Sexual Misconduct Adjudication: The Single-Investigator Model

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Jun 25, 2018 | 0 Comments

In the midst of the Trump administration's speculated Title IX adjudication reform plans, a handful of colleges and universities are taking matters into their own hands. Moving away from committees, or a panel of students, staff, and faculty to mitigate sexual misconduct cases, schools are handing over this responsibility to a sole investigator. This is known as the “single-investigator” model.

The single-investigator model operates in one of two variations: either (1) one investigator handles the entire duties of both investigation and adjudication, or (2) one party conducts the investigation and drafts the report, while other parties review the report and issue a finding.

Implementing this method of adjudication in the context of sexual misconduct and other forms of gender-based discrimination in schools isn't a new concept. Institutions have relied on one official - an internal employee or hired outside party - since Title IX entrusted them with the obligation to resolve these cases. But it hasn't gained much popularity until now.

The drastic and somewhat sudden shift of adjudication process changes in institutions has sparked a larger debate regarding the Department of Education's newfound degree of flexibility under Title IX enforced by the current administration. Critics of the DOE's leniency argue that this model is detrimental, as there are apparent issues that arise when a school allows one person to be the prosecutor, judge, and jury of these cases. The absence of hearings until a request for an appeal (if at all) is also problematic within itself, they argue. Those who support this system, however, believe that it's beneficial since it removes the responsibility of resolving these cases from inexperienced parties.

Regardless of where opinions from people on each side of the spectrum fall, one thing is apparent: the implementation of this system carries many advantages for the institution overall. Both due process and survivor advocates alike can agree that the decision to amend such policies may stem from a self-serving incentive, rather than the best interests of the parties involved. Some of these advantages include (but are not limited to):

  • Limited staff/training: panels require pools of qualified adjudicators that must be trained on the school's dime. With the single-investigator model, schools need only worry about adequately training one person, which in turn, saves them money.
  • Speed: comprising a panel and conducting a hearing take time. But these are important steps to make to ensure integrity and fairness within hearings. A single investigator process is likely to be faster than a hearing panel, clearing the case out faster (despite the fact that time restraints on Title IX cases were recently removed).

As of now, we'll see how effective this system functions in practice. But endowing one person with a considerable amount of power does not seem like it'd lead to more fair outcomes in these cases.

Title IX Attorney Helping Clients Nationwide

The only way to make sure your voice is heard and your rights are upheld is to retain a student defense attorney. National Title IX attorney Joseph D. Lento has the skill, experience, and expertise to help you preserve your entitled rights under Title IX and your school's policy. For a case evaluation or more information about his representation, contact him online or give him a call at 888-535-3686 today.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he has sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address school-related issues and concerns anywhere in the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

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 our offices 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.