Liability & Title IX Cases

Title IX was an amendment established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1972 to address concerns regarding sexually-based discrimination in all academic institutions. All schools are responsible for creating processes and procedures that promptly and equitably handle allegations of possible sexual misconduct that could hinder the learning process, create a hostile environment, or unfairly exclude someone. Those who may face the Title IX disciplinary process include students, staff, faculty, and others that are associated with the school.

Acts of sex or gender-based discrimination may potentially occur in various areas, including the admissions process, athletics, accessing scholarships, and more. Title IX prohibits forms of sexually-based harassment including making appeals for sexual favors, inappropriate advances, slurs, or false stereotypes about someone's “actual or perceived sex.” Gender-oriented harassment may be committed verbally or non-verbally and often involve bias and intimidation. Acts of sexual violence are among the most serious violations such as rape or coercion that also may have criminal implications.

Schools are all required to designate a Title IX Coordinator that will create and maintain their Title IX written guidelines, which should be reasonably accessible to all within the college or university community. Upon receipt of a complaint, college or university administrators will begin to investigate. If it is determined that the evidence supports the allegations, they may summon all parties to a hearing. Students who are found to have violated Title IX can expect to be suspended or dismissed from the institution.

Role of a Title IX Adviser

All parties associated with a complaint are permitted to choose an adviser that will support and accompany them to all proceedings. Accused students must discuss the matter with an experienced attorney-adviser regarding potentially serving in this role. An attorney can approach these allegations from a fresh perspective and ensure your rights to due process are well-protected.

Institutional Liability and Deliberate Indifference

The Department of Education has continued to guide a school's potential liability following possible incidents of sexual harassment that violate Title IX. Their findings establish that this determination is partly based on whether the school responded reasonably. For example, if a school employee is informed of sexual harassment that was severe and had created a hostile environment for the victim.

To establish liability, it must be shown that a responsible employee had “actual” or “constructive” notice. Next, it must be shown that the school's response upon having actual notice was so insufficient that it demonstrated deliberate indifference. A deliberately indifferent response is one that is unreasonable based on the situation. A school would not be liable if the response to a Title IX complaint was “not clearly unreasonable.”

Notification of Proper School Official in Title IX Liability Cases

In cases involving teacher-on-student harassment, the institution may only be liable for failing to properly respond to a complaint when an “official of the school district” had been notified. The Fourth District stated that a school principal or other employee that has the “authority to institute corrective measures” must have been notified to be deemed liable. Notifying another teacher regarding suspicion of teacher-on-student harassment would not be sufficient because no supervisor or higher-ranking employee was informed.

Responsibility or Liability in Cases Involving a Complainant Requesting Confidentiality

How should schools respond to a complaint made by a victim that requests confidentiality? There are concerns regarding the potential effectiveness of actions to address the complaint without revealing the identity of the complainant. Also, if schools fail to recognize requests for confidentiality, other alleged victims may be hesitant to make a complaint. If a school proceeds with a Title IX investigation without informing the respondent of the identity of their accuser, are they violating the due process rights of the accused party?

Recent guidance explains that schools must seek to find a balance in these scenarios. Victims may be less inclined to report incidents, while the school may find themselves unable to effectively investigate; meanwhile, the respondent may not be able to properly defend against the allegations. Federal guidance suggests making an effort to limit public disclosure of the complainant's identity, but only to the “extent necessary to carry out a thorough investigation.”

School Responsibility to Remedy the Effects of Harassment

Are schools responsible to pay for services such as counseling necessary to remedy the harm caused to a student resulting from harassment? Recent guidance states that in cases of students harassing other students, the school's responsibility for such remedial action is based on the “speed and efficacy of the school's response” after being informed. If the school's response was timely and sought to stop and prevent future harassment, the school should not be responsible to pay for counseling or other professional solutions. However, if the school has failed to promptly respond to a student's complaint of a continual harassment, they are responsible for doing what is necessary to remedy the effects (harm) that could have been prevented.

Why is it Important to Retain Experienced Title IX Advisory Representation?

Students facing allegations of sexual assault, harassment, or other forms of misconduct at a college or university may have harsh sanctions imposed if the allegations are proven. The student may be suspended or dismissed from the institution and the student's educational records or transcripts will likely contain a notation indicating that disciplinary measures were taken. This may create longer-term challenges in being admitted to another school, accepted into a graduate-level program, and create other future problems.

Respondents are strongly encouraged to speak with a Title IX attorney-adviser that is familiar with this area of practice, as the ramifications can be very detrimental to your future. Some of the benefits include:

  • The evidence will be subjected to greater scrutiny and weaknesses or inconsistencies may be uncovered
  • The unique provisions of your institution will likely be more accurately interpreted
  • He or she may enter into discussions with the administration to discuss potentially amicable resolutions
  • You are more likely to be better prepared to deliver clear statements and confidently respond to questions

Joseph D. Lento has an understanding of what is at stake and will work to develop an effective strategy that pursues a positive outcome. Please contact the office today at (888) 535-3686 for more information.

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.