Research Guides: Student Project: Title IX, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault: Primary Sources

The Clery Act

Jeanne Clery

What is the Clery Act
The Clery Act is a consumer protection law that aims to provide transparency around campus crime policy and statistics.
34 CFR Part 668
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.
United Educators Organization

CodeBlue.come: Code Blue's Partnership with the Clery Center Continues
Blue-light systems can be found all across college campuses in the United States, they aim to provide access to emergency response personnel in the event of an emergency on campus.

Definitions

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)
Websters: Consent
to give assent or approval
Law.com: Consent
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

- Compliance

Legislative History

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
- This link opens in a new window
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
- This link opens in a new window
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.
Gebser v. Lago Vista Oral Argument
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629
- This link opens in a new window
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
- This link opens in a new window
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

Doe v. Columbia University
- This link opens in a new window
A male student brought an action against Columbia University, alleging that university acted with sex bias in violation of Title IX in investigating him and suspending him for alleged sexual assault.

*Westlaw subscription required*
Bagley v. Yale University, 42 F. Supp. 3d 332 - Dist. Court (D. Conn. 2014)
Chronicle of Higher Education - How 46 Title IX Cases Were Resolved
"Since the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights signaled stricter enforcement of Title IX in April 2011, it has resolved 46 investigations of colleges for possible violations of the gender-equity law involving alleged sexual violence."

Trump Era Cases

Doe v. Brown University
- This link opens in a new window
Non-student, who was sexually assaulted by a student on the university campus, brought an action against the university and two of its administrators, alleging that they failed to protect her under Title IX and acted with deliberate indifference by failing to act on or provide redress for her sexual assault.
Feminist Majority Foundation v. University of Mary Washington
- This link opens in a new window
Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees
- This link opens in a new window
Four female students at Michigan State University, who allegedly were sexually harassed or assaulted by other students, brought an action against the university's board of trustees and certain university officials, asserting claims under Title IX, Michigan's Elliott–Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), and § 1983.
Prasad v. George Washington University
- This link opens in a new window

*Westlaw subscription required*

Other Notable Title IX Cases

Doe Doe v. Petaluma City School District, 949 F. Suppl. 1415 (N.D. Cal. 1996)
Plaintiff Jane Doe has filed suit concerning defendants' alleged failure to put an end to sexual harassment inflicted on her by her peers while she was a student at Kenilworth Junior High School.
Alexander v. Yale University, 459 F. Supp. 1 (D. Conn. 1977)

President Nixon and Title IX

Richard Nixon Foundation: 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. "