Commission on Civil Rights to Investigate Federal Civil Rights Enforcement

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently launched a "comprehensive two-year assessment of federal civil rights enforcement" that will examine "the degree to which current budgets and staffing levels allow civil rights offices to perform their statutory and regulatory functions, the management practices in place in the offices and whether these practices are sufficient to meet the volume of civil rights issues within the offices’ jurisdiction, and the efficacy of recent resolution efforts from the offices."

The Commission expressly identified specific concerns across seven different agencies as motivating factors for this investigation.  Among them was the Department of Education, which was called out because:

The proposed budget calls for reducing staffing by 7 percent (losing 46 full time equivalent positions) at the department’s Office for Civil Rights, which investigates sex, race, disability, and age based civil rights complaints.4 The proposed budget itself reflects that the cutbacks would result in an untenable caseload of 42 cases per staff member. These proposed cuts are particularly troubling in light of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ repeated refusal in Congressional testimony and other public statements to commit that the Department would enforce federal civil rights laws.

The Commission on Civil Rights is an independent agency, meaning that its eight Commissioners are appointed to serve six-year terms and (unlike the heads of agencies that report to cabinet members) cannot be fired by the president over political disagreements. It is also a bipartisan commission, set up to ensure that is not dominated by members of one political party and includes a mix of members appointed by both the President and congressional leadership. The Commission is currently chaired by Catherine Lhamon, who formerly served as the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights and was appointed by President Obama in the last month of his term. The Commission does not have enforcement authority, but rather, serves an advisory function by issuing reports about civil rights enforcement to the President and Congress. Therefore, its present investigation cannot directly change the civil rights practices in the Department of Education or other federal agencies. However, by exposing shortfalls in civil rights enforcement, the investigation could generate political pressure on the President and Congress to make changes, as well as provide information for voters to consider when the current President and members of Congress run for reelection.

OCR Scales Back Investigation Process

A new internal memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Candice Jackson instructs OCR investigators in the regional offices that they should no longer automatically conduct systemic investigations in response to individual complaints.

Previously when OCR investigated institutions for violations of Title IX or other civil rights laws, it would request three years of data and files from the institution so that it could determine whether whatever allegation was being investigated was part of a widespread or broader compliance problem. For example, say a student filed a complaint with OCR alleging that the institution took too long to resolve her complaint of sexual assault. OCR would not only investigate that claim but other sexual misconduct complaints that the institution processed over the last three years.  The agency may then determine that "promptness" was an issue in several other students cases besides (or even instead of) the one that triggered the investigation. Going forward, however, OCR will not automatically do that extra digging into the institution's historical files.

That said, the memorandum provides OCR investigators with discretion to request comparative data from an institution when it is required by the legal analysis called for in the complaint.  In the Title IX context, an example of this would be when a student files a complaint with OCR against an institution alleging that the institution denied him procedural rights on a sexual misconduct hearing, because of his sex. In order to determine whether there is a pattern of treating respondents of one sex differently from respondents of another sex, it would be necessary for the investigators to request comparative data about how the institution handled other sexual misconduct cases.  (I made up this example, but based it off the hypothetical example in the memo about a racially discriminatory suspension).  The agency would also have to conduct a systemic investigation when it is investigating a complaint that takes a "class action approach" and alleges systemic violations.

Here are some of my thoughts about this change in OCR's approach:

• Agree or not, this kind of change about how the agency conducts investigations is a matter that is within the agency's discretion. 

• It the kind of change that is politically consistent with administration that takes a skeptical view of government regulation in general.  

• In my opinion, when OCR did examine three-years worth of data, the resulting findings gave a clearer picture of the institution's overall compliance approach. Though sometimes the picture was damning, it could also be somewhat exonerating -- such as if the agency says "we looked at three years worth of data and all we found was one case where the resolution was not prompt." I personally found that kind of context helpful to understanding the extent of compliance problems within institutions and in general.

• It is also worth keeping in mind that in the Title IX context, the agency's prior practice of conducting broad investigations did not expose institutions to risk of a greater penalty. Unlike some areas of law where an entity is fined per violation,OCR resolutions are always aimed at ensuring that violations do not continue going forward. 

• On the other hand, OCR's former approach was very time-consuming. Its practice of looking deeply into each complaint may have prevented it from being able to look into other complaints at all. 

• It is difficult to imagine how OCR would otherwise be able to process the hundreds of sexual misconduct related complaints (not to mention other civil rights complaints) that is has in its backlog, especially given that the President has proposed to drastically decrease the agency's funding rather than increase it. 

• On the bright side, implicit in the memo appears to be an affirmation that when a complaint does allege systemic violations, the agency will conduct an appropriately broad review, which I appreciate. 

Insufficient Allegations of Bias Result in Dismissal of Title IX Claim Against University of Colorado

One of the most contentious legal issues in disciplined-student cases under Title IX is what level of detail the plaintiff needs to include in the complaint in order to avoid having the claim dismissed at the outset of litigation, prior to either discovery or trial. Many male students who have sued to overturn expulsion or suspension for sexual assault include a sort of reverse-discrimination argument; i.e., that the institution violated Title IX because it was motivated to punish them because of their sex.

Courts will dismiss any complaint that does not include enough detail to put the defendant on notice of what, exactly, they are being sued for; yet at the same time, because the law permits defendants to file motions to dismiss early in the litigation process, courts also try not to punish a plaintiff for not having the information they haven't yet had the opportunity to discover. In civil rights cases generally, it is challenging for courts to consistently draw this line, and Title IX claims in disciplined-student cases seem to be particularly challenging. Courts tend to agree on the language they use to describe the pleading standard ("minimally plausible inference" " no "conclusory allegations"), but not necessarily on what that standard means in practice.

In a recent district court decision, a federal judge in Colorado dismissed a disciplined-student's Title IX claim after concluding that his allegations of bias did not meet the pleading standard. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that university officials involved in his disciplinary proceeding were biased against his sex because:
* the Title IX coordinator and the person who investigated his case were both women
* the investigator had a background in victim's advocacy
* an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education once attributed a statement to the investigator that used the word 'perpetrator' --as in, "the process is designed to expel or suspend perpetrators" which the plaintiff claimed was evidence of her bias that everyone accused of assault is guilty.
* the fact that the university was under investigation already by the Department of Education for mishandling sexual assault, which the plaintiff alleged created external pressure to rush to judgment in his case.
* a pattern that respondents in sexual assault cases tend to be male.

None of these allegations created a minimally plausible inference of gender bias, ruled the court. The first three were rejected for what I suggest are non-controversial reasons. Bias can not be inferred from someone's sex or previous work experience.  Using the word "perpetrator" alongside "expelled" (which, the court noted, wasn't even a direct quote and could have been the reporter's word rather than the investigator's) in no way suggests that those who have not in fact perpetrated sexual assault should also be expelled.

The court's rejection of the last two allegations, however, illustrates the division among federal courts.This court interpreted the plaintiff's "external pressure to rush to judgment" argument as, at most, creating an inference of bias against those accused of sexual assault, which is different from bias against men. Even though men are more likely to be respondents, the court reasoned, it is not the university's decision to place them in that category, it is students themselves who do so. It is plausible that a university would have been just as motivated to disciplined a student for sexual assault if a female student had been the one accused. Yet, other courts have been willing to except the "external pressure" allegation as well as other allegations that equate bias against those accused of sexual assault with bias against men.

This decision contributes to what appears to be an emerging patchwork of districts and circuits that are more or less favorable to Title IX claims in disciplined-student cases.

Decision: Doe v. University of Colorado-Boulder, 2017 WL 2311209 (D. Colo. May 26, 2017).