with a copy of a written report provided to the coach. 

OCR also discovered that the school’s investigation of the complaint’s 

subsequent grievance was defective because the investigator lacked training on investigating complaints and sex discrimination, may not have been 

impartial during the investigation, and failed to adequately summarize the 

evidence or identify the evidentiary or the legal standards that were used. 

To remedy the matter, the school agreed to a resolution agreement in 

which it agreed to report to OCR on all complaints of sex discrimination, 

provide staff with training on sex discrimination, designate an adequately 

trained Title IX coordinator, and revise its procedures on responding to 

complaints of sex discrimination. 

Figure 14: Title IX Allegations Resolved with Change: Last Three 

Years of Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current 

Administration 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

573 918 

Figure 15: Allegations of Sexual Violence Resolved: Last Three Years 

of Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current Administration 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Allegations resolved with change 24 158 

Allegations resolved without change 198 632 

Figure 16: Allegations of Sexual Harassment or Bullying Based 

on Sex Resolved: Last Three Years of Prior Administration and 

First Three Years of Current Administration 

19 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Allegations resolved with change 109 209 

Allegations resolved without change 865 1,627 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

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

to promptly and equitably respond to a report that a female student was 

sexually assaulted by a teacher when the student was dually enrolled in 

both the district and a technical institute. 

During its investigation, OCR reviewed documentation from the complainant, the school district’s Title IX policy manual and grievance 

procedures, the school district’s student handbook, and the school 

district’s notice of nondiscrimination. OCR’s investigation discovered that 

the district’s notice of nondiscrimination was incomplete and was not 

posted on its website, its Title IX coordinator lacked adequate training and 

experience, its Title IX grievance procedures provided an appeal process 

to reporting parties but not to the responding parties, and its Title IX policy 

did not include a statement notifying students that questions regarding 

Title IX may be referred to the recipient’s Title IX coordinator or to OCR, nor 

did it provide for notice to the responding party of the outcome of 

the investigation. 

To resolve these issues, the district voluntarily entered into a resolution 

agreement with OCR. Pursuant to this agreement, the district agreed to 

submit to OCR for its review and approval a revised notice of nondiscrimination and grievance procedures; to adopt, publish, and implement them 

following OCR’s written notifcation that the procedures and notice are 

consistent with the requirements of Title IX; and to develop and provide 

Title IX training to its Title IX coordinator and all district staff who interact 

with students on a regular basis. 

Combating Sexual Harassment in Postsecondary Institutions 

Case 1: OCR initiated a Title IX compliance review of a university’s 

response to complaints of sexual violence and other sexual harassment 

based on a large number of sexual violence complaints and various 

media reports. OCR conducted an extensive investigation, reviewing the 

university’s sexual harassment and sexual misconduct policies, examining 

fles related to the university’s response to these complaints of sexual 

misconduct, interviewing university staff members, conducting student 

focus groups, and observing the university in an on-site review. 

OCR’s investigation indicated that, during a three-year review period, 

the university received approximately 191 reports of sexual harassment, 

including at least 104 reports of sexual assaults. OCR discovered evidence 

of a lack of consistency in providing both parties with notice of the 

outcome of the Title IX complaint process, a practice of issuing no-contact 

orders to respondents without frst making a case-specifc assessment, 

a failure to provide respondents with adequate information in the initial 

notice regarding complainants’ allegations, and delays at various stages of 

the Title IX complaint resolution process. 

Prior to the completion of OCR’s investigation, the university entered into 

a resolution agreement with OCR under which the university agreed to 

review its responses to sexual harassment complaints for a nine-month 

period to ensure that its responses were prompt and equitable, draft a report to OCR identifying any problems relating to those responses, and take 

prompt and appropriate action to address those problems. The agreement 

also required the university to revise its notice of nondiscrimination, ensure 

that it continues to notify employees and students of the name of and 

contact information for its Title IX coordinator, post notices of its sexual 

misconduct policies, and maintain a procedure for documenting each 

report or complaint of sex discrimination. 

Case 2: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a college discriminated 

against a female student on the basis of sex by failing to promptly and equitably respond to her reports of sexual assault by another student with a 

voluntary resolution agreement pursuant to CPM Section 302. Specifcally, 

the complaint alleged that the college failed to provide a female student 

with notice of the timeframes for the investigation of a complaint, did not 

notify the student when the respondent fled an appeal, and denied the 

female student appropriate interim measures with respect to housing and 

no-contact orders, including failing to take action against the respondent 

for violating the orders. The female student further alleged conficts of 

interest in the investigation of the complaint. 

In OCR’s investigation, it reviewed documents provided by the parties, 

interviewed the complainant and college personnel, and conducted an 

on-site review of the college. Based on the evidence obtained, OCR had 

concerns that the college may not have been in compliance with Title IX 

with respect to its failures to include suffcient investigatory timeframes 

in its Title IX policy, provide both parties with counseling and confdential 

advocacy services, provide the student with notice of its investigative 

timeframes, provide both parties with access to group academic advisor 

sessions, and promptly amend a no-contact order. 

Prior to the completion of OCR’s investigation, the college entered into 

a resolution agreement in which it agreed to revise its Title IX policy to 

provide for designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major 

stages of the complaint process, take steps to ensure that it is making 

individualized assessments regarding interim measures for both complainants and respondents, develop an internal procedure to ensure that 

no-contact orders issued in Title IX cases are disseminated by the campus 

safety offce to the Title IX team and the associate dean of students or other college offcials responsible for student housing, and provide training to 

its Title IX coordinator, deputy Title IX coordinator(s), Title IX team, campus 

safety staff, associate dean of students, dean of students, and staff. 

Ensuring Equal Opportunities in Educational Programs 

and Activities 

OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a university discriminated against 

males on the basis of sex through its programs related to fnancial assistance, internships, mentoring, student groups, employee recruitment, and 

housing, as well as its outreach to high school students. 

OCR conducted an extensive investigation into 47 programs and activities, 

reviewing materials submitted by both parties, and dismissed allegations 

related to 31 of them because they either failed to state a violation of the 

laws OCR enforces, lacked suffcient factual information to support an 

inference that discrimination may have taken place, or were beyond 

OCR’s jurisdiction. 

To remedy issues uncovered with the remaining 16 programs and activities, OCR and the university reached a resolution agreement. Pursuant to 

the agreement, the university was required to review 16 specifc programs and activities as well as all others related to fnancial assistance, 

internships, mentoring, and student groups; make all needed changes to 

bring these programs into compliance with Title IX while reporting those 

changes to OCR; and provide adequate training to university staff who 

administer the programs to ensure that administration is consistent with 

the requirements of Title IX. 

20 
21 

Office for Civil Rightts | s | FFiscal Year 201199

Issue Spotlight: 

Addressing Sexual

Violence in Schools 

Prohibited discrimination under Title IX can take many forms. One common 

form it takes is harassment, including sexual violence, based on sex. 

Over 20 years ago, the US Supreme Court held that a school’s duty not to 

discriminate on the basis of sex goes beyond just the school itself discriminating against students. It also requires schools to respond appropriately 

when they learn of sexual violence among students or between an employee and a student. In FY 2019, the Department brought greater awareness 

to the issue of sexual violence in schools. First, the Department published 

proposed Title IX regulations that, for the frst time, aimed to codify sexual 

harassment—including sexual assault—as a form of prohibited sex 

discrimination.13 Second, OCR pursued major systemic investigations 

concerning schools’ handling of sexual violence reports that would result 

in policy changes impacting hundreds of thousands of students enrolled at 

a university and one of the nation’s largest K-12 school districts. 

Much attention has been given to the issue of sexual violence in 

postsecondary education (also known as PSE), but OCR’s data 

demonstrates an alarming increase in the number of incidents in 

elementary and secondary education (also known as ESE) as well. Sexual 

violence complaints fled against elementary and secondary schools 

increased by 208 percent between FY 2010 and FY 2019 (see fgure 17). 

Moreover, according to the 2015-16 CRDC, there were approximately 

9,700 incidents of sexual assault, rape, or attempted rape reported in 

public elementary and secondary schools. This violence against even 

our youngest and most vulnerable students is of great concern. OCR has 

proposed to expand the CRDC to collect more detailed data involving 

sexual violence such as rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault. The 

proposed survey questions request data on the number of allegations of 

rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault against school staff or personnel; 

the number of such allegations that resulted in a fnding that the staff 

member or personnel was responsible; the number of such allegations 

that resulted in a fnding that they were not responsible; and the number 

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

duty reassignment prior to fnal discipline or termination. 

These questions promote student safety and further the Department’s 

commitment to study measures taken by states and school districts to 

prevent a phenomenon known as “Pass the Trash” (see pp. 35–36, 38 

herein). As Secretary DeVos stated, “Students, faculty, and staff must all 

feel empowered to come forward, know that they will be taken seriously, 

and know that the Department of Education will hold schools accountable.” 

OCR’s actions support that empowerment. 

Over the last three years (FYs 2017–2019), OCR received nearly the same 

amount of sexual violence complaints as it did during the last three fscal 

years under the prior administration (FYs 2014–2016). OCR received 

a total of 648 sexual violence complaints during FYs 2014, 2015, and 

2016 and a total of 647 sexual violence complaints during FYs 2017, 

2018, and 2019 (see fgure 18). Despite receiving a comparable number 

of complaints, OCR’s handling of sexual violence complaints under the 

current administration has been much more effective. During FYs 2017, 

2018, and 2019, OCR resolved 750 complaints involving allegations of 

sexual violence in educational institutions. In comparison, during FYs 

Figure 17: K-12 Sexual Violence Complaints Received 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

24 22 16 31 22 64 84 87 89 74 

Figure 18: Sexual Violence Complaints Received: Last Three Years of 

Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current Administration 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Received—ESE 170 250 

Received—PSE 478 397 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

2014, 2015, and 2016, OCR had only resolved 211 sexual violence 

complaints (see fgure 19). Turning to resolutions with change, during the 

frst fscal three years under the current administration, OCR resolved 172 

sexual violence complaints with change—six times more resolutions with 

change than the prior administration achieved in FYs 2014, 2015, and 

2016, which was 27 (see fgure 20). 

Title IX Formal Rulemaking 

In 1972, Congress enacted Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, 

which states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be 

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

to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal 

fnancial assistance.” In 1974, formal rules were prepared and published 

for public comment. After considering those public comments, fnal 

regulations were issued in 1975. 

In the decades since the regulations were issued in 1975, the Department 

has not promulgated any Title IX regulations to address sexual harassment 

as a form of sex discrimination. Instead the Department addressed this 

subject through sub-regulatory guidance—in a 1997 Guidance document, 

a 2011 Dear Colleague letter, and a 2014 Questions and Answers 

document. Legal commentators and scholars criticized both the 2011 

Dear Colleague letter and the 2014 Questions and Answers document for, 

among other things, “placing improper pressure upon universities to adopt 

procedures that do not afford fundamental fairness.” Those documents 

may have been well-intentioned, but they led to the deprivation of rights 

for many students—not only accused students who were denied fair 

process but also victims who were denied an adequate resolution of their 

complaints. Not to mention, the Department’s sub-regulatory guidance on 

sexual harassment did not have the force and effect of law. 

The Department examined how schools were applying Title IX, and prior 

OCR guidance, to sexual harassment. The Department conducted listening 

sessions and had discussions with stakeholders expressing a variety of 

positions for and against the status quo. The Department also reviewed 

information that included white papers, reports, and recommendations 

issued over the past several years by legal and public policy scholars, civil 

rights groups, and committees of nonpartisan organizations. 

The Department determined that the guidance on sexual harassment, as 

a form of sex discrimination, was insuffcient to provide clear direction 

on this subject because it had created confusion and uncertainty among 

recipients and had not adequately advised recipients on how to uphold 

Title IX’s nondiscrimination mandate while at the same time meeting 

requirements of constitutional due process and fundamental fairness. 

Accordingly, the Department decided to develop an approach to sexual 

harassment that responds to the concerns of stakeholders and aligns with 

the purpose of Title IX to achieve equal access to educational benefts, and 

to do this through a rulemaking process that responds to public comment. 

After more than a year of work, in November 2018, the Department 

offcially announced its intention to codify schools’ obligations with 

respect to sexual harassment under Title IX and published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register.

14 By publishing the notice 

in the Federal Register, the Department formally proposed to amend the 

regulation implementing Title IX in several important respects. 

Figure 19: Sexual Violence Complaints Resolved: Last Three Years 

of Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current 

Administration 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Resolved—ESE 54 259 

Resolved—PSE 157 491 

Figure 20: Sexual Violence Complaints Resolved with Change: 

Last Three Years of Prior Administration and First Three Years 

of Current Administration 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

2014-2016 

Resolved with change—ESE 13 

2017-2019 

82 

Resolved with change—PSE 14 90 

Specifcally, the Department proposed to, among other things: 

n Defne sexual harassment in Title IX regulations for the frst time; 

n Require schools to respond meaningfully to every report of sexual 

harassment and investigate every formal complaint; and 

n Ensure that basic protections consistent with constitutional due 

process and fundamental fairness are in place for all students. 

The Department extended the original 60-day public comment period 

twice to allow all interested parties to submit comments. The Department 

received over 124,000 public comments on the proposed rule. The 

Department then invested extensive time and resources during most of 

FY 2019 to review, analyze, carefully consider, and respond to each and 

every comment. After years of wide-ranging research, careful deliberation, 

and critical input from survivors, advocates, falsely accused students, 

school administrators, Title IX coordinators, and the American people, the 

Department announced its Title IX Final Rule on May 6, 2020.15 

22 
 

The fnal rule defnes sexual harassment, including sexual assault, as 

unlawful sex discrimination for the frst time ever in the Department’s 

regulations. The fnal rule also imposes important legal obligations on 

schools, requiring a prompt response to reports of sexual harassment. 

Additionally, the fnal rule improves the clarity and transparency of the 

requirements for how schools must respond to sexual harassment 

under Title IX so that every complainant receives appropriate support, 

respondents are deemed responsible for the alleged conduct only after 

receiving due process, and school offcials serve impartially without bias 

for or against any party. 

Chicago Public Schools 

On September 12, 2019, OCR resolved its largest-ever systemic sexual 

assault investigation involving an urban public school system when it 

announced a resolution agreement with Chicago Public Schools following 

a fnding of systemic failure to address sexual violence within the school 

district.16 OCR received two separate complaints alleging that the 

Chicago Public Schools (the district) failed to respond to reports of 

student-on-student sexual harassment and sexual assault and reports of 

teacher-on-student sexual harassment and sexual assault, respectively. 

OCR not only opened investigations into both incidents but also initiated 

a systemic, district-wide investigation into whether the district repeatedly 

failed to respond to complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual 

assault, across the district’s 644 schools. 

The district had been selected for a new multi-year grant under the 

Magnet Schools Assistance program (MSAP) in 2017. In September 2018, 

while these sexual violence investigations were pending, the Assistant 

Secretary determined that based on facts already known due to these 

investigations, he could not certify that the district would meet its civil 

rights nondiscrimination assurances under the MSAP statute. Accordingly, 

consistent with the MSAP’s statutory requirement that “no grant shall be 

awarded” unless OCR’s Assistant Secretary determines that the civil rights 

nondiscrimination assurances “will be met,” the Department did not award 

MSAP funding to the district during FY 2018 (see 20 U.S.C. §7231d(c)). 

The Department did, however, extend the performance period to provide 

additional time for the district to take steps to meet these civil rights 

assurances by resolving its noncompliance with Title IX. 

OCR’s investigation, which involved OCR reviewing a sample of complaints 

from over 2,800 student-on-student and over 280 adult-on-student sexual 

harassment complaints, revealed that the district failed to appropriately 

respond to complaints of sexual harassment (including rape and sexual 

assault), did not provide services and remedies to the complainants, did 

not notify the complainants of investigation outcomes, and did not take 

effective action to ensure a safe environment for all students free from 

sexual harassment and sexual assault. Among other fndings, OCR’s 

investigation revealed that eight male students allegedly raped a female 

classmate only to have the incident inadequately resolved and that a high 

school teacher the district previously found engaged in sexual harassment 

had sexually assaulted one of his female students. OCR’s investigation 

further revealed that the district failed to adequately address hundreds of 

incidents involving students who experienced sexual harassment, including egregious sexual misconduct. The investigation also revealed that the 

district did not have a Title IX coordinator from 1999 to December 2018 

and did not have an adequate recordkeeping system for coordinating its 

Title IX responsibilities. 

Based on the Title IX violations uncovered, the district entered into a 

resolution agreement pursuant to which it agreed to undertake a substantial overhaul to its Title IX reporting structure and procedures, including 

making the following changes: 

n Provide complainants who believe the district mishandled their 

complaints of sexual misconduct with the opportunity to receive an 

independent review of those complaints; 

n Review the action of current and former district employees who 

failed to take appropriate responsive action to reports of sexual 

misconduct and, as appropriate, take responsive action concerning 

those employees; 

n Revise its current Title IX structure to ensure that the Title IX 

coordinator has full authority to effectively coordinate the district’s 

efforts to comply with Title IX; 

n Develop a comprehensive process for responding to all complaints 

of sex discrimination and fully document responsive actions taken; 

and 

n Change the district’s Title IX procedures to ensure impartial 

investigations of sexual misconduct complaints, including a 

requirement that attorneys involved in a Title IX investigation recuse 

themselves from handling the same case against the district. 

23 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

Chicago Public Schools is the nation’s third-largest public school district, 

and it employs over 36,000 permanent employees and works with over 

4,000 active vendors. The corrective actions will have a positive effect on 

the 370,000+ students enrolled in the district’s 644 schools, including 

513 district-run schools, 121 charter schools, nine contract schools, and 

one alternative safe school. In the wake of the resolution, Chicago Public 

Schools CEO Janice Jackson vowed that the district would be “working to 

ensure no student ever goes through that again” and praised the resolution agreement that “will help ensure our schools are free of harassment, 

abuse, and discrimination, and ensure our students have the supports they 

need to overcome challenges and reach their potential.” 

Michigan State University 

On September 5, 2019, OCR announced that it had reached a resolution 

with Michigan State University (MSU) to resolve a directed investigation 

into the university’s handling of reports of sexual misconduct by former 

employee and associate professor Dr. Larry Nassar.17 

At the direction of Secretary DeVos in February 2018, OCR launched a 

directed investigation into MSU’s handling of reports of sexual violence 

against Nassar. OCR’s investigation revealed that MSU failed to adequately 

respond to reports of sexual misconduct by Nassar and William Strampel 

(the former dean of MSU’s College of Osteopathic Medicine and Nassar’s 

supervisor). OCR’s investigation revealed that the university had received 

over 190 sexual misconduct complaints by or on behalf of Nassar’s former 

patients. Those complaints included allegations going back to 1989, when 

Nassar allegedly sexually assaulted a pre-teen female gymnast participating in a university program, and continuing until at least 2014, when 

a student reported to the university that Nassar sexually assaulted her 

during a medical examination by inappropriately touching her breast and 

vagina for a prolonged period of time. 

OCR’s investigation also revealed that top university offcials received 

reports from female students, faculty, administrators, and others 

that Strampel requested sexual favors in exchange for his academic 

support, touched them inappropriately, made sexually explicit comments 

concerning pole dancing, and shared naked pictures. OCR’s investigation 

also found that the university failed to take appropriate interim measures 

to protect its students while complaints against Nassar and Strampel 

were pending and failed to take prompt and effective steps to end any 

harassment, eliminate the hostile environment, and prevent any further 

harassment from recurring. 

To resolve the various Title IX violations discovered, OCR entered into an 

extensive and comprehensive resolution agreement with MSU. Under this 

agreement, the university, among other provisions, is required to take the 

following actions: 

n Make substantial changes to the university’s Title IX procedures 

and ensure that certain offcials recuse themselves from 

Title IX matters; 

n Take remedial actions to address the impact of the sexual 

misconduct by Nassar and Strampel on students, faculty, and other 

staff within the college, the sports medicine clinic, and related 

facilities, programs, and services; 

n Provide a process for those victims of Nassar, who have not 

otherwise had an opportunity to seek remedy, to come forward and 

seek remedies to which they might be entitled; 

n Review the actions of current and former employees of the 

university who had notice but who failed to take appropriate action 

in response to reports of sexual misconduct by Nassar or Strampel 

and consider appropriate sanctions against those employees; 

n Address the campus climate around issues of sexual harassment 

and sexual violence, strengthen staff training, and assess the need 

for additional student services; and 

n Exercise adequate Title IX oversight of the university’s youth 

programs by notifying youth program participants of its Title IX 

grievance procedure and that the procedures apply to 

youth programs. 

The major corrective actions required under the resolution agreement will 

positively beneft the 50,000+ students, including approximately 39,000 

undergraduate students and 11,000 graduate students, who attend 

MSU’s 17 degree-granting colleges. In addition to OCR’s investigation, 

the Offce for Federal Student Aid simultaneously conducted its own 

separate investigation into the university’s compliance with the Jeanne 

Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics 

Act (Clery Act). As a result of that investigation, and in addition to the 

resolution reached with OCR, the university received the largest-ever Clery 

fne issued by the Department. 

24 
25 

 

Office for Civil Rightts | s | FFiscal Year 20199 

Title VI: Discrimination 

Based on Race, Color, or 

National Origin 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) prohibits discrimination 

based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities operated 

by recipients of federal funds. Title VI states: “No person in the United 

States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded 

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

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal fnancial 

assistance.” OCR staff investigates cases under Title VI including, among 

others, those involving different treatment in the administration of school 

discipline; discriminatory assignment to special education services; 

bullying and harassment based on race, color, or national origin; the 

inappropriate use of racial preferences in admissions; and limited access 

to resources, curricula, and opportunities that foster college and 

career readiness. 

Key Facts 

In FY 2019, OCR received 2,660 complaints containing 3,673 allegations 

of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in violation of 

Title VI. OCR resolved 2,819 complaints containing 3,887 allegations of 

discrimination under Title VI. Of these resolutions, 152 Title VI allegations 

in 124 complaints were resolved with change. The largest numbers of 

resolutions were in the following categories: different treatment based on 

BY THE NUMBERS 

In FY 2019, OCR 

n Received 2,660 Title VI complaints 

n Resolved 2,819 Title VI complaints 

n Resolved 152 Title VI allegations in 124 complaints with change 

race, racial harassment, and retaliation for fling complaints under Title VI. 

See fgure 21 for more specifc information on the variety of Title VI allegations received and resolved by OCR during FY 2019. OCR also resolved 

one compliance review initiated by the previous administration in 2010. 

Figure 21: Title VI Allegations Received and Resolved in FY 2019 

Different treatment/denial of benefts 

Retaliation 

Racial harassment 

Discipline 

Employment discrimination 

Academic evaluation/grading 

Admissions and recruitment 

Limited English profciency—parental communication 

Financial assistance/scholarships 

English learners services 

Graduation/degree/diploma requirements 

Extracurricular activities 

School closing or rezoning 

Resource equity and comparability 

National origin involving religion 

Assignment of students 

Access to advanced courses (including gifted and talented) 

Testing 

Special education for English language learners 

Minorities in special education 

Affrmative action (including employment) 

Limited English profciency—testing 

Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) 

Other 

0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 

Resolved Received 

17 

5 

174 

12 

1,355 

701 

797 

351 

109 

87 

64 

44 

42 

38 

13 

19 

19 

12 

9 

7 

7 

3 

2 

0 

19 

4 

175 

10 

1,295 

670 

722 

258 

154 

78 

68 

40 

41 

34 

10 

20 

16 

23 

8 

5 

3 

3 

16 

1 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

During the frst three years under the current administration (FYs 

2017–2019), OCR saw signifcant increases in both Title VI resolutions, 

and resolutions with change, compared to the last three years under the 

previous administration. During FY 2018, OCR resolved nearly as many 

Title VI allegations with change as the prior administration resolved during 

their last two years combined (FYs 2015 and 2016). During FYs 2017, 

2018, and 2019, OCR resolved a total of 520 Title VI allegations with 

change—72 more than the total number of Title IX allegations resolved 

with change by the previous administration during FYs 2014, 2015, and 

2016 (see fgure 22). These increases occurred in important Title VI issue 

areas, and some of the most notable increases occurred in complaints 

alleging the discriminatory administration of school discipline and bullying 

and harassment based on race. 

OCR resolved double the number of allegations involving discrimination 

in school discipline in FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019 combined compared to 

those resolved by the prior administration over the course of FYs 2014, 

2015, and 2016. During the frst three years of the current administration, 

OCR resolved a total of 970 allegations of discrimination in school 

discipline, compared to a total of 487 during the last three years under the 

prior administration. OCR also achieved over twice as many resolutions 

with change in the category of school discipline allegations compared to 

FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016. In FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR resolved 

a total of 50 discipline allegations with change—26 more than the 

number of discipline allegations resolved with change in FYs 2014, 2015, 

and 2016 combined (see fgure 23). 

OCR achieved a 45 percent increase in the number of allegations resolved 

involving racial harassment or bullying during the frst three years under 

the current administration compared to the last three years under the prior 

administration. In FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 combined, OCR resolved a 

total of 1,509 racial harassment allegations compared to a total of 2,190 

allegations resolved during FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019. OCR also achieved 

a 27 percent increase in the number of racial harassment allegations 

resolved with change. Over the course of FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016, OCR 

resolved 129 racial harassment allegations with change compared to 164 

allegations resolved with change during FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019 

(see fgure 24). 

The complaints and compliance reviews summarized below are a 

small but representative sample of the types of Title VI investigations 

conducted by OCR and the remedies that were obtained as a result of the 

investigations. The remedies imposed were deemed appropriate for the 

facts of the specifc case. 

Figure 22: Title VI Allegations Resolved with Change: Last Three Years 

of Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current Administration 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

448 520 

Figure 23: Allegations of Discriminatory Administration of School 

Discipline Resolved: Last Three Years of Prior Administration and 

First Three Years of Current Administration 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Allegations resolved with change 24 50 

Allegations resolved without change 463 920 

Figure 24: Allegations of Bullying or Harassment Based on Race 

Resolved: Last Three Years of Prior Administration and 

First Three Years of Current Administration 

26 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Allegations resolved with change 129 164 

Allegations resolved without change 1,380 2,026 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

Case Summaries 

Ensuring Nondiscrimination in the Administration of School 

Discipline 

OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a district discriminated against 

Black students on the basis of race by disciplining them more harshly than 

similarly situated White students. During the course of its investigation, 

OCR reviewed the disciplinary records of the student involved, the district’s 

student code of conduct, and correspondence between district staff concerning the behavior of the students in addition to conducting interviews of 

school offcials. 

As a result of the investigation, OCR had compliance concerns based on 

evidence that Black students may have received more severe disciplinary 

sanctions than White students for similar offenses. The school district expressed an interest in voluntarily resolving the complaint with a resolution 

agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the school district was required to: 

n Review the discipline decisions of particular staff members to 

determine whether there was any disparate treatment of Black 

students; 

n Conduct a similar review regarding the disciplinary records of Black 

students compared to similarly situated White students and make 

all needed changes to those disciplinary records that evidenced 

disparate treatment; 

n Revise its disciplinary policies to clearly address what disciplinary 

sanctions would be imposed generally and against repeat 

offenders; and 

n Provide training to appropriate staff on the nondiscriminatory 

administration of student discipline. 

Combating Racial Harassment in All Forms 

Case 1: OCR resolved a complaint that alleged a student of Asian descent 

was subjected to a hostile environment and the school district failed to respond promptly and effectively to known incidents of harassment towards 

the student. Specifcally, the complaint alleged that elementary students 

on the school bus, in class, and at lunch/recess harassed a student of 

Asian descent by directing epithets, insults, and physical aggression towards the student and that the school district had notice of these incidents 

and failed to respond appropriately. 

In the course of the investigation, OCR reviewed documents and 

information provided by the student and the school district concerning 

the incidents of harassment—including the district’s policies and 

procedures—and interviewed the student. Prior to OCR’s completion of 

its investigation, the school district expressed an interest in voluntarily 

resolving the complaint with a resolution agreement. Pursuant to the 

agreement, the school district was required to provide training to 

appropriate staff on racial harassment, investigate the allegations, and, if it 

determined that any allegations were meritorious, appropriately 

remedy them. 

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

to appropriately respond to known reports of racial harassment towards 

a Black kindergarten student spanning several months. Specifcally, the 

complaint alleged that the student was subjected to repeated incidents 

of harassment by her peers based on her appearance, that the student’s 

parent brought these incidents to the attention of school offcials, and the 

school failed to respond appropriately. 

During the course of its investigation OCR reviewed documentation provided by the complainant and the district—including the district’s relevant 

policies and procedures, email exchanges from the parent and between 

district staff regarding the incidents of harassment, and meeting notes and 

correspondence documenting the incidents and the district’s response— 

and interviewed the complainant and district offcials. OCR concluded 

that the district violated Title VI by failing to take effective action to cease 

the known harassment, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its effects on 

the student. OCR found that the school repeatedly had notice of incidents 

involving students mocking the student for her race and appearance over 

the span of several months. OCR concluded that the school district failed 

to take effective action to stop the harassment, prevent it from recurring, 

and remedy its effects on the student. 

To resolve this matter, the school district agreed to a resolution agreement 

under which the school agreed to offer to meet with the parents of the 

student, to reimburse them for transportation expenses incurred because 

of the harassment, and to provide racial harassment training to school 

district staff and students. 

27 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

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

discriminated against a Black student by failing to appropriately respond 

to a complaint that a music teacher subjected the student to different 

treatment and racial harassment. Specifcally, the complaint alleged that 

the music teacher sent the student out of the classroom on a weekly basis 

and treated the student differently than White students. The complaint also 

alleged that the school district failed to promptly and effectively respond 

to the teacher retaliating against the Black student for fling a complaint 

against the teacher with the school district’s board of education by 

physically shoving the student. OCR opened an investigation, interviewed 

district staff and the complainant, and reviewed documentation and other 

information provided by the district. 

Based on the information obtained in the investigation, OCR had compliance concerns regarding whether the district properly investigated and 

made a determination regarding the complainant’s allegations of race 

discrimination and retaliation. Prior to OCR’s completion of its investigation, the district agreed to enter into a resolution agreement to resolve 

both allegations. Pursuant to this resolution agreement, the district agreed 

to complete a thorough supplemental investigation of the complainant’s 

allegations, issue a written decision on the allegations to the complainant, 

and provide training to appropriate district staff on discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. 

Preventing the Inappropriate Use of Race in Admissions 

OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a university’s decision to change 

its prior race-neutral criteria to include consideration of race and ethnicity 

as factors in certain of its graduate admissions practices violated the strict 

scrutiny requirements of Title VI. Specifcally, OCR initiated an investigation 

to determine whether the university’s use of race as an admissions factor 

(race-conscious admissions policy) met narrow tailoring requirements of 

the strict scrutiny analysis set forth by the Supreme Court.18 

During its investigation, OCR conducted interviews with the complainant 

as well as university staff and administrators, examined admissions data 

from 2005 to 2017, analyzed enrollment demographics, and reviewed 

university memoranda, policies, and procedures. OCR found that the university’s school of medicine did not periodically review its race-conscious 

admissions policy and consider whether race-neutral alternatives would 

be suffcient, as required under the second narrow-tailoring prong of strict 

scrutiny analysis. 

Before OCR completed its investigation, the university expressed an interest in resolving OCR’s concerns through a resolution agreement. Under 

this agreement, the university was required to discontinue all consideration 

of an applicant’s race and ethnicity in its school of medicine admissions 

policies or practices and provide documentation evincing that it had 

ceased to use such practices. Further, before the university’s school of 

medicine could institute or re-institute consideration of an applicant’s race 

or ethnicity as a factor in admissions decisions, the university would be 

required to provide a reasoned and principled explanation for its decision 

while fully considering: 

n The degree to which race-neutral measures could achieve its 

educational goals; 

n How to tailor race-conscious measures, if such measures are 

deemed necessary, to afford fexible and individualized review of 

applicants and ensure no burden is imposed on applicants of any 

racial group; and 

n By what processes and on what periodic schedule the school’s 

continuing need for race-conscious measures, if any, would be 

periodically reviewed and assessed. 

28 
29 

Offce for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019 

Issue Spotlight: 

Discrimination Based 

on Shared Ancestry or

National Origin 

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Since 2004, OCR has recognized that discrimination against students 

who share a common faith can violate Title VI when it constitutes race or 

national origin discrimination based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. This position was reaffrmed in guidance issued by the previous 

administration in 2010. Accordingly, OCR has investigated complaints of 

discrimination based on actual or perceived membership in groups that 

exhibit both ethnic and religious characteristics and resolved such complaints by requiring recipients to change their nondiscrimination policies 

and responses to reports of discrimination. OCR has found violations and 

required substantive remedies in cases involving students subjected to 

anti-Semitic threats, slurs, and assaults; Muslim students targeted for 

wearing a hijab; and Middle Eastern and Sikh students taunted and called 

terrorists. Although OCR has seen an increase in the number of national 

origin and shared ancestry complaints in recent years, the number of 

cases in this area remain relatively small, as fgure 25 demonstrates.19 

Although OCR has not received a large number of complaints in this category to date, various reports have indicated that these types of incidents, 

and especially anti-Semitic incidents, are on the rise. At a Summit on 

Combating Anti-Semitism hosted by the US Department of Justice, Secretary Betsy DeVos denounced anti-Semitism and reiterated her commitment to stopping this form of discrimination on college campuses and in 

schools. As Secretary DeVos stated, “We stand frmly against the alarming 

rise of anti-Semitism and we acknowledge this reality.”20 

Williams College 

On July 3, 2019, OCR entered into a resolution agreement with Williams 

College to resolve allegations that the college discriminated against 

students based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. On May 2, 

2019, OCR received a complaint against the college alleging that it 

discriminated against students based on shared ancestry or ethnic 

characteristics when the College Council rejected a proposal to establish 

a registered student organization called the Williams Initiative for Israel. 

After anti-Semitic uproar, the College Council denied recognition to the 

pro-Israel student group even though a student group known as Students 

for Justice in Palestine was previously granted recognition by the Council. 

Before the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, the college expressed a 

willingness to voluntarily resolve the complaints. The college signed a 

resolution agreement under which it agreed to, inter alia, afford the Williams Initiative for Israel the same rights and privileges as other registered 

student groups approved by the College Council; issue a statement to all 

students, faculty, and staff stating that the university does not tolerate 

acts of prohibited harassment; and educate the university community on 

prohibited forms of harassment in all training and orientation sessions for 

the next several years. 

Figure 25: Complaints Received Alleging Discrimination Based 

on National Origin Involving Religion 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

1 4 16 16 10 9 15 15 18 22 24 

UNC-Duke Consortium on Middle Eastern Studies 

On April 17, 2019, OCR received a complaint against both the University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) and Duke University alleging that the 

universities discriminated against students of Jewish descent on the basis 

of national origin in connection with a joint conference entitled “Confict 

over Gaza: People, Politics, and Possibilities,” hosted by the Duke-UNC 

Consortium for Middle East Studies. OCR initiated an investigation into 

whether a hostile environment existed in connection with the conference and, if so, whether the universities appropriately responded. OCR 

interviewed the complainant, university offcials, and other witnesses and 

reviewed documentation submitted by the university, information submitted by third parties, and other publicly available information. 

Before the conclusion of its investigation, both universities expressed a 

willingness to voluntarily resolve the allegations in the complaint. Pursuant to the resolution agreements, the universities were required to 

issue statements to its communities that the universities do not tolerate 

prohibited forms of harassment, including anti-Semitic harassment, revise 

written policies to reiterate its commitment to having an environment free 

from prohibited harassment, and educate the university communities on 

prohibited forms of harassment in each training and orientation session for 

the next several years. 

As Secretary DeVos has made clear, “[d]iscrimination against anyone on 

the basis of their faith or ethnicity is always wrong.”21 Under the current 

administration, the Department, including OCR, has reaffrmed its commitment to protect all students from discrimination based on race, color, 

or national origin, including discrimination based on actual or perceived 

shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics. 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

Section 504 and Title II: 

Discrimination Based 

on Disability 

OCR protects the rights of persons with disabilities, including students 

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

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination based on 

disability in any program or activity operated by recipients of federal funds. 

It states: “No otherwise qualifed individual with a disability in the United 

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

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

under any program or activity receiving Federal fnancial assistance....” 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities, regardless of 

whether they receive federal fnancial assistance. Title II states, “[N]o 

qualifed individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be 

excluded from participation in or be denied the benefts of the services, 

programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination 

by any such entity.” 

Key Facts 

In FY 2019, OCR received 5,831 complaints alleging a total of 9,038 

violations of Section 504 and/or Title II. OCR resolved a total of 6,210 

BY THE NUMBERS 

In FY 2019, OCR 

n Received 5,831 Section 504/Title II complaints 

n Resolved 6,210 Section 504/Title II complaints 

n Resolved 1,387 Section 504/Title II allegations in 955 

complaints with change 

complaints containing 9,780 allegations of discrimination based on 

disability. Of these resolutions, 1,387 Section 504/Title II allegations 

in 955 complaints were resolved with change. The largest numbers of 

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

with a disability with a FAPE, treated students with disabilities differently 

from other students, retaliated against individuals who asserted their 

Section 504/Title II rights or those of others, or failed to make programs 

or activities accessible to students with disabilities. See fgure 26 for 

more detailed information on the variety of Section 504/Title II allegations 

received and resolved by OCR during FY 2019. OCR also resolved two 

compliance reviews involving a total of four Section 504/Title II issues, all 

four of which were resolved with change. Finally, OCR initiated 678 Section 

504/Title II directed investigations in which OCR raised 947 disability 

issues and resolved 35 directed investigations in which OCR had raised 45 

disability issues, 12 of which were resolved with change. 

Figure 26: Section 504/Title II Allegations Received and Resolved in FY 2019 

30 

Free and appropriate public education 

Different treatment/exclusion/denial of benefts 

Retaliation 

Academic adjustments/auxiliary aids 

Disability harassment 

Accessibility (programs and facilities) 

Discipline 

Treatment of postsecondary students 

Nonacademic services 

Employment 

Service animals 

Restraint and seclusion 

Grievance procedures 

Admissions 

Accessibility (technology) 

Testing 

Housing 

Effective communication (Title II) 

Modifcations of policies and procedures (Title II) 

Designation of responsible employee 

Resource equity and comparability 

Location and notifcation 

Direct threat (Title II) 

Other 

273 

218 

253 

254 

132 

112 

117 

89 

99 

104 

98 

85 

72 

95 

71 

49 

37 

32 

30 

36 

28 

29 

26 

18 

24 

29 

20 

18 

14 

10 

12 

11 

6 

5 

5 

6 

330 

42

655 

3 

1,634 

1,530 

1,629 

1,484 

823 

765 

782 

2,981 

3,265 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,50

Resolved Received 

0 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

During FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR achieved signifcant increases in 

both the number of Section 504/Title II allegations resolved, and resolved 

with change, compared to FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016. During FYs 2017, 

2018, and 2019, OCR resolved a total of 5,476 allegations of discrimination under Section 504/Title II with change—1,590 more allegations 

resolved with change than during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 combined 

(see fgure 27). This is a 41 percent increase in the number of allegations resolved with change over three years. These increases occurred in 

important Section 504 and Title II issue areas including restraint and seclusion, harassment or bullying based on disability, and different treatment 

of students with disabilities. 

During FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR achieved a 77 percent increase 

in the total number of allegations involving the inappropriate use of 

restraint and seclusion resolved by OCR compared to FYs 2014, 2015, 

and 2016. Over the course of the past three fscal years, OCR resolved 

a total of 280 restraint or seclusion allegations—122 more restraint and 

seclusion allegations than the prior administration resolved during FYs 

2014, 2015, and 2016. OCR also achieved a 53 percent increase in resolutions with change in the category of restraint and seclusion. During FYs 

2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR resolved a total of 49 restraint and seclusion 

allegations with change—17 more restraint and seclusion complaint 

allegations than resolved with change during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 

combined (see fgure 28). 

During the frst three years of the current administration, OCR achieved a 

26 percent increase in the total number of allegations involving disability 

harassment resolved compared to the last three years under the prior administration. In FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016, OCR resolved a total of 1,801 

disability harassment allegations. Over the course of FYs 2017, 2018, and 

2019, OCR resolved a total of 2,273 disability harassment allegations, or 

472 more resolutions than the prior administration. OCR also achieved a 

14 percent increase in allegations of disability harassment resolved with 

change. During FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR resolved a total of 278 

disability harassment allegations with change—35 more allegations of 

disability harassment than resolved during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 

(see fgure 29). 

Figure 27: Section 504/Title II Allegations Resolved with 

Change: Last Three Years of Prior Administration and First Three 

Years 

of Current Administration 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

3,886 5,476 

Figure 28: Allegations of Discriminatory Use of Restraint and/or 

Seclusion on Students with Disabilities Resolved: Last Three Years of 

Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current Administration 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Allegations resolved with change 32 49 

Allegations resolved without change 126 231 

Figure 29: Allegations of Bullying/Harassment Based on Disability 

Resolved: Last Three Years of Prior Administration and First 

Three Years of Current Administration 

31 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

Allegations resolved with change 243 278 

Allegations resolved without change 1,558 1,995 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

During FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019, OCR resolved a total of 4,655 different 

treatment allegations under Section 504/Title II—a 48 percent increase 

over the total number of different treatment allegations resolved by the 

prior administration during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016. During the last few 

fscal years, OCR resolved a total of 596 different treatment allegations 

with change—214 more allegations than those resolved with change 

over the course of FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 (382 allegations). This is 

a 56 percent increase in the number of allegations of different treatment 

resolved with change under Section 504 and Title II (see fgure 30). 

The complaints and compliance reviews summarized below are a small 

but representative sampling of the types of Section 504 and Title II investigations conducted by OCR and the remedies that were obtained as a 

result of the investigations. The remedies imposed were deemed appropriate for the facts of the specifc case. 

Case Summaries 

Addressing the Inappropriate Use of Restraint and Seclusion 

on Students with Disabilities 

Case 1: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a school district discriminated against one of its students on the basis of disability by repeatedly 

secluding the student in an area outside the classroom, thereby limiting 

this student from participation in and receiving benefts from the district’s 

programs and activities. OCR conducted an investigation, interviewing the 

student’s paraprofessional, examining the student’s regular and special 

education fles, reviewing relevant district policies and procedures, and 

inspecting correspondences between district staff and the complainant. 

Following an investigation, OCR informed the school district of its 

compliance concerns based on evidence that the district had repeatedly 

secluded the student without considering whether reevaluation or a 

different placement was needed and that it had failed to provide the 

student with aids and services in his individualized education program. 

Prior to the completion of its investigation, OCR and the school district 

entered into a resolution agreement requiring the district to review its 

restraint and seclusion policies and procedures, revise such policies to 

ensure that students with disabilities were treated equitably, and maintain 

adequate records regarding incidents of restraint or seclusion. 

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

students in a special education classroom to a hostile environment when 

their special education teacher and special education aides committed 

physical, mental, and emotional abuse. During its investigation, OCR 

interviewed district staff members, conducted an on-site review of the 

school, and examined relevant email exchanges, district policies and 

procedures, special educations fles, and the school district’s investigative 

summary and training materials. 

OCR’s investigation revealed insuffcient evidence to support a fnding that 

the district was in violation of Section 504 or Title II with respect to the 

allegations. However, OCR did fnd that the school had used a converted 

windowless bathroom as a timeout or calming room, preventing the visual 

monitoring of the health and safety of students placed there, and that a 

teacher had used this room for students even though a student suffered 

from episodic seizures and could have been hurt if a seizure took place in 

the bathroom. 

Figure 30: Allegations of Different Treatment of Students with 

Disabilities Resolved: Last Three Years of Prior Administration and 

First Three Years of Current Administration 

Allegations resolved without change 2,759

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

2014-2016 

Allegations resolved with change 382

4,059 

2017-2019 

596 

To resolve the matter, the district agreed to a resolution agreement 

requiring it to: 

n Revise its procedures on seclusion and physical restraint for all 

students; 

n Train staff on those revised procedures; 

n Periodically inspect the school and review the school’s practices 

to ensure that it used only rooms that were free of any items that 

might cause injury to a student and would permit visual monitoring 

of students placed in the room; and 

n Invite the affected student’s parent/guardian to a meeting to 

discuss counseling services, academic services, or other remedies. 

Case 3: OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a student was regularly 

removed from his class at a charter school and placed in a separate 

room or offce and locked in a utility closet when he had outbursts. The 

complaint also alleged that untrained staff restrained the student. The 

student was eventually placed at a different school. Prior to the conclusion 

of the investigation, the school voluntarily committed to resolving the 

complaint allegations by entering into an agreement with OCR. Pursuant to 

this agreement, the district was required to review and revise its policies 

and procedures regarding restraint, seclusion, and classroom removals to 

ensure that such actions do not deny a student a FAPE, train staff on the 

policies and procedures, and send a letter to the complainants expressing 

regret and ensuring a FAPE for the student if the student re-enrolled. 

32 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

Preventing Bullying and Harassment Based on Disability 

The complainant alleged, in part, that the district created a hostile 

environment for the student based on disability because one of her 

teachers informed her class that she has a seizure disorder and a school 

counselor made disparaging disability-related remarks about the student 

during a graduation practice. In its investigation, OCR reviewed the 

information and documentation provided by the parties, spoke with the 

complainant, and interviewed the teacher and the school counselor. 

Based on the preliminary evidence, OCR had compliance concerns that 

the student may have been subjected to harassment by teachers based 

on her disability and that school personnel may have had notice of the 

harassment and failed to respond. Prior to OCR’s completion of its investigation, the district expressed an interest in resolving the complaint with 

a resolution agreement. The district signed an agreement that included a 

commitment to provide Section 504 and Title II training to all staff at the 

student’s school regarding the prohibition against disability discrimination 

and harassment and the obligation to take prompt and effective steps 

reasonably calculated to end harassment, prevent it from recurring, and, 

as appropriate, remedy its effects. 

Ensuring Equal Treatment of Students with Disabilities 

OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a school district was treating 

students with disabilities differently than students without disabilities, 

resulting in a shorter school day for students with disabilities. Specifcally, 

the complaint alleged that the school district released the student and 

other district students with disabilities from school early to take specialized 

transportation, resulting in them having a shorter school day than students 

without disabilities. 

In its investigation, OCR reviewed the information and documentation 

provided by the complainant, spoke with the complainant, and interviewed 

the district’s interim superintendent and director of student services. 

Based on the preliminary evidence, OCR had compliance concerns based 

on evidence indicating that the student and other district students with 

disabilities had a shortened school day due to transportation schedules 

that required late arrivals and early departures for buses transporting 

students with disabilities. 

Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, the district voluntarily agreed to 

resolve the allegations in the complaint by entering into an agreement with 

OCR. The agreement provided that the district would: 

n Review and revise its policies and procedures regarding specialized 

bus transportation; 

n Create a transportation plan to ensure that students with disabilities 

would not receive a shortened school day (unless required to meet 

the individualized needs of a student); 

n Train all appropriate district staff on the new transportation policies 

and procedures; and 

n Identify and provide compensatory education services to all 

students with disabilities who missed instructional time due to their 

shortened school days. 

Ensuring Equal Access to Educational Facilities 

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

against a female student on the basis of disability by locating some 

classes in a building that was physically inaccessible, failing to provide 

an operable video system permitting students to participate in classes 

virtually, and failing to provide accessible parking spaces. Through an 

investigation of data obtained by OCR, detailed diagrams and foor plans of 

the relevant building and parking lot, and a review of submissions by both 

parties, OCR found evidence of compliance concerns regarding all three 

allegations, including the failure to provide a route from the parking lot to a 

university building. 

Prior to OCR’s completion of its investigation, the university addressed 

several of the concerns and expressed an interest in voluntarily resolving 

the complaint through a resolution agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, 

the university was required to: 

n Modify the frst-foor rooms, doors, and hallways and the dedicated 

disability parking space; 

n Create an accessible route from a parking space to the building; 

and 

n Complete technological improvements to the building necessary 

to enable students to observe therapy sessions taking place on 

the second foor from the frst foor by acquiring new computers, 

computer systems, software upgrades, audio and video cameras, 

and a television. 

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

discriminated against individuals with disabilities by failing to provide 

access to spectator seating at football/track and baseball facilities, 

designated disability parking spaces, and the routes between that seating 

and the school’s designated disability parking spaces as well as the 

restrooms at the football/track facility for people with disabilities. During 

its investigation, OCR examined information provided by the parties, 

interviewed the affected stakeholders, spoke with a district representative, 

and conducted an on-site review at the school. 

OCR’s investigation revealed evidence of violations or compliance 

concerns regarding all allegations and indicated additional concerns with 

the ticket booth and concession stand at the football/track and baseball 

facilities as well as the “lunch counter” at one of the food service venues. 

To remedy these issues, the district agreed to a resolution agreement 

requiring it to remedy all features of the school regarding which OCR 

either found violations or had compliance concerns. 

33 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

 

 

The Age Discrimination

Act of 1975 and the Boy

Scouts of America Equal

Access Act of 2001 

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

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

Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination based on age. It states: 

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

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

discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal fnancial 

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

schools, colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary school 

systems, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and museums 

that receive federal fnancial assistance. 

The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act prohibits any public 

elementary and secondary school, or state or local education agency that 

receives Department funds from discriminating against any group offcially 

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

in Title 36 of the United States Code (as a patriotic society). Specifcally, 

the statute prohibits covered entities that provide meeting spaces for 

outside groups from denying the Boy Scouts and other protected youth 

groups equal access to or a fair opportunity to meet. 

During FY 2019, OCR received 598 complaints alleging one or more 

violations of the Age Discrimination Act. Of the 10,644 complaints 

that OCR resolved in FY 2019, 663 (6.2 percent) included at least one 

alleged violation of the Age Discrimination Act. OCR resolved 11 of those 

complaints (1.46 percent of complaint resolutions overall) with change, 

although a large majority of the allegations of discrimination under the Age 

Act were dismissed including those dismissed for insuffcient evidence. 

The specifc allegations that OCR received ranged from discrimination 

based on age in admissions, inadequate grievance procedures, the 

distribution of fnancial aid, access to programs or activities, and retaliation 

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

Age Discrimination Act. 

Of the 9,990 complaints received in FY 2019, OCR received 13 

complaints (0.1 percent of total complaints) which alleged at least one 

violation of the Boy Scouts Act. OCR resolved 18 complaints containing 

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

allegations raised under the Boy Scouts Act in FY 2019 were considered 

resolved with change. 

34 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

The Civil Rights Data

Collection 

In FY 2019, OCR completed the 2017-18 CRDC, took historic steps to 

improve the quality of data submitted to the CRDC, and proposed changes 

to the 2020-21 CRDC to reduce the administrative burden of collecting 

and reporting civil rights data and further OCR’s ongoing mission of 

protecting students’ civil rights. OCR collects and publishes CRDC data 

on a biennial basis. Since 1968, through the CRDC, OCR collects data on 

leading civil rights indicators related to access and barriers to educational 

opportunity at the early childhood through grade 12 levels. The CRDC 

is also a long-standing and critical aspect of the overall enforcement 

and monitoring strategy used by OCR to ensure that recipients of the 

Department’s federal fnancial assistance do not discriminate on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, sex, and disability. In addition, the CRDC is 

a valuable resource for other Department offces and federal agencies, 

policymakers and researchers, educators and school offcials, parents and 

students, and the public who seek data on student equity and opportunity. 

The 2017-18 CRDC data collection closed on June 21, 2019, and 

included a record response from 99.81 percent of school districts—which 

included new data on computer science classes and school internet 

access. As with any new data elements, the collection of these new data 

was optional for the 2017-18 CRDC since it was the frst time that schools 

were asked to report such data. However, in the next data collection, the 

data elements on computer science classes and school internet access 

will be required. In an effort to reduce the reporting burden on schools, 

the 2017-18 CRDC did not collect data on high school equivalency course 

exam results and Advanced Placement course exam results. Finally, 

chronic student absenteeism data were no longer collected by the CRDC 

because the data are obtained through the Department’s EDFacts collection. The student absenteeism data collected through EDFacts are then 

incorporated into the CRDC. 

Actions to Improve Data Quality 

For the frst time, OCR directed signifcant efforts to improve the accuracy 

of restraint and seclusion data collected through the CRDC. Immediately 

following the close of the 2017-18 CRDC, OCR began a data quality 

correction phase during which LEAs could make corrections to erroneous data directly via the CRDC submission system. OCR also conducted 

outreach to 50 school districts with potentially anomalous restraint and 

seclusion data submissions regarding the 2015-16 CRDC, through the 

initiative on the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion. Furthermore, 

OCR allocated additional technical support resources, clarifed proper 

understandings of reporting requirements, worked with school districts to 

ensure that detailed written corrective action plans were put into place, 

and increased its collaboration with the Department’s NCES. Specifcally: 

n OCR increased technical assistance to school districts to improve 

data collection timeliness and accuracy. For example, in the 2017-

18 data collection cycle, OCR allocated an additional $671,549 

to provide year-round technical assistance support to all school 

districts. This signifcantly expanded OCR’s ability to assist school 

districts in meeting reporting obligations and will no doubt improve 

timeliness and accuracy. 

n On June 18, 2019, OCR and NCES entered into a Memorandum 

of Understanding, greatly expanding the role of NCES and better 

utilizing NCES’ expertise. The two offces held biweekly meetings 

to improve the planning, administration, review, and release of the 

2017-18 CRDC. OCR and NCES worked closely on contract review 

affecting the 2020-21 and 2022-23 collections. OCR and NCES 

worked together to build on processes to assist SEAs and school 

districts seeking to make data corrections for the 2017-18 CRDC 

after the regular data submission period. 

Proposed Changes to Reduce Regulatory Burden 

In September 2019, OCR published its proposed numerous changes to 

the then 2019-20 CRDC, which was subsequently postponed to 2020-

21 in light of the COVID-19 outbreak, in the Federal Register for public 

comment. The proposed changes are partly in response to the President’s 

Executive Order 13777: “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”22 and 

Executive Order 13891: “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved 

Agency Guidance Documents,”23 which require federal agencies to 

alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens and provide public notice of and 

opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. With this in mind, OCR 

prioritized reducing the administrative burden on schools for the 2019-20 

CRDC proposal. OCR foresees less time spent collecting and reporting 

data and more time available for student instruction as a result. OCR’s 

proposed changes represent a 21.8 percent reduction in the total number 

of individual responses required by LEAs for the LEA survey. For the school 

survey, there is a 1.8 percent reduction for elementary schools and a 4.3 

35 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

reduction for secondary schools. Additionally, these changes to the CRDC 

will improve the data collection process as well as the usefulness of the 

resulting information collected. 

OCR also proposed adding data elements based on prior CRDC data. 

Past data collections revealed that harassment or bullying on the basis of 

religion is prevalent, with about 10,000 allegations reported in the 2015-

16 CRDC. OCR proposed to collect new data—the number of allegations 

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

categories identifed by the FBI’s Hate Crime Data Collection. 

To further the purpose of the CRDC, supporting OCR’s enforcement efforts, 

OCR proposed additional data collection on sexual violence. In response 

to a tenfold increase in the number of annual cases that OCR investigated 

involving sexual violence from 2009–2018, and due to the gravity of these 

offenses, OCR proposed to collect more detailed data involving sexual violence such as rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault. The Offce wants 

to ensure it has suffcient data to address these important issues. 

In recent data collections, OCR has seen an increase in the number and 

percentage of students with disabilities served under Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In the 2015-16 CRDC, about 1.1 million 

students served under Section 504 were reported. To better gauge equal 

educational opportunity for these students, OCR proposed to expand two 

data elements to determine 1) the number of Section 504–only students 

participating in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme, and 

2) the number of Section 504–only students taking one or more Advanced

Placement courses.

COVID-19 and the CRDC 

The Department, including OCR, recognizes the impact the COVID-19 

pandemic has had on SEAs, LEAs, and schools, beginning in March of the 

2019-2020 school year, in providing educational and support services 

to students and parents. Due to extraordinary circumstances created by 

the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school closures, the Department 

has been considering ways to support SEAs, LEAs, and schools, including 

providing fexibility where possible. As part of that effort, and for the other 

reasons set forth below, OCR has decided to postpone the 2019-20 CRDC 

by one year. This is consistent with the Department’s Institute of Education 

Sciences’ (IES) plan to postpone the collection for “The Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and Development’s Programme for International 

Student Assessment,” which is a worldwide assessment of 15-year-old 

students. In addition, IES plans to postpone the following, pending negotiations with its partners: 

n The National Assessment of Educational Progress’ Long-Term 

Trend Assessment of 17-year-old US students; and 

n The National Assessment of Educational Progress’ assessment of 

8th grade American history and civics competencies. 

Since March, the Department has worked to continually evaluate all 

mandatory reporting requirements applicable to SEAs, LEAs, and schools 

to determine whether any adjustment or fexibility is needed in response 

to COVID-19. The Department has monitored developments of how 

COVID-19 is impacting all data collections across the agency, including 

those administered by the NCES. The decision to postpone data collections 

does not impact the CRDC alone. In fact, adjustments and shifts are being 

made with regard to several other data collections administered by 

the Department. 

36 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

Freedom of Information 

Act Requests 

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a federal law that establishes 

the public’s right to request existing records from federal government 

agencies. The FOIA sets standards for determining which records must be 

made available for public inspection and which records can be withheld 

from disclosure. The law also provides administrative and judicial remedies for those denied access to records. Above all, the statute requires 

federal agencies to provide the fullest possible disclosure of information to 

the public. 

In FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019 combined, OCR saw a 15 percent increase 

in both the number of FOIA requests received and the number of FOIA 

requests processed compared to the last three years under the previous 

administration (FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016). In FYs 2017, 2018, and 

2019, OCR received a total of 4,126 FOIA requests and issued 4,011 

responses (see fgure 31). During the last three years of the previous 

administration, OCR received only 3,598 FOIA requests and issued 3,498 

responses. While the increase in requests and processing in recent years 

has been met by current OCR staff, many of the FOIA requests that OCR 

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

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

applicable FOIA standards. 

Since FY 2009, OCR has consistently received the most FOIA requests 

each year compared to all other offces within the Department of Education. For the frst time since FY 2015, OCR saw a signifcant decrease in 

FY 2019 in the annual number of FOIA requests it received. Although the 

volume of FOIA requests that OCR received increased by 42 percent from 

FY 2015 to FY 2018 (1,116 requests in FY 2015 to 1,583 requests in FY 

2018), in FY 2019, OCR received only 1,040 new FOIA requests. Still, the 

1,040 requests received by OCR in FY 2019 represent 42 percent of the 

total number of requests received by the Department that year. 

Figure 31: FOIA Requests Received and Processed: Last Three Years 

of Prior Administration and First Three Years of Current Administration 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Increase of 521 requests 

2014-2016 2017-2019 

FOIA requests received 3,598 4,126 

FOIA requests processed 3,498 4,011 

37 
Annual Report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress

Looking Ahead 

Historic Title IX Final Rule 

On May 6, 2020, the Department took historic action to strengthen 

Title IX protections for survivors of sexual misconduct and restore due 

process in campus proceedings to ensure all students can pursue 

education free from sex discrimination. For the frst time ever, the new 

Title IX regulations defne sexual harassment, including sexual assault, 

as unlawful sex discrimination and hold schools accountable for a failure 

to respond equitably and promptly to allegations of sexual misconduct. 

The Title IX fnal regulations also ensure that schools implement a more 

reliable adjudication process that is fair to all students and includes basic 

due process protections. Among other things, the new Title IX regulation 

prescribes a transparent grievance process that treats the accused as 

innocent until proven guilty, requires schools to state and select one of two 

standards of evidence that will apply evenly to proceedings for all students 

and employees, requires schools to promptly contact a complainant to 

offer supportive measures, requires schools to provide a written decision 

and rationale, and ensures that schools do not violate First Amendment 

rights when complying with Title IX. 

The Department frst announced its intention to engage in formal 

rulemaking to clarify schools’ obligations under Title IX in September 

2017. The Title IX Final Rule is the result of years of research, deliberation, 

and critical input from survivors, advocates, accused students, school 

administrators, Title IX coordinators, and the American people, including 

over 124,000 public comments. 

Initiative on Sexual Violence in K-12 

On February 26, 2020, the Department announced a new Title IX enforcement initiative, led by OCR, to combat the troubling rise of sexual assault 

in K-12 public schools.24 According to the most recent CRDC data for the 

2015-2016 school year, there were approximately 9,700 incidents of 

sexual assault, rape, or attempted rape reported in public elementary and 

secondary schools, indicating a grave problem that the Department cannot 

ignore. This initiative combines OCR’s enforcement, technical assistance, 

and data-gathering activities to correct current major compliance concerns 

in schools, proactively work with districts and local education leaders to 

achieve compliance with Title IX, and raise public awareness of the issue. 

As part of the initiative, OCR launched a series of nationwide compliance 

reviews of schools and school districts focused on examining how sexual 

assault cases are handled under Title IX, plans to conduct DQRs of the 

sexual assault and offenses data submitted by school districts through 

the CRDC, and proposed to collect more detailed data on sexual assault, 

including incidents perpetrated by school staff or school personnel, in the 

2020-21 CRDC. 

Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism 

On December 11, 2019, President Trump signed Executive Order 13899: 

“Combating Anti-Semitism.”25 With the issuance of this executive order, 

the administration furthered its commitment to combat the rise of 

anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around 

the world. In an effort to fght the increase in anti-Semitic incidents since 

2013, this executive order calls for robust enforcement of Title VI from all 

executive departments and agencies, including OCR. 

The President’s executive order is the frst presidential directive to all 

executive departments and agencies, including OCR, that explicitly states 

that anti-Semitic discrimination may violate Title VI and mandates that 

all departments and agencies enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of 

discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other 

forms of race, color, and national origin discrimination prohibited by Title 

VI. In this way, the executive order affrms OCR’s long-standing policy that

anti-Semitism may violate Title VI.

OCR frst took the position that discrimination based on ethnic or ancestral characteristics violated Title VI in a 2004 guidance document, which 

was later affrmed by the previous administration in a 2010 guidance 

document. Moreover, in their enforcement of Title VI, all federal agencies 

are instructed to consider the working defnition of anti-Semitism adopted 

by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on May 26, 

2016, as well as the “Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism” identifed 

by the IHRA to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence 

of discriminatory intent. Importantly, in considering such defnitions and 

accompanying examples, the executive order mandates that agencies not 

diminish or infringe upon any right protected under federal law or under 

the First Amendment. 

OCR Resolves Systemic Sexual Violence 

Investigation of University of Southern California 

In February 2020, OCR resolved a directed investigation of the University 

of Southern California (USC) after concluding that the university failed 

to protect students from Dr. George Tyndall, formerly employed at the 

school’s student health center, since 1989.26 During its investigation, 

OCR found that the university failed to respond appropriately to notice of 

possible misconduct by Tyndall, that the university’s failure to respond may 

have subjected female students to continuing sexual harassment at the 

hands of Tyndall, and that the university failed to maintain a recordkeeping 

system to identify and monitor incidents of possible sex discrimination by 

its employees. 

Pursuant to a resolution agreement, OCR required USC to: 

n Ensure that its Title IX coordinator and Title IX offce have the 

independent authority to respond to reports of sex discrimination; 

n Track and monitor every complaint or report of potential sex 

discrimination and provide OCR with documentation of reports and 

complaints of sexual harassment; 

n Make reasonable efforts to contact the nine patients who 

complained of misconduct by Tyndall and notify current and former 

students (as well as current and former university employees) of 

the offer to remedy the harm done by sex discrimination; 

n Change its Title IX procedures to ensure that all involved parties 

receive due process; and 

n Conduct a review of current and former employees to determine 

whether appropriate action was taken upon receiving notice of 

complaints regarding Tyndall. 

38 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

OCR Concludes Systemic Investigation of 

Pennsylvania State University 

In March 2020, OCR resolved its comprehensive compliance review of 

Penn State University which examined the university’s handling of sexual 

misconduct complaints, with particular emphasis on complaints of sexual 

assault, to determine if the university has responded appropriately to 

complaints of sexual abuse in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal and 

after implementing various procedural reforms.27 During its investigation, 

OCR reviewed university policies and procedures for resolving allegations 

of sexual harassment effective during the 2011-2012 through 2019-2020 

academic years. OCR’s investigation revealed that the university violated 

Title IX because it failed to appropriately respond to complaints of sexual 

harassment, failed to maintain records necessary for OCR to determine 

compliance with Title IX, and failed to provide adequate notice to students 

and employees of the procedures necessary to ensure fair and appropriate 

investigation of complaints. 

As a result of its investigation, OCR and the university entered into a 

resolution agreement requiring the university to: 

n Provide for individual remedies for instances where it did not 

promptly and equitably process complaints; 

n Report to OCR on its processing of sexual harassment complaints 

for the upcoming academic years; 

n Review and revise its Title IX policies; 

n Revise its recordkeeping practices to ensure that it adequately and 

accurately documents all complaints; 

n Facilitate additional Title IX training for university staff; and 

n Notify participants in its youth programs and their parents and 

guardians that Title IX prohibits sexual harassment against 

youth participants. 

Reforms to the Methods of Administration Program 

On February 6, 2020, OCR and the Offce for Career and Technical 

Adult Education (OCTAE) jointly released an updated Memorandum of 

Procedures (MOP) that will allow state agencies to coordinate their civil 

rights activities under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act (Perkins Act) with their civil rights activities under the Methods of 

Administration (MOA) Guidelines for Eliminating Discrimination and Denial 

of Services on the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Sex, and Handicap 

in Vocational Education Programs (see 34 C.F.R. Part 100).28 The updated 

MOP continues the long-standing, ongoing commitment of OCR and 

OCTAE to ensure that all students, regardless of race, color, national origin, 

sex, or disability, have equal access to succeed in CTE programs. 

Under the 2020 MOP, states now have fexibility to determine the number 

and scope of their MOA periodic compliance reviews required by the 

guidelines so long as they provide a reasoned basis for their decisions 

regarding the number of subrecipients reviewed and issue area(s) they 

choose to review in these compliance reviews. Because the 2020 MOP 

provides increased fexibility, it also requires state agencies to submit 

one-time MOA plans to OCR explaining how the agency plans to conduct 

its MOA work moving forward. The 2020 MOP also lessens the biennial 

reporting burden on states by recommending fve items states can 

include in their biennial reports, in contrast to the eight items OCR 

previously required. 

OPEN Center 

In FY 2020, OCR launched the OPEN Center to focus on proactive 

compliance with federal civil rights laws.29 While OCR has historically 

pursued compliance with federal civil rights laws through the resolution of 

the thousands of complaints it receives annually, through the OPEN Center, 

OCR will now work more proactively with schools, educators, families, and 

students prior to the fling of a complaint. By providing targeted support 

to both recipient institutions and the public, the OPEN Center will work 

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

to ensure that all schools are aware of their obligations and all students 

are aware of their protections under federal civil rights law. In addition to 

the other support provided to recipients in FY 2020 including technical 

assistance on the Title IX Final Rule and certain COVID-19–related 

guidance documents discussed further below, the OPEN Center provided 

the following technical assistance webinars as of May 31, 2020: 

n “OCR Short Webinar on Sexual Violence in Public Schools;” 

n “OCR Short Webinar on Updates to Perkins and Methods of 

Administration Programs;” 

n “OCR Short Webinar on Online Education and Website 

Accessibility;” 

n “OCR Short Webinar: OCR 100: An Introduction to Federal Civil 

Rights Protections in Education;” and 

n “OCR Short Webinar: How to File a Complaint.” 

As of June 2020, the fve webinars had received over 70,000 

collective views. 

Dedicated FOIA Team 

OCR receives and responds to the bulk of the FOIA records requests 

received by the Department. The requests can be complex in nature, 

requiring the review, redaction, and production of large numbers of pages 

of correspondence, policy guidance, enforcement case fles, and letters of 

fndings for hundreds of cases. 

In FY 2020 and beyond, OCR anticipates receiving a record-high number 

of requests for OCR records under FOIA. Recognizing our legal obligations 

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

flings, early in FY 2020, OCR established a separate team within OCR 

of dedicated FOIA professionals to facilitate the expeditious processing 

of FOIA requests for OCR records. Prior to this, OCR had no dedicated 

team to work on processing FOIA requests but instead relied on OCR staff 

throughout headquarters and the regional offces to perform FOIA work as 

their schedules and workloads permitted. Consisting of an acting director, 

team leader, and six FOIA professionals, the FOIA Team is focused exclusively on fulflling FOIA requests and achieving the following results: 

n Process and respond to new FOIA requests in a more timely and 

effcient manner; 

n Better ensure that records released under FOIA are in response to, 

and within scope of, a properly described records request; 

n Process the year-end backlog of FOIA cases not processed by 

OCR staff; 

n Streamline OCR FOIA requests by proactively redacting and publicly 

posting OCR’s letters of fndings to the OCR website, thereby 

reducing the need for requests; 

n Relieve OCR attorneys of the burden of processing FOIAs to better 

focus on their primary duties of case investigation and resolution; 

and 

n Provide for the consistent application of FOIA exemptions to the 

same or similar types of records. 

COVID-19 and OCR’s Response 

In FY 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced students, teachers, parents, 

and school personnel to navigate unprecedented and diffcult obstacles to 

education, including the transition to online (or distance) learning. As the 

nation faces more distance-learning challenges, OCR’s National Web Accessibility Team was well-positioned to help by ensuring technology used 

in educational settings was accessible to those with disabilities. 

Through the OPEN Center, OCR also provided crucial guidance and technical assistance to recipients and students, including: 

n Providing webinars on “Online Education and Website Accessibility” 

and “Civil Rights and COVID-19;” 

n Publishing a “Supplemental Fact Sheet Addressing the Risk of 

COVID-19 in Schools While Protecting the Civil Rights of Students” 

and a “Supplemental Fact Sheet Addressing the Risk of COVID-19 

in Preschool, Elementary, and Secondary Schools While Serving 

Children with Disabilities” to alert recipients to potential civil rights 

violations during the transition to distance learning; 

n Issuing a “Letter to Education Leaders on Preventing and 

Addressing Potential Discrimination Associated with COVID-19” to 

address troubling reports regarding stereotyping, harassment, and 

bullying directed at students perceived to be of Chinese American 

or Asian descent; and 

n Publishing a “Questions and Answers: Information on Protecting 

Higher Education Students’ Civil Rights during COVID-19 National 

Emergency” to provide technical assistance for 

postsecondary institutions. 

As the country continues to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic, OCR 

continues to provide technical assistance and other support to assist 

institutions with meeting their obligations under federal civil rights laws 

through OCR’s National Web Accessibility Team and OPEN Center. 

40 
Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019

Endnotes 

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

and secondary schools or school districts, postsecondary colleges

or universities, and any other type of education institution receiving

federal fnancial assistance.

2. In this report complaint resolutions requiring recipients to make

substantive changes protective of students’ rights are considered

“resolutions with change.” This term excludes resolutions that result

in dismissal, administrative closure, and a fnding of no violation or

insuffcient evidence.

3. Per OCR’s Case Processing Manual, a complainant fling on behalf

of another person will be required to secure any necessary written

consent from the individual.

4. Often, a single complaint contains more than one allegation of

discrimination. Please note that this report includes data on both the

total number of allegations and the total number of complaints.

5. As used in this report, case resolutions include cases that result in

dismissal, administrative closure, a fnding of no violation, an early

complaint resolution, a resolution requiring action by institutions

without a resolution agreement, or a negotiated resolution agreement.

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

C.F.R. §35.172(a).

7. “Executive Order 13864 of March 21, 2019, Improving Free Inquiry,

Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities,”

Federal Register 84, no. 58 (March 26, 2019): 11401-04, https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/03/26/2019-05934/

improving-free-inquiry-transparency-and-accountability-at-collegesand-universities.

8. OCR’s Case Processing Manual can be found at https://www2.ed.gov/

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

9. For the full text of the 2003 Dear Colleague letter, see: https://www2.

ed.gov/about/offces/list/ocr/frstamend.html.

10. See “US Department of Education Announces Initiative to Address the

Inappropriate Use of Restraint and Seclusion to Protect Children with

Disabilities, Ensure Compliance with Federal Laws,” press release,

January 17, 2019, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/usdepartment-education-announces-initiative-address-inappropriateuse-restraint-and-seclusion-protect-children-disabilities-ensurecompliance-federal-laws.

11. All results will appear on the CRDC Data Notes, which are available

here: https://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/Data-Notes-2015-16-CRDC.

pdf. For background, the CRDC Data Notes provide key information to

the general public about the data fle, such as response rates, privacy

protection, data anomalies, and requests for data corrections.

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

issue areas received and resolved by OCR in prior fscal years

may vary slightly when compared to the data reported in previous

publications. This is because case information continues to be

updated in OCR’s database as cases are processed, investigated, and

resolved, resulting in changes to the categorization of some cases.

13. For the full text of the Department of Education’s Title IX Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking, see: https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2018/11/29/2018-25314/nondiscrimination-on-thebasis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federal.

14. US Department of Education, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

“Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs

or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,” Federal

Register 83, no. 230, (November 29, 2018): 61462-99, https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/29/2018-25314/

nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-oractivities-receiving-federal; see also “Secretary DeVos: Proposed Title

IX Rule Provides Clarity for Schools, Support for Survivors, and Due

Process Rights for All,” press release, November 16, 2018, https://

www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-proposed-titleix-rule-provides-clarity-schools-support-survivors-and-due-processrights-all.

15. US Department of Education, Final Rule, “Nondiscrimination on

the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving

Federal Financial Assistance,” Federal Register 85, no. 97, (May

19, 2020): 30026-30579, https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2020/05/19/2020-10512/nondiscrimination-on-thebasis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federal;

see also “Secretary DeVos Takes Historic Action to Strengthen Title

IX Protections for All Students,” press release, May 6, 2020, https://

www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-takes-historicaction-strengthen-title-ix-protections-all-students.

16. See “US Department of Education’s Offce for Civil Rights Requires

Signifcant Corrective Action from Chicago Public Schools Following

Systematic Failure to Address Sexual Violence,” press release,

September 12, 2019, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/

us-department-educations-offce-civil-rights-requires-signifcantcorrective-action-chicago-public-schools-following-systemic-failureaddress-sexual-violence.

17. See “Secretary DeVos Levies Largest-Ever Clery Fine Against

Michigan State University, Requires Major Corrective Action Following

Systematic Failure to Address Sex Abuse,” press release, September

5, 2019, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devoslevies-largest-ever-clery-fne-against-michigan-state-universityrequires-major-corrective-action-following-systemic-failure-addresssexual-abuse.

18. OCR’s investigation in this case focused on whether the university’s

use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest,

rather than whether the university suffciently established a

compelling interest when implementing race-conscious admissions

policies.

19. The number of shared ancestry cases may not provide a complete

picture of the universe of OCR’s shared ancestry cases because there

are many codes in OCR’s Case Management System under which

these cases may be coded in addition to the code for “National Origin

Discrimination Involving Religion” used here.

20. Betsy DeVos, US Sec’y of Education, Remarks at the Department

of Justice’s Summit on Combatting Anti-Semitism, (July 15, 2019),

https://www.c-span.org/video/?462607-4/combating-anti-semitismsummit-secretary-devos-panel-discussion-bds-movement.

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

21. DeVos, Remarks at the Department of Justice’s Summit on

Combatting Anti-Semitism.

22. “Executive Order 13777 of February 24, 2017, Enforcing

the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” Federal Register 82, no. 3

(March 1, 2017): 12285-87, https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2017/03/01/2017-04107/enforcing-the-regulatoryreform-agenda.

23. “Executive Order 13891 of October 9, 2019, Promoting the Rule of

Law Through Improved Agency Action,” Federal Register 84, no. 199

(October 15, 2019): 55235-38, https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2019/10/15/2019-22623/promoting-the-rule-of-lawthrough-improved-agency-guidance-documents.

24. See “Secretary DeVos Announces New Civil Rights Initiative to Combat

Sexual Assault in K-12 Public Schools,” press release, February 26,

2020, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devosannounces-new-civil-rights-initiative-combat-sexual-assault-k-12-

public-schools.

25. “Executive Order 13899 of December 11, 2019, Combating

Anti-Semitism,” Federal Register 84, no. 241 (December

16, 2019): 68779-80, https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2019/12/16/2019-27217/combating-anti-semitism.

26. See “Secretary DeVos Requires Sweeping Changes at USC After Title

IX Investigation Finds University Failed for Years to Protect Students

from Sexual Abuse,” press release, February 27, 2020, https://www.

ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-requires-sweepingchanges-usc-after-title-ix-investigation-fnds-university-failed-yearsprotect-students-sexual-abuse.

27. See “US Department of Education Holds Penn State Accountable

for its Failure to Protect Students from Sexual Misconduct, Requires

Major Overhaul of Title IX Procedures Following Compliance Review,”

press release, March 26, 2020, https://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/us-department-education-holds-penn-state-accountable-itsfailure-protect-students-sexual-misconduct-requires-major-overhaultitle-ix-procedures-following-compliance-review.

28. See Reading Room, Frequently Asked Questions, Methods of

Administration Policy Guidance, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offces/

list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/moa.html.

29. See “Secretary DeVos Announces New, Proactive Civil Rights

Compliance Center within Offce for Civil Rights,” press release,

January 21, 2020, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/

secretary-devos-announces-new-proactive-civil-rights-compliancecenter-within-offce-civil-rights.

42 
 

OCR 12 Regional Offces: 

Atlanta Offce 

US Department of Education 

61 Forsyth Street S.W., Suite 19T10 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Boston Offce 

US Department of Education 

8th Floor 

5 Post Offce Square 

Boston, MA 02109 

Chicago Offce 

US Department of Education 

John C. Kluczynski Federal Building 

230 S. Dearborn Street, 37th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60661 

Cleveland Offce 

US Department of Education 

1350 Euclid Avenue 

Suite 325 

Cleveland, OH 44115 

Dallas Offce 

US Department of Education 

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 1620 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Denver Offce 

US Department of Education 

Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building 

1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite 310 

Denver, CO 80204 

Kansas City Offce 

US Department of Education 

One Petticoat Lane 

1010 Walnut Street, Suite 320 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

Metro DC (District of Columbia) Offce 

US Department of Education 

400 Maryland Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20202 

New York Offce 

US Department of Education 

32 Old Slip, 26th Floor 

New York, NY 10005 

Philadelphia Offce 

US Department of Education 

The Wanamaker Building 

100 Penn Square East, Suite 515 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

San Francisco Offce 

US Department of Education 

50 United Nations Plaza 

Mail Box 1200, Room 1545 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Seattle Offce 

US Department of Education 

915 Second Avenue, Room 3310 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Availability of Alternate Formats: 

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

1.202.260.0852 or by contacting the Section 508 Coordinator via email at om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited-English-Profcient Persons: 

If you have diffculty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to 

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

services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1.800.872.5327) (TTY: 1.800.877.8339) or email us at ED.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. You 

also can write to US Department of Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, 

Washington, DC, 20202. 

Offce for Civil Rights 

Kenneth L. Marcus, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

Lyndon Baines Johnson Building 

US Department of Education 

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

Telephone: 1.800.421.3481 | Fax: 1.202.453.6012 

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

U.S. Department of Education 

Office for Civil Rights

43 

Office for Civil Rights | Fiscal Year 2019
US Department of Education 

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

Telephone: 1.800.421.3481 | Fax: 1.202.453.6012