Is a college or university required to treat a respondent equitably under the Title IX Final Rule?

A college or a university is required to treat a respondent equitably under the Title IX Final Rule by not imposing disciplinary sanctions without following a Title IX grievance process. That being said, schools often based on a mere allegation can take steps or actions against the respondent that would severely impact the respondent. They could impose, say, a no-contact order which could lead to further disciplinary issues. They could impose an interim or temporary suspension on the respondent which disallows the respondent from, say, either being on campus or taking classes.

This is a gray area, a school may regard these as not disciplinary sanctions, but arguably they would be anything but that. Ultimately under the Title IX Final Rule, the Title IX Final Rule was designed to shift the equities in a Title IX process to state that a school is not supposed to take certain actions against a responded without following a grievance process. Going back to the example of a no-contact order on interim suspension, arguably the school should have a grievance process to address even those, say, temporary steps, or interim steps in the process.

Ultimately, a Title IX grievance process must be followed for the school to be regarded as being equitable towards the respondent. If you're facing a Title IX case or a Title IX sexual misconduct concern, having an experienced attorney advisor can help you best navigate the process and can help work towards trying to ensure a fair process and a favorable outcome, and they should be involved as early as possible in the case.

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact the Lento Law Firm today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.