We've said it before

From time to time, we have noted stories in which a Title IX investigation leads to litigation and awards against universities. What it always comes down to is a perceived lack of due process viewed externally. Here is a recent case from Inside Higher Ed:

An Oregon jury awarded nearly $4 million to a former Pacific University student who accused the institution of mishandling allegations of sexual assault against him, The Oregonian reported. The university suspended Peter Steele, a doctoral student in psychology, in 2020 after a female student alleged that he physically and sexually assaulted her. Steele said their relationship was consensual.

Steele and his accuser settled competing claims against one another before his lawsuit against Pacific went to trial. He accused the university of failing to follow proper procedures in suspending and later expelling him over the allegations. A jury found that Pacific had not acted fairly or reasonably toward Steele and had deliberately caused him emotional distress. On other counts, however, the university prevailed; the jury found that Pacific had neither violated Title IX nor breached its contract with Steele.

“At every step in this situation, we followed our policies and procedures, and we did not discriminate on any basis,” Pacific spokesperson Blake Timm told The Oregonian, noting that the university was considering an appeal...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/09/01/jury-awards-4m-student-unfairly-expelled-assault.

Let's parse the story above. In that case, the university involved is claiming a victory because it was not convicted of violating Title IX. But there is a difference between not violating Title IX and providing due process as outsiders will perceive it, particularly when a major penalty (expulsion) is entailed. We have also noted that many universities, including UC, have in place union-management grievance processes for employees, often predating Title IX. Such processes typically start with informal resolution procedures, then a hierarchy of steps, and finally, if the issue is unresolved, the case goes to an outside neutral arbitrator. The arbitrator - after holding a hearing to consider evidence from witnesses and other sources - makes a final binding decision. Courts typically defer to such arbitrations because they are sufficiently court-like to provide what courts and juries consider to be reasonable due process. 

In short, the lesson is that regardless of what may be the technical minimum requirements of Title IX, if you provide due process by following something like the grievance-arbitration mechanism, you will be less likely to find your internal verdicts reversed by external courts. You won't be in the situation of a university which is told by a jury to pay $4 million because of a lack of fairness yet somehow is claiming a victory.

Just some post-Labor Day advice (although none was requested).