An Inadequate Response to An Accused May Give Rise To Title IX Liability

A recent Court decision reminds school districts that the rights of the accused must also be protected during any Title IX investigation. In the case of Schiebel v. Schoharie Central School District, 120 F. 4th 1082 (2d. Cir. 2024), an agricultural educator brought a Title IX claim against the school district, alleging that the school district discriminated against him on the basis of sex in the manner that it conducted a Title IX investigation. The Court found the educator set forth a viable claim exposing the school district to liability.

The Plaintiff is an educator who traveled to various school districts with a mobile presentation on the history and practice of using maple sap. Following one such presentation, a parent reported to the school district that the educator had made her daughter feel uncomfortable. The school district notified the educator that a Title IX investigation would be conducted. Over the next several weeks, the educator asked the district for specifics of the allegations but did not receive a response. The district’s Title IX coordinator subsequently held a meeting with the educator at which, as noted by the Court, the coordinator stated that “her back was to the wall and she was aware of exits”. The coordinator informed the educator that the student reported that he had touched her breasts and buttocks. The educator did not recall the student or any such incident. The educator did say he may have reached around a student in the trailer to get something. The educator reported that the meeting abruptly ended and, two weeks later, he was notified that the allegations had been founded. As a result of the findings, the mobile experience was banned and the plaintiff lost his job. Following an appeal, the educator filed a claim against the district alleging a violation of Title IX.

The Court found the educator met his burden of proof that the school district violated his rights under Title IX. The Court found the school district was deliberately indifferent to the truth or falsity of the allegations because its investigation was deficient. The Court noted that the district failed to provide the educator with rudimentary due process, such as timely notice of the specific allegations against him, an opportunity to review or present evidence, and an unbiased decision maker. The Court further noted that the school district failed to follow its own Title IX policy which addressed the process for the investigation and the adjudication of Title IX claims. The Court found that the Title IX coordinator’s actions and comments during the meeting reflected a bias against the educator. The Title IX coordinator wrongly considered the educator’s statement that he may have reached around a student as an admission of sexual harassment and further ended the meeting without permitting the educator to present his case. According to the Court, nothing in the school district’s investigation supported a finding of sexual harassment. The educator not only established procedural irregularities demonstrating bias, but also that the district was biased in its investigation.

This decision is a reminder for school districts to ensure the procedural requirements applicable to Title IX investigations are faithfully followed, for the benefit of both the accused and the accuser. It can be a Title IX sexual harassment violation if the sexual harassment allegations are dismissed too lightly, as well as a Title IX violation if the investigation is performed with a presumption of guilt or results in a too hasty conclusion. All investigators must act in an impartial and unbiased manner and the rights of the accusing party and accused must be kept in the forefront. Should your district require support or training on conducting investigations under Title IX, please do not hesitate to contact our office.