OFFICES


OCR: Office for Civil Rights
Current Section
Sexual Harassment Guidance

4000-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office for Civil Rights

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

PREAMBLE

ACTION: Final Policy Guidance

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights issues a final document entitled "Sexual Harassment Guidance" (Guidance). Sexual harassment of students is prohibited by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 under the circumstances described in the Guidance. The Guidance provides educational institutions with information regarding the standards that are used by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and that institutions should use, to investigate and resolve allegations of sexual harassment of students engaged in by school employees, other students (peers), or third parties.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard I. Kallem. U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 5412 Switzer Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-1174. Telephone (202) 205-9641. Internet address: Howard_Kallem@ed.gov For additional copies of this Guidance, individuals may call OCR's Customer Service Team at (202) 205-5413 or toll-free at 1-800-421-3481. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Department's toll-free number, 1-800-421-3481, in conjunction with the phone company's TDD relay capabilities. This Guidance will also be available at OCR's site on the Internet at URL http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ocrpubs.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Guidance

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Sexual harassment of students can be a form of discrimination prohibited by Title IX. The Office for Civil Rights has long recognized that sexual harassment of students engaged in by school employees, other students, or third parties is covered by Title IX. OCR's policy and practice is consistent with the Congress' goal in enacting Title IX -- the elimination of sex-based discrimination in federally assisted education programs. It is also consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent and well-established legal principles that have developed under Title IX, as well as under the related anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The elimination of sexual harassment of students in federally assisted educational programs is a high priority for OCR. Through its enforcement of Title IX, OCR has learned that a significant number of students, both male and female, have experienced sexual harassment, that sexual harassment can interfere with a student's academic performance and emotional and physical well-being, and that preventing and remedying sexual harassment in schools is essential to ensure nondiscriminatory, safe environments in which students can learn.

The Guidance applies to students at every level of education. It provides information intended to enable school employees and officials to identify sexual harassment and to take steps to prevent its occurrence. In addition, the Guidance is intended to inform educational institutions about the standards that should be followed when investigating and resolving claims of sexual harassment of students. The Guidance is important because school personnel who understand their obligations under Title IX are in the best position to prevent harassment and to lessen the harm to students if, despite their best efforts, harassment occurs. The Guidance discusses factors to be considered in applying the standards and examples that are designed to illustrate how the standards may apply to particular situations. Overall, the Guidance illustrates that in addressing allegations of sexual harassment, the judgment and common sense of teachers and school administrators are important elements of a response that meets the requirements of Title IX.

In addition, it is clear from the Guidance that not all behavior with sexual connotations constitutes sexual harassment under Federal law. In order to give rise to a complaint under Title IX, sexual harassment must be sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it adversely affects a student's education or creates a hostile or abusive educational environment. For a one-time incident to rise to the level of harassment, it must be severe.

As illustrated in the Guidance, school personnel should consider the age and maturity of students when responding to allegations of sexual harassment. The Guidance explains that age is relevant in determining whether sexual harassment occurred in the first instance, as well as in determining the appropriate response by the school. For example, age is relevant in determining whether a student welcomed the conduct and in determining whether the conduct was severe, persistent, or pervasive. Age is a factor to be considered by school personnel when determining what type of education or training to provide to students in order to prevent sexual harassment from occurring.

Notably, during the time that the Guidance was available for public comment, several incidents involving young students occurred in public schools and were widely reported in the press. In one incident a school reportedly punished a six-year-old boy, under its sexual harassment policy, for kissing a female classmate on the cheek. These incidents provide a good example of how the Guidance can assist schools in formulating appropriate responses to conduct of this type. The factors in the Guidance confirm that a kiss on the cheek by a first grader does not constitute sexual harassment.

Consistent with the Guidance's reliance on school employees and officials to use their judgment and common sense, the Guidance offers school personnel flexibility in how to respond to sexual harassment. Commenters who read the Guidance as always requiring schools to punish alleged harassment under an explicit sexual harassment policy rather than by use of a general disciplinary or behavior code, even if the latter may provide more age-appropriate ways to handle those incidents, are incorrect. First, if inappropriate conduct does not rise to the level of harassment prohibited by Title IX, school employees or officials may rely entirely on their own judgment regarding how best to handle the situation.

Even if a school determines that a student's conduct is sexual harassment, the Guidance explicitly states that Title IX permits the use of a general student disciplinary procedure. The critical issue under Title IX is whether responsive action that a school could reasonably be expected to take is effective in ending the sexual harassment and in preventing its recurrence. If treating sexual harassment merely as inappropriate behavior is not effective in ending the harassment or in preventing it from escalating, schools must take additional steps to ensure that students know that the conduct is prohibited sex discrimination.

Process in Developing the Guidance

Because of the importance of eliminating sexual harassment in schools, and based on the requests of schools, teachers, parents, and other interested parties, OCR determined that it should provide to schools a comprehensive discussion of the legal standards and related issues involved in resolving sexual harassment incidents. While this document reflects longstanding OCR policy and practice in this area, it also reflects extensive consultation with interested parties. Even before making documents available for formal comment, OCR held a series of meetings with groups representing students, teachers, school administrators, and researchers. In these discussions, OCR gained valuable information regarding the realities of sexual harassment in schools, as well as information regarding promising practices for identifying and preventing harassment. These insights and learning are reflected in the Guidance.

Issuance of the Guidance for Comment and the Format of the Final Guidance

O

n August 16, 1996, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights published a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER (61 FR 42728) regarding the availability of a document entitled: "Sexual Harassment Guidance: Peer Sexual Harassment" (Peer Guidance) and inviting comments on the document. Subsequently, on October 4, 1996, the Assistant Secretary published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (61 FR 52172) a request for comments on a document entitled: "Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees" (Employee Guidance). Both notices stated that the guidance documents reflected longstanding OCR policy and practice and invited comments and recommendations regarding their clarity and completeness.

The most significant change in the format of the final document is that it combines the two separate guidance documents into one document that addresses sexual harassment of students by peers, school employees, or third parties. Commenters frequently stated that a combined document would be clearer and easier to use. OCR agrees. Thus, the term "Guidance" when used in this preamble refers to the combined document that incorporates both the Peer Guidance and the Employee Guidance.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

In response to the Assistant Secretary's invitations to comment, OCR received approximately 70 comments on the Peer Guidance and approximately 10 comments on the Employee Guidance. Many commenters stated that the guidance documents provided comprehensive, clear, and useful information to schools. For instance, one commenter stated that the Peer Guidance was "a godsend...in one convenient place [it provides] the clear implications of the statutes, regulations, and case law." Another commenter stated that the Guidance "will assist universities...in maintaining a harassment-free educational environment."

Commenters also provided many specific suggestions and examples regarding how the final Guidance could be more complete and clearer. Many of these suggested changes have been incorporated into the Guidance.

The preamble discusses recurring and significant recommendations regarding the clarity and completeness of the document. While the invitations to comment on the Peer Guidance and Employee Guidance did not request substantive comments regarding OCR's longstanding policy and practice in the area of sexual harassment, some commenters did provide these comments. In instances in which OCR could provide additional useful information to readers related to these comments, it has done so in the preamble. Comments are grouped by subject and are discussed in the following sections.

The Need for Additional Guidance

Comments: Many commenters agreed that a document combining the Peer Guidance and the Employee Guidance would provide more clarity to schools. Commenters disagreed, however, regarding whether, and what type of, additional information is needed to enhance schools' understanding of their legal obligations under Title IX. Some commenters asked for more detailed analysis regarding the applicable legal standards, including hard and fast rules for determining what is harassment and how a school should respond. Other commenters, by contrast, found OCR's guidance documents, including the extensive legal citations, to be too detailed and "legalistic." They expressed a need for a document that is simpler and more accessible to teachers, parents, school administrators, and others who need to know how to recognize, report, or respond to sexual harassment.

Discussion: As the Guidance makes clear, it is impossible to provide hard and fast rules applicable to all instances of sexual harassment. Instead, the Guidance provides factors to help schools make appropriate judgments.

In response to concerns for more analysis of the legal standards, OCR has provided additional examples in the Guidance to illustrate how the Title IX legal standards may apply in particular cases. It is important to remember that examples are just that; they do not cover all the types of situations that may arise. Moreover, they may not illustrate the only way to respond to sexual harassment of students because there is often no one right way to respond.

OCR also believes that there is a legitimate concern that school administrators, teachers, students, and parents need an accessible document to assist them in recognizing and appropriately responding to sexual harassment. Accordingly, OCR has developed, in addition to the final Guidance, a pamphlet for conveying basic information regarding parties' rights and responsibilities under Title IX. The pamphlet includes information from the Guidance that would be most useful to these groups as they confront issues of sexual harassment. Concurrent with the issuance of this Guidance, the pamphlet will be issued with copies available from all OCR offices and an electronic posting on OCR's web site. For a copy of the pamphlet, individuals may call OCR's Customer Service Team at (202)205-5413 or toll-free 1-800-421-3481. Copies will also be available from all OCR enforcement offices, and the pamphlet will be posted on OCR's site on the Internet at URL http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ocrpubs.html.

Additional Guidance on the First Amendment

Comments: Many commenters asked OCR to provide additional guidance regarding the interplay of academic freedom and free speech rights with Title IX's prohibition of sexual harassment. Several of these commenters wanted OCR to announce hard and fast rules in this area, although commenters disagreed on what those rules should be. For instance, one commenter requested that OCR tell schools that the First Amendment does not prevent schools from punishing speech that has no legitimate pedagogical purpose.

Another commenter, by contrast, wanted OCR to state that classroom speech simply can never be the basis for a sexual harassment complaint. Other commenters requested that OCR include specific examples regarding the application of free speech rights.

Discussion: As the documents published for comment indicated, the resolution of cases involving potential First Amendment issues is highly fact-and context-dependent. Thus, hard and fast rules are not appropriate.

However, in order to respond to concerns that schools need assistance in making these determinations, OCR has provided additional examples in the Guidance regarding the application of the First Amendment principles discussed there.

Application of Guidance to Harassment by Third Parties

Comments: Several commenters stated that it was unclear whether the Guidance applies if a student alleges harassment by a third party, i.e., by someone who is not an employee or student at the school.

Discussion: The Guidance clarifies that the principles in the Guidance apply to situations in which, for example, a student alleges that harassment by a visiting professional speaker or members of a visiting athletic team created a sexually hostile environment. The Peer Guidance did, in fact, discuss the standards applicable to the latter situation in which students from another school harassed the school's students.

The applicable standards have not changed, but the final Guidance clarifies that the same standards also apply if adults who are not employees or agents of the school engage in harassment of students.

Application of Guidance to Harassment Based on Sexual Orientation

Comments: Several commenters indicated that, in light of OCR's stated policy that Title IX's prohibition against sexual harassment applies regardless of the sex of the harassed student or of the sex of the alleged harasser, the Guidance was confusing regarding the statement that Title IX does not apply to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Discussion: The Guidance has been clarified to indicate that if harassment is based on conduct of a sexual nature, it may be sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX even if the harasser and the harassed are the same sex or the victim of harassment is gay or lesbian. If, for example, harassing conduct of a sexual nature is directed at gay or lesbian students, it may create a sexually hostile environment and may constitute a violation of Title IX in the same way that it may for heterosexual students. The Guidance provides examples to illustrate the difference between this type of conduct, which may be prohibited by Title IX, and conduct constituting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is not prohibited by Title IX. The Guidance also indicates that some State or local laws or other Federal authority may prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Effect on the Guidance of Conflicting Federal Court Decisions

Comments: Several commenters requested clarification of the standards to be applied to sexual harassment cases in States subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, specifically in light of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Rowinsky v. Bryan Independent School District, 80 F.3d 1006 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 165 (1996)

.

Discussion: One beneficial result of the Guidance will be to provide courts with ready access to the standards used by the agency that has been given the authority by law to interpret and enforce Title IX. Courts generally benefit from and defer to the expertise of an agency with that authority.

Nevertheless, OCR recognizes that recent Fifth Circuit decisions add to schools' confusion regarding Title IX legal standards. In Rowinsky, the Fifth Circuit held that a school is not liable under Title IX even if it is on notice of peer sexual harassment and it ignores or fails to remedy it, unless it responds differently based on the sex of the alleged victim. Consistent with the vigorous dissent in Rowinsky, as well as with other Federal decisions contrary to the Rowinsky holding, OCR continues to believe that the Rowinsky decision was wrongly decided. In OCR's view, the holding in Rowinsky was based on a mistaken belief that the legal principle underpinning this aspect of the Guidance makes a school responsible for the actions of a harassing student, rather than for the school's own discrimination in failing to respond once it knows that the harassment is happening.

In two very recent decisions involving sexual harassment of students by school employees, the Fifth Circuit again applied Title IX law in a manner inconsistent with OCR's longstanding policy and practice. First, in Canutillo Indep. School Dist. v. Leija, 101 F.3d 393, 398-400 (5th Cir. 1996), the court held, again over a strong dissent and contrary to OCR policy, that a school district was not liable for the sexual molestation of a second grade student by one of her teachers because the student and her mother only reported the harassment to her homeroom teacher. The court determined that notice to the teacher was not notice to the school -- notwithstanding that a school handbook instructed students and parents to report complaints to the child's primary or homeroom teacher.

Finally, in Rosa H. v. San Elizario Indep. School Dist., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2780 (Feb. 17, 1997), the Fifth Circuit reversed a jury finding that a school district was liable under Title IX for a hostile environment created by the school's male karate instructor, who repeatedly initiated sexual intercourse with a fifteen-year-old female karate student, often during the school day. The court held that, while "there was no question that the student was subject to discrimination based on sex," a school is liable only in situations in which an employee who has been invested by the school board with supervisory power over the offending employee actually knew of the abuse, had the power to end the abuse, and failed to do so.

Several of the decisions discuss according "appreciable deference" to OCR's interpretation of Title IX in appropriate circumstances and contain other indications that Title IX law is evolving in the Fifth Circuit. When OCR investigates complaints involving schools in States in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi), it will in each case determine and follow the current applicable law, even if it is inconsistent with OCR policy. OCR will also participate where appropriate, and in conjunction with the Department of Justice, to shape the evolution of Title IX law in a manner consistent with the Guidance

.

Inconsistent decisions do not prohibit schools in States in the Fifth Circuit from following the Guidance. Since the Guidance assists school in ensuring that students can learn in a safe and nondiscriminatory educational environment, it is the better practice for these schools to follow the Guidance. Indeed, in light of the evolving case law in the Fifth Circuit, following the Guidance may also be the safest way to ensure compliance with the requirements of Title IX. School personnel in States in the Fifth Circuit should also consider whether State, local, or other Federal authority affects their obligations in these areas.

Notice

Comments:

Several commenters recommended that additional guidance be provided regarding the types of employees through which a school can receive notice of sexual harassment. Commenters disagreed, however, on who should be able to receive notice. For instance, some commenters stated that OCR should find that a school has received notice only if "managerial" employees, "designated" employees, or employees with the authority to correct the harassment receive notice of the harassment. Another commenter suggested, by contrast, that any school employee should be considered a responsible employee for purposes of notice.

Discussion: The Guidance states that a school has actual notice of sexual harassment if an agent or responsible employee of the school receives notice.

An exhaustive list of employees would be inappropriate, however, because whether an employee is an agent or responsible school employee, or whether it would be reasonable for a student to believe the employee is an agent or responsible employee, even if the employee is not, will vary depending on factors such as the authority actually given to the employee and the age of the student. Thus, the Guidance gives examples of the types of employees that can receive notice of harassment. In this regard, it is important for schools to recognize that the Guidance does not necessarily require that any employee who receives notice of the harassment also be responsible for taking appropriate steps to end the harassment or prevent its recurrence. An employee may be required only to report the harassment to other school officials who have the responsibility to take appropriate action

.

OCR does not agree with those commenters who recommend that a school can receive notice only through managerial or designated employees. For example, young students may not understand those designations and may reasonably believe that an adult, such as a teacher or the school nurse, is a person they can and should tell about incidents of sexual harassment regardless of that person's formal status in the school administration.

Comments:

Several commenters stated that constructive notice, or the "should have known" standard, puts schools in the untenable position of constantly monitoring students and employees to seek out potential harassers.

D

iscussion:

Constructive notice is relevant only if a school's liability depends on notice and conduct has occurred that is sufficient to trigger the school's obligation to respond. As the examples in the Guidance indicate, constructive notice is applicable only if a school ignores or fails to recognize overt or obvious problems of sexual harassment. Constructive notice does not require a school to predict aberrant behavior.

Remedying the Effects of Harassment on Students

Comments: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the Guidance's statement that schools may be required to pay for professional counseling and other services necessary to remedy the effects of harassment on students. Some comments indicated confusion over the circumstances under which the responsibility for those costs would exist and concern over the financial responsibility that would be created. Others stated that schools should not be liable for these costs if they have taken appropriate responsive action to eliminate the harassing environment, or if the harassers are non-employees.

Discussion: The final Guidance provides additional clarification regarding when a school may be required to remedy the effects on those who have been subject to harassment. For instance, if a teacher engages in quid pro quo harassment against a student, a school is liable under Title IX for the conduct and its effects. Thus, appropriate corrective action could include providing counseling services to the harassed student or paying other costs necessary to remedy the effects of the teacher's harassment. On the other hand, if a school's liability depends on its failure to take appropriate action after it receives notice of the harassment, e.g., in cases of peer harassment, the extent of a school's liability for remedying the effects of harassment will depend on the speed and efficacy of the school's response once it receives notice. For instance, if a school responds immediately and appropriately to eliminate harassment of which it has notice and to prevent its recurrence, it will not be responsible for remedying the effects of harassment, if any, on the individual. By contrast, if a school ignores complaints by a student that he or she is persistently being sexually harassed by another student in his or her class, the school will be required to remedy those effects of the harassment that it could have prevented if it had responded appropriately to the student's complaints, including, if appropriate, the provision of counseling services.

Confidentiality

Comments: Many commenters recommended additional clarification regarding how schools should respond if a harassed student requests that his or her name not be disclosed. Some commenters believe that, particularly in the elementary and secondary school arena, remedying harassment must be the school's first priority, even if that action results in a breach of a request for confidentiality. These commenters were concerned that, by honoring requests for confidentiality, schools would not be able to take effective action to remedy harassment. Other commenters believe that if requests for confidentiality are not honored, students may be discouraged from reporting harassment. These commenters, therefore, argue that declining to honor these requests would be less effective in preventing harassment than taking whatever steps are possible to remedy harassment, while maintaining a victim's confidentiality.

Finally, some commenters were concerned that withholding the name of the victim of harassment would interfere with the due process rights of the accused.

Discussion: The Guidance strikes a balance regarding the issue of confidentiality: encouraging students to report harassment, even if students wish to maintain confidentiality, but not placing schools in an untenable position regarding their obligations to remedy and prevent further harassment, or making it impossible for an accused to adequately defend himself or herself. The Guidance encourages schools to honor a student's request that his or her name be withheld, if this can be done consistently with the school's obligation to remedy the harassment and take steps to prevent further harassment. (The Guidance also notes that schools should consider whether the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) would prohibit a school from disclosing information from a student's education record without the consent of the student alleging harassment.) In addition, OCR has provided clarification by describing factors schools should consider in making these determinations. These factors include the nature of the harassment, the age of the students involved, and the number of incidents and students involved. These factors also may be relevant in balancing a victim's need for confidentiality against the rights of an accused harasser.

The Guidance also has been clarified to acknowledge that, because of the sensitive nature of incidents of harassment, it is important to limit or prevent public disclosure of the names of both the student who alleges harassment and the name of the alleged harasser. The Guidance informs schools that, in all cases, they should make every effort to prevent public disclosure of the names of all parties involved, except to the extent necessary to carry out a thorough investigation.

FERPA

C

omments: Several commenters stated that the Department should change its position that FERPA could prevent a school from informing a complainant of the sanction or discipline imposed on a student found guilty of harassment. Some commenters argued that information regarding the outcome of a sexual harassment complaint is not an education record covered by FERPA. Other commenters argued alternatively that any information regarding the outcome of the proceedings is "related to" the complainant and, therefore, the information can be disclosed to him or her consistent with FERPA. In addition, some commenters asked for clarification that FERPA does not limit the due process rights of a teacher who is accused of harassment to be informed of the name of the student who has alleged harassment.

Discussion: As these comments indicate, the interplay of FERPA and Title IX raises complex and difficult issues. Regarding requests for clarification on the interplay of FERPA and the rights of an accused employee, the Guidance clarifies that the Department does not interpret FERPA to override any federally protected due process rights of a school employee accused of harassment.

Regarding whether FERPA prohibits the disclosure of any disciplinary action taken against a student found guilty of harassment, it is the Department's current position that FERPA prohibits a school from releasing information to a complainant if that information is contained in the other student's education record unless-- (1) the information directly relates to the complainant (for example, an order requiring the student harasser not to have contact with the complainant); or (2) the harassment involves a crime of violence or a sex offense in a postsecondary institution. However, in light of the comments received on this issue, the Department has determined that its position regarding the application of FERPA to records and information related to sexual harassment needs further consideration. Accordingly, the section on "Notice of Outcome and FERPA" has been removed from the Guidance. Additional guidance on FERPA will be forthcoming.

Does Title IX Require Schools to Have a Sexual Harassment Policy

Comments: Several commenters requested additional clarity regarding whether Title IX requires schools to have a policy explicitly prohibiting sexual harassment or to have grievance procedures specifically intended to handle sexual harassment complaints, or both.

Discussion: Title IX requires a recipient of Federal funds to notify students and parents of elementary and secondary students of its policy against discrimination based on sex and have in place a prompt and equitable procedure for resolving sex discrimination complaints. Sexual harassment can be a form of sexual discrimination. The Guidance clearly states that, while a recipient's policy and procedure must meet all procedural requirements of Title IX and apply to sexual harassment, a school does not have to have a policy and procedure specifically addressing sexual harassment, as long as its non-discrimination policy and procedures for handling discrimination complaints are effective in eliminating all types of sex discrimination. OCR has found that policies and procedures specifically designed to address sexual harassment, if age appropriate, are a very effective means of making students and employees aware of what constitutes sexual harassment, that that conduct is prohibited sex discrimination, and that it will not be tolerated by the school. That awareness, in turn, can be a key element in preventing sexual harassment.

Dated: 03/13/97

Norma V. Cantu,
Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights

1997 Sexual Harassment Guidance


 
Print this page Printable view Send this page Share this page
Last Modified: 03/14/2005