Photo of Jennifer Smith

Attorney focused on representing school districts, colleges, and universities.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that school districts may only be liable for employee sexual misconduct when a school official has actual notice of the conduct. In C.S. v. Madison Metropolitan School District, the Court held that the Title IX obligations of a school district are limited in this regard. While various state laws impose additional requirements beyond Title IX for Illinois schools to respond to reported sexual misconduct by a school employee, this case provides important guideposts for when school districts may be subject to liability for monetary damages under Title IX. 

In this case, a middle school student alleged a school security assistant sexually abused her throughout her eighth-grade year. There was no evidence that anyone witnessed the misconduct, and the student did not report the abuse until August 2014, when she was in high school. The Court noted that “if eighth grade were the whole story, it is clear that [the security assistant’s] alleged abuse, even if proven, could not give rise to liability for the school district” because the school had no knowledge, actual or otherwise, of the abuse.  

Continue Reading When School Districts Are Liable for Employee-Student Sexual Abuse under Title IX

We recently launched a multi-part series where we are providing a refresher on the key players on the Title IX team under the current 2020 regulations. While we wait for the Biden administration to release their proposed regulations soon, remember that the 2020 regulations are still in effect and will be for some time. With that in mind, we want to ensure that everyone is up to speed on the current roles and responsibilities of the members of their team. 

Today, we’re focusing our spotlight on the Title IX Decision-Maker. With the live hearing requirement for colleges and universities under the 2020 regulations, Decision-Makers play key roles in the formal grievance and appeals processes. The regulations outline three stages in which Decision-Makers play a primary role: the live hearing, the written determination, and the appeal. (Decision-Makers have slightly different responsibilities in the K-12 process, which we will also cover below.) 

Continue Reading Title IX Refresher Series Part III: Title IX Decision-Maker

Live hearings—the hallmark procedure and one of the most substantial changes under the 2020 Title IX regulations for higher education institutions—may be a thing of the past. This a possible result of the end of the “Suppression Rule” brought about by the recent court decision in Victim Rights Law Center v. Cardona and the announcement from the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) confirming OCR will not enforce the Suppression Rule. The Suppression Rule prohibited decisionmakers at higher education institutions from considering any statements of parties or witnesses that were not subject to cross examination and therefore not tested for credibility, with potentially draconian results.

Continue Reading Are Title IX Live Hearings A Thing of the Past?

Franczek’s Education Law Team is pleased to offer Title IX Compliance training to prepare your team for the 2021-2022 school year. As our trainees have come to expect from the Franczek team, we will engage participants with the material through live polling, discussion, theoretical problems, and role-playing scenarios. If you are interested in Title IX training scheduled specifically for your school or district, please contact TitleIX@franczek.com.

Continue Reading New Staff or New Roles? Franczek P.C. Offers Updated Title IX Training for K-12 Administrators