

![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
| ![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
Rescinded: This document has been formally rescinded by the Department and remains available on the web for historical purposes only.
Page 4
sponsored by the school at another location, or elsewhere. For example, Title
IX protects a student who is sexually assaulted by a fellow student during
a school-sponsored field trip.11
If a school knows or reasonably should know about student-on-student harassment
that creates a hostile environment, Title IX requires the school to take immediate
action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its
effects.12 Schools
also are required to publish a notice of nondiscrimination and to adopt and
publish grievance procedures. Because of these requirements, which are discussed
in greater detail in the following section, schools need to ensure that their
employees are trained so that they know to report harassment to appropriate
school officials, and so that employees with the authority to address harassment
know how to respond properly. Training for employees should include practical
information about how to identify and report sexual harassment and violence.
OCR recommends that this training be provided to any employees likely to witness
or receive reports of sexual harassment and violence, including teachers, school
law enforcement unit employees, school administrators, school counselors, general
counsels, health personnel, and resident advisors.
Schools may have an obligation to respond to student-on-student sexual harassment that initially occurred off school grounds, outside a school’s education program or activity. If a student files a complaint with the school, regardless of where the conduct occurred, the school must process the complaint in accordance with its established procedures. Because students often experience the continuing effects of off-campus sexual harassment in the educational setting, schools should consider the effects of the off-campus conduct when evaluating whether there is a hostile environment on campus. For example, if a student alleges that he or she was sexually assaulted by another student off school grounds, and that upon returning to school he or she was taunted and harassed by other students who are the alleged perpetrator’s friends, the school should take the earlier sexual assault into account in determining whether there is a sexually hostile environment. The school also should take steps to protect a student who was assaulted off campus from further sexual harassment or retaliation from the perpetrator and his or her associates.
Regardless of whether a harassed student, his or her parent, or a third party files a complaint under the school’s grievance procedures or otherwise requests action on the student’s behalf, a school that knows, or reasonably should know, about possible harassment must promptly investigate to determine what occurred and then take appropriate steps to resolve the situation. As discussed later in this letter, the school’s Title IX investigation is different from any law enforcement investigation, and a law enforcement investigation does not relieve the school of its independent Title IX obligation to investigate the conduct. The specific steps in a school’s11 Title
IX also protects third parties from sexual harassment or violence in a school’s
education programs and activities. For example, Title IX protects a high school
student participating in a college’s recruitment program, a visiting student
athlete, and a visitor in a school’s on-campus residence hall. Title IX also
protects employees of a recipient from sexual harassment. For further information
about harassment of employees, see 2001 Guidance at n.1.
12 This is
the standard for administrative enforcement of Title IX and in court cases
where plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief. See 2001 Guidance at
ii-v, 12-13. The standard in private lawsuits for monetary damages is actual
knowledge and deliberate indifference. See Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd.
of Ed., 526 U.S. 629, 643, 648 (1999).