Filing a Title IX Complaint
In order to initiate the Title IX process, it is required to submit a formal Title IX complaint that gives the institution "actual knowledge" of the incident. Actual knowledge is defined as when a figure with authority to initiate a Title IX process is informed of an incident. At CC, the following administration members have the authority to initiate a Title IX process:
Title IX Coordinator and Deputy Title IX Coordinator
Vice President for Student Life / Dean of Students;
Dean of the Faculty; and
Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration
All of the administrators listed above are mandatory reporters that report directly to the Title IX office which will initiate a Title IX investigation. When filing a complaint, it is best to reach out directly to the Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX Reporting Form can be found here on the CC Title IX website. A student may also make an appointment to meet with the Title IX Coordinator in person to disclose a complaint.
Supportive Measures
Once a formal complaint is made, all complainants (the person who files the Title IX report) are eligible to receive supportive measures prior to the start of the investigation. At CC, supportive measures include:
a. counseling;
b. extensions of deadlines or other course-related adjustments, as deemed feasible and appropriate by faculty;
c. modifications of work or class schedules;
d. excused absences;
e. campus escort services;
f. mutual restrictions on contact between the parties;
g. changes in work or housing locations;
h. leaves of absence; and
i. increased security and monitoring of certain areas of the campus and other similar measures.
The Investigation Process
When a formal complaint is made, it automatically triggers the formal resolution process unless it is specified that there is a desire to participate in an informal resolution process. Within 7 days of receiving the complaint, the Title IX Coordinator will provide a notice of the allegations to both parties- the complainant and the respondent (person accused of wrongdoing). Each party has 3 days from the notice to prepare for the initial interview. In the initial interview, the Title IX Coordinator will inform both parties of their Title IX rights, what the process looks like, and give the timeline for the process. The typical time frame for completion of the formal grievance process is between 60-90 days.
Parties in a Title IX Case
Once the initial interview is conducted by the Title IX Coordinator, the TItle IX Coordinator will assign a trained investigator and a decision-maker for the case. These are separate positions. The Title IX Coordinator acts as an oversight of the case throughout the process and can offer support to both parties. The investigator is responsible for the burden of finding evidence and conducting interviews. The decision-maker is responsible for reviewing the evidence and conducting a live hearing to decide the outcome of the case.
Interviews and Submission of Evidence
The college will provide a written notice to each party before investigators conduct an interview. Each party is entitled to have an advisor present at each meeting to offer support and advice throughout the process. The advisor can be an attorney. The investigator will attempt to interview any witnesses listed by both the complainant and respondent.
The investigator may conduct follow-up interviews with both parties and witnesses as necessary. All interviews are confidential. Each party has an equal opportunity to submit witnesses and evidence and each party has the power to review all evidence submitted for investigation. The college will not collect medical records or legally privileged information.
The Investigative Report
The investigator will draft an investigative report that collects all of the evidence and interviews submitted by both parties, The investigator will send a copy of the draft investigative report and all evidence to both parties once completed. Each party has 10 days to respond to the investigative report to provide input and supplemental information. Failure to respond within the 10-day time frame constitutes a wave of response rights. The investigator can ask follow-up questions to both parties or to clarify new information. When the investigator finalizes the report, they send it to the decision maker.
The Live Hearing
The decision maker will schedule a live hearing at least 10 days after receiving the final investigative report. The decision maker may schedule pre-hearing meetings to review hearing procedures, answer evidentiary questions, and review witness lists. For the live hearing, parties can request accommodation to be in separate rooms with microphones and cameras to hear the evidence and reports of each party without having to directly interact with one another. During the live hearing, each party is entitled to cross-examination of evidence. For cross-examination, only advisors of each party may pose questions to the opposing party's advisor. Complainants and respondents may not directly interact with one another. Additionally, the decision maker will determine whether each question in cross-examination is relevant before the question is asked.
Determination of Responsibility
After the live hearing, the decision maker will evaluate all relevant evidence. The decision maker utilizes the “preponderance of evidence” standard also known as "more likely than not to have occurred". The decision-maker must determine if there is over a 50% likelihood that the sexual violence occurred. The decision maker will issue a written decision 10 days after the live hearing..The decision maker may consult with the college’s sanctioning authority prior to issuing sanctions and remedial measures if applicable. If a pattern of inappropriate behavior is determined, the college reserves the right to further discipline respondents past the remedial measures determined in the Title IX case.
Grounds for Appeal
Either party has grounds to appeal the final decision determined by the decision-maker ONLY in the following conditions:
There was a procedural irregularity.
New evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the investigation.
The Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or decision maker had a conflict of interest or bias against either party.