Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
The Clery Act
What is the Clery Act
The Clery Act is a consumer protection law that aims to provide transparency around campus crime policy and statistics.
Basics of the Clery Act - EndRapeOnCampus.com
The Clery Act requires colleges and universities to do the following with regards to sexual assault reports: 1) Publish an Annual Security Report; 2) Disclose crime statistics for incidents that occur on campus, in unobstructed public areas immediately adjacent to or running through the campus and at certain non-campus facilities; 3) Issue timely warnings about Clery Act crimes which pose a serious or ongoing threat to students and employees; and 4) Devise an emergency response, notification, and testing policy.
Websters: Sexual Assault
illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (such as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority
Websters: Sexual Harassment
uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature especially by a person in authority toward a subordinate (such as an employee or student)
to give assent or approval
1) n. a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations.
Common search terms used in this research guide:
- Title IX
- Sexual Assault / Harassment
- Education (Department of Education)
- University/ Institution
- Dear Colleague
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is enacted by Congress and signed into law by Richard Nixon. The first use of Title IX in charges of sexual harassment against an educational institution in Alexander v. Yale University. Then in 1980 U.S. Department of Education was established. Primary oversight of Title IX was transferred to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education. Shortly after in 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Grove City v. Bell that Title IX applies only to the specific programs within an institution that receive specifically targeted federal funding. U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 then ruled unanimously in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Schools that plaintiffs who sue under Title IX may be awarded monetary damages for intentional discrimination. In 1996 in the case Doe v. Petaluma, ERA established the right of students to be free of peer sexual harassment under Title IX, including the obligation of school districts to provide training to prevent sexual harassment and to establish procedures for addressing harassment when it occurs. In 1998, U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, that a student may sue a school district for damages for a teacher’s sexual harassment only if a school official with authority to institute corrective measures had actual notice of the teacher’s misconduct and if school acted with “deliberate indifference” to the harassment. In 2001, U.S. Department of Justice issued “Title IX Legal Manual” providing guidance to federal agencies regarding the variety of educational programs under Title IX. Then in 2011, The Department of Education issued a policy guidance that Title IX’s protections against sexual harassment and sexual violence apply to all students.
Important Title IX Supreme Court Cases
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch. 503 U.S. 60
The school district argued that Title IX only provided equitable relief. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case. In so doing, the Court held that (1) Title IX provided a damages remedy for the student because the Court presumed the availability of all appropriate remedies unless the United States Congress had expressly indicated otherwise, and (2) where liability was created by statute without a remedy, it would have been enforced by a common law action.
Gebser v, Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 542 U.S. 274
A teacher at the school district initiated sexual contact with the student. The student did not report the relationship to school officials. The student filed suit for sexual harassment under state law, Title IX, and § 1983. The trial court dismissed the federal claims and remanded to state court for the state law negligence claims. The intermediate appellate court affirmed dismissal of the federal claims. The United States Supreme Court found that the student was not allowed to recover for sexual harassment by one of the district's teachers unless an official of the district had actual notice of and was deliberately indifferent to the misconduct. It would have frustrated the purposes of Title IX to permit a damages recovery against the district based on the principles of respondeat superior or constructive notice without actual notice to the district.
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629
Petitioner failed to state a cause of action for monetary and injunctive relief against respondent school district because "student-on-student," or peer, harassment provided no grounds for a private cause of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq.
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246
Petitioners alleged an inadequate response to peer-on-peer sexual harassment, and raised a claim under § 1983 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause under U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The court of appeals held that Title IX's implied private remedy was sufficiently comprehensive to preclude the use of § 1983 to advance constitutional claims and to advance statutory claims based on Title IX. The Court, however, did not agree that Congress saw Title IX as the sole means of vindicating the constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination perpetuated by educational institutions. In light of the divergent coverage of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as the absence of a comprehensive remedial scheme comparable to those at issue in Sea Clammers, Smith, and Rancho Palos Verdes, the Court concluded that Title IX was not meant to be an exclusive mechanism for addressing gender discrimination in schools or a substitute for § 1983 suits as a means of enforcing constitutional rights.
*LexisNexis subscription required*
Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984)
The Court held that there was no "substantive difference" between institutional assistance and aid received by a school through its students; Title IX coverage, the Court found, was triggered by the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants.
Obama Era Cases and Case Commentary
Trump Era Cases
*Westlaw subscription required*
Other Notable Title IX Cases
President Nixon and Title IX
Time.com- Title IX at 45
"It was 45 years ago — on June 23, 1972 — that President Richard Nixon signed the law that would quickly become known simply as Title IX. The rule, part of the Education Amendments of 1972, stipulates that any educational program or activity that receives federal funding cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. "