Don't be fooled! Just because institutions of higher education may be denying victims the right to proceed on their sexual assault complaints through the Title IX grievance process by citing to DeVos' new Title IX regulations, it doesn't mean that survivors don't have rights to participate in the general disciplinary process against the accused!

Title IX and the Clery Act are two separate federal statutes, both addressing campus sexual assault, but the new Title IX regulations do not affect a victim's rights under the Clery Act. See Doe v. DHHS, 85 F.Supp.3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015). Here is a list of victims' rights that still apply under the Clery Act:

• right to a "prompt, fair, and impartial investigation and resolution" sexual assault, intimate partner violence, or stalking complaints, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(8)(B)(iv)(I)(aa) & 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(2)(i);
• right to disciplinary proceedings "conducted by officials who receive annual training on the issues related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault," 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(8)(B)(iv)(I)(bb) & 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(2)(ii);
• right to disciplinary proceedings "conducted by officials who do not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against the accuser or the accused," 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(3)(i)(C); and
• right to disciplinary proceedings "completed within reasonably prompt timeframes designated by an institution's policy, including a process that allows for the extension of timeframes for good cause with written notice to the accuser and the accused of the delay and the reason for the delay," 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(3)(i)(A);
• right to disciplinary proceedings "conducted in a manner that—(1) is consistent with the institution's policies and transparent to the accuser and accused; (2) includes timely notice of meetings at which the accuser or accused, or both, may be present; and (3) provides timely and equal access to the accuser, the accused, and appropriate officials to any information that will be used during informal and formal disciplinary meetings and hearings," 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(3)(i)(B);
• "the accuser and the accused are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during an institutional disciplinary proceeding," 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(8)(B)(iv)(II) & & 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(2)(iii); 
• "proceedings" include "all activities related to a non-criminal resolution of an institutional disciplinary complaint, including, but not limited to, fact-finding investigations, formal or informal meetings, and hearings," 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(3)(iii);
• "simultaneously informed, in writing, of - (aa) the outcome of any institutional disciplinary proceeding that arises from an allegation of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; (bb) the institution's procedures for the accused and the victim to appeal the results of the institutional disciplinary proceeding; (cc) of any change to the results that occurs prior to the time that such results become final; and (dd) when such results become final" 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(8)(B)(iv)(III) & 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(2)(v); and
• results that "include any sanctions imposed by the institution" and "the result must also include the rationale for the result and the sanctions." 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(3)(iv).  

These rights apply to students and employees pursuant to the Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(8)(C), which covers both on and off-campus incidents of gender violence, but it can arguably be applied outside of those two groups to others per the statutory language of the Clery Act.

​Any victims needing assistance in campus proceedings should contact the L.L. Dunn Law Firm for assistance!

It has been a sad weekend for those of us who followed the life and times of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last Friday on Rosh Hashanah. She leaves behind an incredible legacy for advocates and attorneys working to shore up gender equality within the United States.

As well said by the Notorious RBG in 2010, her work was not on "women's rights," rather it was on "the constitutional principle of the equal citizenship stature of men and women." Such equal citizenship status would be advanced through the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which has been ratified by three-fourths of the States as of 2020.  Despite meeting this constitutional threshold, the Trump administration opposes recognition for the ERA, and so, a legal battle is being waged by the Offices of the Attorneys General in Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada. It is my sincere hope that the ERA will be acknowledged by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to ensure equal citizenship, not just for women and men, or boys and girls, but for all citizens - whether they define themselves within a gender binary or otherwise.