Introduction

University of the Pacific has designated procedures designed to provide prompt and equitable methods of investigation and resolution to reported violations of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation.

Applicability/Responsibility

The core purpose of this procedure is to respond to allegations of violations of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation. Sometimes, Discrimination involves exclusion from or different treatment in activities, such as admission, athletics, or employment. Other times, Discrimination takes the form of Harassment or, in the case of sex-based Discrimination, can encompass Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Stalking, Sexual Exploitation, Dating Violence, or Domestic Violence. When an alleged violation of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation is reported, the allegations are subject to resolution using the university’s “Process A” or “Process B,” as determined by the Title IX Coordinator, and as detailed below.  In general, if some or all of the allegations in a Complaint relate to the protections of Title IX as described in the 2020 Federal Regulations (34 CFR §106), then all allegations in the Complaint are resolved through Process A.  All other Complaints under the Policy are resolved through Process B.

These procedures apply to all members of the university Community, as outlined below. When the Respondent or Complainant is not a Pacific Student or employee, a grievance process may still be available. The procedures outlined may also be applied to incidents, to patterns, and/or to the campus climate, all of which may be addressed and investigated in accordance with the Policy.

Dissemination

University of the Pacific provides this policy and procedures on its website and in each handbook or catalog provided to applicants for admission and employment, students, and employees. The university also provides this policy and procedures to each volunteer who regularly interacts with students and each individual or entity under contract with the university to perform any service involving regular interaction with students at the institution.

University of the Pacific provides training to all employees on the identification of sexual harassment, including the person to whom it should be reported.

Title IX Coordinator
Ed Cowell serves as University of the Pacific’s Title IX Coordinator and oversees implementation of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination and Retaliation. The Title IX Coordinator has the primary responsibility for coordinating the university’s efforts related to the intake, investigation, resolution, and implementation of supportive measures to stop, remediate, and prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation prohibited under the Policy. The Title IX Coordinator understands how the institution’s grievance procedures operate and has received training on what constitutes sexual harassment and trauma-informed investigatory and hearing practices.

All parties will be provided with comprehensive information detailing options and resources, which the Title IX Coordinator may also review with the parties in person.

Ed Cowell
Title IX Coordinator
3601 Pacific Avenue
Stockton, California 95211
titleix@9u15.com
Direct: 209.946.7770
Toll-Free: 888.383.2765

Notice/Complaints of Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation

Notice or Complaints of sex or gender-based Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation may be communicated in any of the following ways:

1) File a Complaint with, or give verbal Notice to, the Title IX Coordinator or deputy/deputies/Officials with Authority. Such a report may be made at any time (including during non-business hours) by using the telephone number or email address, or by mail to the office address, listed for the Title IX Coordinator or any other official listed.

2) Report online, using the reporting form posted on this page. Anonymous reports are accepted, but can give rise to a need to investigate. The university tries to provide Supportive Measures to all Complainants, which is impossible with an anonymous report. Because reporting carries no obligation to initiate a formal response, and as the university respects the Complainant’s requests to dismiss Complaints, unless there is a compelling threat to health and/or safety, the Complainant is largely in control and should not fear a loss of privacy by making a report that allows the university to discuss and/or provide Supportive Measures.

3) Report using the Compliance Helpline: 800.854.8443.

In order to file a Formal Complaint, a document must be submitted by the Complainant or by the Title IX Coordinator alleging a policy violation by a Respondent and requesting that the university investigate the allegation(s). A Complaint may be filed with the Title IX Coordinator in person, by mail, or by electronic mail, by using the contact information in this Policy. As used in this paragraph, the phrase “document submitted by a Complainant” means a document or electronic submission (such as by electronic mail or through an online portal provided for this purpose by the university) that contains the Complainant’s physical or digital signature, or otherwise indicates that the Complainant is the person filing the Complaint, and requests that the university investigate the allegations.

If Notice is submitted in a form that does not meet this standard, the Title IX Coordinator will contact the Complainant to ask that it be submitted correctly.

Getting Immediate Help

If you or someone you know has experienced Sexual Misconduct, and are in immediate danger, or if you think there could be an ongoing threat to the university community, please call 911, Public Safety or use an emergency blue phone and get to a safe place. For more information on what to do, click here.

Preserving Evidence

In order to preserve evidence, leave the scene undisturbed, and allow law enforcement to collect evidence.

If law enforcement is delayed or victims choose not to report immediately, they should collect bedding or clothing and store items in paper bags, and collect a prophylactic device of any type in a paper bag. All potential evidence should be placed in separate paper bags to prevent cross contamination of evidence. If possible, use gloves to collect the evidence and place gloves in a paper bag once finished.  If possible, the victim should not bathe, urinate, douche, brush their teeth, drink liquids, or change clothing before seeking medical attention.

How to Access Resources

Persons (Students, Faculty or Staff) who believe they are victims of Sexual Misconduct may file a Complaint or seek assistance with any of the following resources. If a Complainant or victim seeks a Confidential Resource, they should speak with one of the Confidential Resources listed below, including Pacific’s Victim Advocate, Pacific’s Counseling and Psychological Services, Student Health Services, Employee Assistance Program (EAP), University Chaplain working within the scope of their licensure or ordination, University Ombuds as outlined in their charter, and other city specific resources. Victims may choose where to report incidents of Sexual Misconduct. However, it is important to understand that off-campus reports (e.g. off-campus police and hospitals) may not be shared with the university and do not constitute Notice to the university.

Notice to Law Enforcement

There may be circumstances where University of the Pacific is obliged to report an incident of violent crime, hate crime, or sexual assault immediately, or as soon as practicably possible, to local law enforcement. The university has a Memorandum of Understanding with local law enforcement agencies to enhance communication, coordinator, and collaboration. The signatories of the MOU have instituted specialized, trauma-informed responses developed in consultation with campus and community-based victim advocates to remedy sexual assault and violence and hate crimes, and to respect the Complainant’s request for confidentiality.

Requests for Confidentiality with Respect to Reporting to Law Enforcement

Complainants have the right to decide if they want to make a report to the police and/or speak with the police. University of the Pacific will honor requests for confidentiality. Institutional and local law enforcement agencies are prohibited from disclosing information about most sexual assaults if the Complainant requests anonymity. When information is shared with law enforcement, such reports will include (when the Complainant has consented to being identified):

• The name and characteristics of the alleged victim
• The name and characteristics of the alleged perpetrator, if known
• Description of the incident, including location and date and time
• Any report number assigned to the police incident report documenting the investigation being conducted by the jurisdictional agency

Mandatory Reporting Requirements for Health Practitioners in California

Any licensed health care provider in the State of California providing services in a health facility, clinic or physician’s office is required to make a report if they provide medical treatment for a physical condition to a patient whom they know or reasonably suspect is the victim of assaultive or abusive conduct or a firearm injury. The health practitioner is required to make a report by telephone as soon as practically possible and send a written report to a local law enforcement agency within two working days. The report must be made to the enforcement agency that has jurisdiction over the location in which the injury was sustained. This includes any health care practitioners in Student Health Services.

Points of Contact

STOCKTON:

SACRAMENTO:

SAN FRANCISCO:

Mandated Reporting and Responsible Employees

In addition, University Staff (including Student Staff Members) and Faculty are Responsible Employees who are required to immediately report information about any incident of Sexual Misconduct to the Title IX Coordinator or a Deputy Title IX Coordinator, unless the employee is required by law to keep information confidential (e.g. psychological counselor, Student Victim Advocate, etc.). Mandated Reporters are required to report known or suspected instances of child abuse involving a minor.

EXTERNAL INQUIRIES:

Definitions

Terms in these procedures that are capitalized (e.g. “Final Determination”) are defined below. Further terms can be found in the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation.

Effect of Criminal Charges/Investigation

The procedures outlined here for review of allegations of Sexual Misconduct are separate from any criminal process or investigation. Because the requirements and standards for finding a violation of criminal law are different from the standards for finding a violation of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation, criminal investigations, reports or verdicts may be different from outcomes under the Policy. The university may share information and coordinate investigation efforts with law enforcement when necessary or appropriate. 

Preservation of Evidence

The preservation of evidence in incidents of sexual assault and stalking is critical to potential criminal prosecution and to obtaining restraining/protective orders and is particularly time sensitive. The following actions can aid in the preservation of evidence:

Sexual Assault

• Seek forensic medical assistance at the appropriate hospital listed as listed above or local to the incident, ideally within 120 hours of the incident (sooner is better.)
• Avoid urinating, showering, bathing, washing hands or face, or douching, if possible, but evidence may still be collected even if you do.
• If oral sexual contact took place, refrain from smoking, eating, drinking, or brushing teeth.
• If clothes are changed, place soiled clothes in a paper bag (plastic destroys evidence) or secure evidence container.
• Seeking medical treatment can be essential even if it is not for the purposes of collecting forensic evidence.

Stalking

• Evidence in the form of text and voice messages will be lost in most cases if the Complainant changes their phone number.
  • Make a secondary recording of any voice messages and/or save the audio files to a cloud server.
  • Take screenshots and/or a video recording of any text messages or other electronic messages (e.g., Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook).
• Save copies of e-mail or social media correspondence, including notifications related to account access alerts.
• Take timestamped photographs of any physical evidence including notes, gifts, etc. in place when possible.
• Save copies of any messages, to include those showing any request for no further contact.
• Obtain copies of call logs showing the specific phone number being used rather than a saved contact name if possible.

During the initial meeting between the Complainant and the Title IX Coordinator, the importance of taking these actions will be discussed, if timely.

Rights of the Complainant and Respondent

University of the Pacific will ensure that Complainants and Respondents receive equitable information, support, and protections throughout the Resolution Process. The university is committed to delivering a fundamentally fair Resolution Process for each Complaint. Both the Complainant and Respondent have the following rights:

• The right to an equitable investigation and resolution of all credible allegations of prohibited Harassment or Discrimination made in good faith to university
• The right to timely written Notice of all alleged violations, including the identity of the Parties involved (if known), the precise misconduct being alleged, the date and location of the alleged misconduct (if known), the implicated policies and procedures, and possible Sanctions.
• The right to timely written notice of any material adjustments to the allegations (e.g., additional incidents or allegations, additional Complainants, unsubstantiated allegations) and any attendant adjustments needed to clarify potentially implicated policy violations.
• The right to be treated with sensitivity and respect by university
• The right not to be pressured to mediate or otherwise informally resolve any reported misconduct involving violence, including sexual violence.
• The right to be informed of available interim actions and supportive measures, such as counseling; advocacy; health care; legal, Student financial aid, visa, and immigration assistance; or other services, both on campus and in the community.
• The right to be informed of available assistance in changing academic, living, and/or working situations after an alleged incident of Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation, if such changes are reasonably available. No formal report, or investigation, either campus or criminal, needs to occur before this option is available. Such actions may include, but are not limited to:
  • Relocating an on-campus Student’s housing to a different on-campus location
  • Changing an employee’s work environment (e.g., reporting structure, office/workspace relocation)
  • Transportation accommodations
  • Visa/immigration assistance
  • Arranging to dissolve a housing contract and a pro-rated refund
  • Exam, paper, and/or assignment rescheduling or adjustment
  • Receiving an incomplete in, or a withdrawal from, a class (may be retroactive)
  • Transferring class sections
  • Temporary withdrawal/leave of absence (may be retroactive)
  • Campus safety escorts
  • Alternative course completion options.
• The right to receive sufficiently advanced, written Notice of any meeting or interview involving the other Party, when possible.
• The right not to have irrelevant prior sexual history or character admitted as evidence.
• The right to know the relevant and directly related evidence obtained and to respond to that evidence.
• The right to fair opportunity to provide the Investigator(s) with their account of the alleged misconduct and have that account be on the record.
• The right to receive a copy of the investigation report, including all factual, policy, and/or credibility analyses performed, and all relevant and directly related evidence available and used to produce the investigation report, subject to the privacy limitations imposed by state and federal law, prior to the hearing, and the right to have at least ten (10) business Days to review the report prior to the hearing.
• The right to respond to the investigation report, including comments providing any additional relevant evidence after the opportunity to review the investigation report, and to have that response on the record.
• The right to be informed of the names of all witnesses whose information will be used to make a finding, in advance of that finding, when relevant.
• The right to preservation of privacy, to the extent possible and permitted by law.
• The right to meetings, interviews, and/or hearings that are closed to the public.
• The right to petition that any university representative in the process be recused on the basis of disqualifying bias and/or conflict of interest.
• The right to have an Advisor of their choice to accompany and assist the Party in all meetings and/or interviews associated with the Resolution Process.
• The right to be present, including presence via remote technology, during all testimony given and evidence presented during any formal grievance hearing.
• The right to have an impact statement considered by the Decision-maker(s) following a determination of responsibility for any allegation, but prior to Sanctioning.
• The right to be promptly informed in a written Notice of Outcome letter of the finding(s) and Sanction(s) of the Resolution Process and a detailed rationale therefor (including an explanation of how credibility was assessed), delivered simultaneously (without undue delay) to the Parties.
• The right to be informed in writing of when a decision by the university is considered final and any changes to the Sanction(s) that occurred before the decision is finalized.

Complainant and Respondent Provisions

During the Resolution Process, University of the Pacific will make every effort to provide the following for the Complainant and Respondent:

• To be informed in advance of any public release of information regarding the allegation(s) or underlying incident(s), whenever possible.
• To have any personally identifiable information protected from being released to the public without consent provided, except to the extent permitted by law.
• To have university policies and procedures followed without material deviation.
• To not be discouraged by university officials from reporting sexual misconduct or Discrimination to both on-campus and off-campus authorities.
• To be informed by university officials of options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option(s) to be assisted by university authorities in notifying such authorities, if the Party so chooses. This also includes the right not to be pressured to report, as well.
• To have allegations of violations of this Policy responded to promptly and with sensitivity by Public Safety and/or other university
• To a university–implemented no-contact order or a no-trespass order against a non-affiliated third Party when a person has engaged in or threatens to engage in stalking, threatening, harassing, or other improper conduct that presents a danger to the welfare of the Party or others.
• To have the university maintain such actions for as long as necessary and for supportive measures to remain private, provided privacy does not impair the university’s ability to provide the supportive measures.
• To have the opportunity to ask the Investigator(s) and Decision-maker(s) to identify and question relevant witnesses, including expert witnesses.
• To have the opportunity to provide the Investigator(s)/Decision-maker(s) with a list of questions that, if deemed relevant by the Investigator(s)/Chair, may be asked of any Party or witness.
• To have regular updates on the status of the investigation and/or resolution.
• To have the university compel the participation of Faculty and Staff witnesses.
• To have the university use preponderance of the evidence, to make a finding after an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence.
• To be informed of the opportunity to appeal in accordance with the standards established by the university.

The Title IX Coordinator will work with the following to coordinate investigations:

Participation

The Complainant or Respondent may decline to participate in the Resolution Process. The university may proceed with the Resolution Process based upon the nature of the Complaint and available information. Non-participation by a Party to the Complaint may not be used as a basis for appeal. When Process A is in effect, lack of participation in the hearing may impact the ability to utilize statements in the decision-making process.

Supportive Measures

University of the Pacific will offer and implement appropriate and reasonable supportive measures to the Parties upon Notice of alleged Harassment, Discrimination, and/or Retaliation.

Supportive Measures are non-disciplinary, non-punitive, individualized services offered as appropriate and reasonably available, and without fee or charge to the Parties to restore or preserve access to the university’s education program or activity, including measures designed to protect the safety of all Parties or the university’s educational environment, and/or deter Harassment, Discrimination, and/or Retaliation. The Title IX Coordinator works with the Complainant to ensure that their wishes are taken into account with respect to the Supportive Measures that are planned and implemented.

The university will maintain the Privacy of any individual receiving Supportive Measures, provided that this Privacy does not impair the university’s ability to provide the Supportive Measures. The university will seek to implement Supportive Measures in a way that does not unreasonably burden the other Party, and has as minimal an academic/occupational impact on the Parties as is reasonably possible.

Supportive measures may include, but are not limited to:

• Referral to counseling, medical, and/or other healthcare services
• Referral to the Employee Assistance Program
• Referral to community-based service providers
• Visa and immigration assistance
• Student financial aid counseling
• Education to the Pacific community or community subgroup(s)
• Altering campus housing assignment(s)
• Altering work arrangements for employees or Student-employees
• Safety planning
• Providing Public Safety escorts
• Providing transportation accommodations
• Implementing contact limitations (no contact orders) between the Parties
• Academic support, extensions of deadlines, or other course/program-related adjustments
• Trespass or Persona Non Grata (PNG) instructions
• Timely Warnings
• Class schedule modifications, withdrawals, or leaves of absence
• Increased security and monitoring of certain areas of the campus
• Any other actions deemed appropriate by the Title IX Coordinator

When requested by a Complainant or otherwise determined to be appropriate, the university will issue an interim no-contact directive prohibiting the Respondent from contacting the Complainant during the pendency of the investigation. The institution will not issue an interim mutual no-contact directive automatically, but instead will consider the specific circumstances of each situation to determine whether a mutual no-contact directive is necessary or justifiable to protect the noncomplaining party’s safety or well-being, or to respond to interference with an investigation. A no-contact directive issued after a decision of responsibility has been made as a remedy will be unilateral and only apply against the party found responsible.

Upon the issuance of a mutual no-contact directive, the institution will provide the parties with a written justification for the directive and an explanation of the terms of the directive. Upon the issuance of any no-contact directive, the institution will provide the parties with an explanation of the terms of the directive.

Violations of no contact orders or other restrictions may be referred to appropriate student or employee conduct processes for enforcement or added as collateral misconduct allegations to an ongoing complaint under this Policy.

Emergency Removal

University of the Pacific can act to remove a Student Respondent entirely or partially from its education program or activities on an emergency basis when an individualized safety and risk analysis has determined that an immediate threat to the physical health or safety of any Student or other individual justifies removal. This risk analysis is performed by the Title IX Coordinator in conjunction with the Behavioral Intervention Team using its standard objective violence risk assessment procedures.

In all cases in which an emergency removal is imposed, the Student, employee, or three (3) representatives from a registered Student organization will be given Notice of the action and the option to request to meet with the Title IX Coordinator prior to such action/removal being imposed, or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, to show cause why the action/removal should not be implemented or should be modified.

This show cause meeting is not a hearing on the merits of the allegation(s), but rather is an administrative process intended to determine solely whether the emergency removal is appropriate. When this meeting is not requested in a timely manner, objections to the emergency removal will be deemed waived. A Complainant and their Advisor may be permitted to participate in this meeting if the Title IX Coordinator determines it is equitable to do so. This section also applies to any restrictions that a coach or athletic administrator may place on a Student-athlete arising from allegations related to Title IX. There is no appeal process for emergency removal decisions following the show cause meeting.

A Respondent may be accompanied by an Advisor of their choice when meeting with the Title IX Coordinator for the show cause meeting. The Respondent will be given access to a written summary of the basis for the emergency removal prior to the meeting to allow for adequate preparation.

The Title IX Coordinator has sole discretion under this policy to implement or stay an emergency removal and to determine the conditions and duration. Violation of an emergency removal under this policy by a Student or employee will be grounds for discipline, up to and including Dismissal or Termination, respectively, through appropriate conduct policies.

The university will implement the least restrictive emergency actions possible in light of the circumstances and safety concerns. As determined by the Title IX Coordinator, working in coordination with the appropriate entity (Student Conduct, Human Resources Department, or Provost), these actions could include, but are not limited to: removing a Student from a residence hall, temporarily re-assigning an employee, restricting a Student’s or employee’s access to or use of facilities or equipment, allowing a Student to withdraw or take grades of incomplete without financial penalty, authorizing an administrative leave, and suspending a Student’s participation in extracurricular activities, Student employment, Student organizational leadership, or intercollegiate/intramural athletics.

At the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator, alternative coursework options may be pursued to ensure as minimal an academic impact as possible on the Parties.

Where the Respondent is an employee, the university will follow the university policies for determining the need for taking interim action.

Promptness

All allegations are acted upon promptly by University of the Pacific once it has received notice or a formal Complaint. Complaints typically take 60-90 business Days to resolve. There are always exceptions and extenuating circumstances that can cause a resolution to take longer, but the university will avoid all undue delays within its control.

If the general timeframes for resolution outlined in university procedures will be delayed, the university will provide written notice to the Parties of the delay, the cause of the delay, and an estimate of the anticipated additional time that will be needed as a result of the delay.

Disability Accommodation in the Resolution Process

University of the Pacific is committed to providing reasonable accommodations and support to qualified Students, employees, or others with disabilities to ensure equal access to the university’s Resolution Process.

If you are a Student with a disability who requires accommodations, please contact the Office of Services for Students with Disabilities located in the McCaffrey Center, Room 137. Phone: 209.946.3221. Email: ssd@9u15.com. Online: nvsk.9u15.com/disabilities.

If you are an employee or applicant on the Stockton Campus, please contact Cari Keller, Associate Director Human Resources at ckeller@9u15.com or 209.946.2126.

If you are an employee or applicant on the Sacramento Campus, please contact Cari Keller, Associate Director Human Resources at ckeller@9u15.com or 209.946.2126.

If you are an employee or applicant on the San Francisco Campus, please contact Kara Bell, Assistant Dean, Human Resources & Support Operations/Campus Director at kbell@9u15.com or 415.929.6454.

The appropriate individual will review the request and, in consultation with the person requesting the accommodation and the Title IX Coordinator, determine which accommodations are appropriate and necessary for full participation in the process.

Revision

These policies and procedures will be reviewed and updated annually by the Title IX Coordinator. The university reserves the right to make changes to this document as necessary and once those changes are posted online, they are in effect.

The Title IX Coordinator may make minor modifications to these procedures that do not materially jeopardize the fairness owed to any Party, such as to accommodate summer schedules.

The Title IX Coordinator may also vary procedures materially with notice (on the university website, with the appropriate effective date identified) upon determining that changes to law or regulation require policy or procedural alterations not reflected in this policy and procedure.

Procedures in effect at the time of the resolution will apply to resolution of incidents, regardless of when the incident occurred.

Policy in effect at the time of the offense will apply even if the Policy is changed subsequently but prior to resolution, unless the Parties consent to be bound by the current Policy.

If government regulations change in a way that impacts this document, this document will be construed to comply with the most recent government regulations.

This document does not create legally enforceable protections beyond the protection of the background state and federal laws which frame such policies and codes, generally.

RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE POLICY PROHIBITING SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, DISCRIMINATION, AND RETALIATION PERTAINING TO THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS (34 CFR §106) AND RELATED ALLEGATIONS (KNOWN AS PROCESS “A”)

1. Overview

University of the Pacific will act on any formal or informal Notice/Complaint of violation of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation (“the Policy”) that is received by the Title IX Coordinator or any other Official with Authority by applying these procedures, known as “Process A.”

The procedures below apply to all allegations of Harassment or Discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression involving Students, Staff, administrators, or Faculty members. In general, if some or all of the allegations in a Complaint relate to the protections of Title IX as described in the 2020 Federal Regulations (34 CFR §106) then all allegations in the Complaint are resolved through Process A.  All other Complaints under the Policy are resolved through Process B. Within the Title IX regulations, a set of technical dismissal requirements may apply as described below, but when a technical dismissal under the Title IX regulations is required, any remaining applicable allegations will proceed using these same grievance procedures, clarifying which policies are applicable. While the effect of the Title IX regulations can be confusing, these grievance procedures apply to all policies included within the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation.

If all allegations are technically dismissed as described in the 2020 Federal Regulations (34 CFR §106), the university will proceed with “Process B” for any remaining allegations related to the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation. A full description of the procedures applicable under “Process B” can be found below.

Process B can also apply to Sexual Harassment (including Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, and Stalking, as defined in the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation) when jurisdiction does not fall within Process A, as determined by the Title IX Coordinator.

The procedures below may be used to address collateral misconduct arising from the investigation of or occurring in conjunction with reported misconduct (e.g., vandalism, physical abuse of another). All other allegations of misconduct unrelated to incidents covered by the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination and Retaliation will be addressed through procedures elaborated in Tiger Lore and the Faculty and Staff handbooks.

2. Notice/Complaint

Upon receipt of a Complaint or Notice to the Title IX Coordinator of an alleged violation of the Policy, University of the Pacific initiates a prompt initial assessment to determine the next steps the university needs to take.

The university will initiate at least one of three responses:

1) Offering Supportive Measures because the Complainant does not want to proceed formally; and/or

2) An informal resolution; and/or

3) A Formal Grievance Process including an investigation and a hearing.

The investigation and grievance process will determine, by preponderance of the evidence, whether or not the Policy has been violated. If so, the university will promptly implement effective remedies designed to ensure that it is not deliberately indifferent to Harassment or Discrimination, their potential recurrence, or their effects.

3. Initial Assessment

Following receipt of Notice or a Complaint of an alleged violation of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation, the Title IX Coordinator or designee engages in an initial assessment, which is typically one to five business Days in duration. The steps in an initial assessment can include:

• If Notice is given, the Title IX Coordinator seeks to determine if the person impacted wishes to submit a Formal Complaint, and will assist them to do so, if desired.
  • If they do not wish to do so, the Title IX Coordinator determines whether to initiate a Complaint because a violence risk assessment indicates a compelling threat to health and/or safety.
• If a Formal Complaint is submitted, the Title IX Coordinator assesses its sufficiency and works with the Complainant to make sure it is correctly submitted.
• The Title IX Coordinator reaches out to the Complainant to offer Supportive Measures.
• The Title IX Coordinator works with the Complainant to ensure they are aware of the right to have an Advisor.
• The Title IX Coordinator works with the Complainant to determine whether the Complainant prefers a supportive and remedial response, an informal resolution option, or a formal investigation and Grievance Process.
  • If a supportive and remedial response is preferred, the Title IX Coordinator works with the Complainant to identify their wishes and then seeks to facilitate implementation. No Formal Grievance Process is initiated, though the Complainant can elect to initiate one later, if desired.
  • If an informal resolution option is preferred, the Title IX Coordinator assesses whether the Complaint is suitable for informal resolution, which informal mechanism may serve the situation best or is available, and may seek to determine if the Respondent is also willing to engage in informal resolution.
  • If a Formal Grievance Process is preferred, the Title IX Coordinator determines if the Sexual Misconduct alleged falls within the scope of Title IX:
    • If it does, the Title IX Coordinator will initiate the formal investigation and grievance process, directing the investigation to address:
      • an incident, and/or
      • a pattern of alleged misconduct, and/or
      • a culture/climate issue, based on the nature of the Complaint.
    • If it does not, the Title IX Coordinator determines that Title IX does not apply (and will “dismiss” that aspect of the Complaint, if any), assesses which policies may apply, which Resolution Process is applicable, and refers the matter for resolution under Process B. Please note that dismissing a Complaint under Title IX is just procedural, and does not limit the university’s authority to address a Complaint with an appropriate process and remedies.

a. Violence Risk Assessment

In many cases, the Title IX Coordinator may determine that a Violence Risk Assessment (VRA) should be conducted by the Behavior Intervention Team as part of the initial assessment. A VRA can aid in ten critical and/or required determinations, including:

• Emergency removal of a Respondent on the basis of immediate threat to physical health/safety;
• Whether the Title IX Coordinator should pursue/submit a Formal Complaint absent a willing/able Complainant;
• Whether to put the investigation on the footing of incident and/or pattern and/or climate;
• To help identify potential predatory conduct;
• To help assess/identify grooming behaviors;
• Whether it is reasonable to try to resolve a Complaint through informal resolution, and what modality may be most successful;
• Whether to permit a voluntary withdrawal by the Respondent;
• Whether to impose transcript notation or communicate with a transfer institution about a Respondent;
• Assessment of appropriate Sanctions/remedies (to be applied post-hearing); and/or
• Whether a Clery Act Timely Warning/Trespass order/Persona-non-grata is needed.

Threat assessment is the process of evaluating the actionability of violence by an individual against another person or group following the issuance of a direct or conditional threat. A VRA is a broader term used to assess any potential violence or danger, regardless of the presence of a vague, conditional, or direct threat.

VRAs require specific training and are typically conducted by psychologists, clinical counselors, social workers, case managers, law enforcement officers, Student conduct officers, or other Behavior Intervention Team (BIT)/CARE team members. A VRA authorized by the Title IX Coordinator should occur in collaboration with the BIT/CARE or threat assessment team. Where a VRA is required by the Title IX Coordinator, a Respondent refusing to cooperate may result in a charge of failure to comply within the appropriate Student or employee conduct process.

A VRA is not an evaluation for an involuntary behavioral health hospitalization (5150 in California), nor is it a psychological or mental health assessment. A VRA assesses the risk of actionable violence, often with a focus on targeted/predatory escalations, and is supported by research from the fields of law enforcement, criminology, human resources, and psychology.

b. Dismissal (Mandatory and Discretionary)

University of the Pacific must “dismiss” under Process A as per Title IX regulations (34 CFR §106) a formal Complaint or any allegations therein if, at any time during the investigation or hearing, it is determined that:

1. The conduct alleged in the Formal Complaint would not constitute Sexual Harassment as defined in the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation, even if proved; and/or
2. The conduct did not occur in an educational program or activity controlled by the university (including buildings or property controlled by recognized Student organizations), and/or the university does not have control of the Respondent; and/or
3. The conduct did not occur against a person in the United States; and/or
4. At the time of filing a Formal Complaint, a Complainant is not participating in or attempting to participate in the education program or activity of the university.

The university may dismiss a Formal Complaint or any allegations therein if, at any time during the investigation or hearing:

1. A Complainant notifies the Title IX Coordinator in writing that the Complainant would like to withdraw the Formal Complaint or any allegations therein; or
2. The Respondent is no longer enrolled in or employed by the university; or
3. Specific circumstances prevent the university from gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination as to the formal Complaint or allegations therein.

Upon any dismissal, the university will promptly send written Notice of the dismissal and the rationale for doing so simultaneously to the Parties.

This dismissal decision is appealable by any Party under the procedures for appeal below. The decision not to dismiss is also appealable by any Party claiming that a dismissal is required or appropriate. A Complainant who decides to withdraw a Complaint may later request to reinstate it or refile it.

Depending upon the circumstances of the dismissal decision, and if not in conflict with the protections of Title IX as described in the 2020 Federal Regulations (34 CFR §106), the Title IX Coordinator will determine whether or not to proceed under Process B.

4. Counterclaims

University of the Pacific is obligated to ensure that the Grievance Process is not abused for retaliatory purposes. The university permits the filing of counterclaims but uses an initial assessment, described above, to assess whether the allegations in the counterclaim are made in good faith. Counterclaims by the Respondent may be made in good faith, but are, on occasion, also made for purposes of Retaliation. Counterclaims made with retaliatory intent will not be permitted.

Counterclaims determined to have been reported in good faith will be processed using the grievance procedures below. Investigation of such claims may take place after resolution of the underlying initial allegation, in which case a delay may occur.

Counterclaims may also be resolved through the same investigation as the underlying allegation, at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator. When counterclaims are not made in good faith, they will be considered retaliatory and may constitute a violation of the Policy.

5. Right to an Advisor

The Parties may each have an Advisor of their choice present with them for all meetings and interviews within the Resolution Process, if they so choose. The Parties may select whoever they wish to serve as their Advisor as long as the Advisor is willing, eligible, and available.

Choosing an Advisor who is also a witness in the process creates potential for bias and conflict-of-interest. A Party who chooses an Advisor who is also a witness can anticipate that issues of potential bias will be explored by the hearing Decision-maker(s).

The university will permit Parties to have up to two Advisors – one of the Party’s choosing, and one of the university’s choosing.

a. Who Can Serve as an Advisor

The Advisor may be a friend, mentor, family member, attorney, or any other individual a Party chooses to advise, support, and/or consult with them throughout the Resolution Process. The Parties may choose Advisors from inside or outside of the Pacific community.

The Title IX Coordinator will also offer to assign a trained Advisor for any Party if the Party so chooses. If the Parties choose an Advisor from the pool available from the university, the Advisor will be trained by the university and be familiar with the university’s Resolution Process.

If the Parties choose an Advisor from outside the pool of those identified by the university, the Advisor may not have been trained by the university and may not be familiar with the university’s policies and procedures.

Parties also have the right to choose not to have an Advisor in the initial stages of the Resolution Process, prior to a hearing.

b. Advisors in Hearings/ University of the Pacific-Appointed Advisor

Under U.S. Department of Education regulations applicable to Title IX, cross-examination is required during the hearing, but must be conducted by the Parties’ Advisors. The Parties are not permitted to directly cross-examine each other or any witnesses. If a Party does not have an Advisor for a hearing, the university will appoint a trained Advisor for the purpose of conducting any cross-examination.

A Party may reject this appointment and choose their own Advisor, but they may not proceed without an Advisor. If the Party’s Advisor will not conduct cross-examination, the university will appoint an Advisor who will do so thoroughly, regardless of the participation or non-participation of the advised Party in the hearing itself. Extensive questioning of the Parties and witnesses will also be conducted by the Decision-Maker(s) during the Hearing.

c. Advisor’s Role

The Parties may be accompanied by their Advisor in all meetings and interviews at which the Party is entitled to be present, including intake and interviews. Advisors should help the Parties prepare for each meeting and are expected to advise ethically, with integrity, and in good faith.

The university cannot guarantee equal Advisory rights, meaning that if one Party selects an Advisor who is an attorney, but the other Party does not or cannot afford an attorney, the university is not obligated to provide an attorney.

d. Pre-Interview Meetings

Advisors may request to meet with the administrative officials conducting interviews/meetings in advance of these interviews or meetings. This pre-meeting allows Advisors to clarify and understand their role and University of the Pacific’s policies and procedures.

e. Advisor Violations of University of the Pacific Policy

All Advisors are subject to the same University of the Pacific policies and procedures, whether they are attorneys or not. Advisors are expected to advise their advisees without disrupting proceedings. Advisors should not address university officials in a meeting or interview unless invited to (e.g., asking procedural questions). The Advisor may not make a presentation or represent their advisee during any meeting or proceeding and may not speak on behalf of the advisee to the Investigator(s) or other Decision-Maker(s) except during a hearing proceeding, during cross-examination.

The Parties are expected to ask and respond to questions on their own behalf throughout the investigation phase of the Resolution Process. Although the Advisor generally may not speak on behalf of their advisee, the Advisor may consult with their advisee, either privately as needed, or by conferring or passing notes during any Resolution Process meeting or interview. For longer or more involved discussions, the Parties and their Advisors should ask for breaks to allow for private consultation.

Any Advisor who oversteps their role as defined by the Policy and associated procedures will be warned only once. If the Advisor continues to disrupt or otherwise fails to respect the limits of the Advisor role, the meeting will be ended, or other appropriate measures implemented. Subsequently, the Title IX Coordinator will determine how to address the Advisor’s non-compliance and future role.

f. Sharing Information with the Advisor

University of the Pacific expects that the Parties may wish to have the university share documentation and evidence related to the allegations with their Advisors. Parties may share this information directly with their Advisor or other individuals if they wish. Doing so may help the Parties participate more meaningfully in the Resolution Process.

The university also provides a consent form that authorizes the university to share such information directly with their Advisor. The Parties must either complete and submit this form to the Title IX Coordinator or provide similar documentation demonstrating consent to a release of information to the Advisor before the university is able to share records with an Advisor.

If a Party requests that all communication be made through their attorney Advisor, the university will comply with that request at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator.

g. Privacy of Records Shared with Advisor

Advisors are expected to maintain the Privacy of the records shared with them. These records may not be shared with Third Parties, disclosed publicly, or used for purposes not explicitly authorized by University of the Pacific. The university may seek to restrict the role of any Advisor who does not respect the sensitive nature of the process or who fails to abide by the university’s Privacy expectations.

h. Expectations of an Advisor

University of the Pacific generally expects an Advisor to adjust their schedule to allow them to attend university meetings when planned, but may change scheduled meetings to accommodate an Advisor’s inability to attend, if doing so does not cause an unreasonable delay.

The university may also make reasonable provisions to allow an Advisor who cannot attend in person to attend a meeting by telephone, video conferencing, or other similar technologies as may be convenient and available.

i. Expectations of the Parties with Respect to Advisors

A Party may elect to change Advisors during the process and is not obligated to use the same Advisor throughout. The Parties are expected to inform the Investigator(s) of the identity of their Advisor at least two (2) business Days before the date of their first meeting with Investigators (or as soon as possible if a more expeditious meeting is necessary or desired).

The Parties are expected to provide timely notice to the Title IX Coordinator if they change Advisors at any time. It is assumed that if a Party changes Advisors, consent to share information with the previous Advisor is terminated, and a release for the new Advisor must be secured. Parties are expected to inform the Title IX Coordinator of the identity of their hearing Advisor at least two (2) business Days before the hearing.

University of the Pacific fully respects and accords the Weingarten rights of employees. For Parties who are entitled to union representation, the university will allow the unionized employee to have their union representative (if requested by the Party) as well as an Advisor of their choice present for all resolution-related meetings and interviews. To uphold the principles of equity, the other Party (regardless of union membership) will also be permitted to have an additional Advisor. Witnesses are/are not permitted to have union representation or Advisors in grievance process interviews or meetings.

j. Assistance in Securing an Outside Advisor

For representation, Respondents may wish to contact organization such as:

• FACE (http://www.facecampusequality.org),
• SAVE (http://www.saveservices.org).

Complainants may wish to contact organizations such as:

• The Victim Rights Law Center (http://www.victimrights.org),
• The National Center for Victims of Crime (http://www.victimsofcrime.org), which maintains the Crime Victim’s Bar Association,
• The Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund: http://nwlc.org/times-up-legal-defense-fund/.

6. Resolution Processes

Resolution proceedings are private. All persons present at any time during the Resolution Process are expected to maintain the Privacy of the proceedings in accordance with University of the Pacific policy. While there is an expectation of Privacy around what Investigator(s) share with Parties during interviews, the Parties have discretion to share their own knowledge and evidence with others if they so choose. The university encourages Parties to discuss this with their Advisors before doing so.

a. Informal Resolution

Informal Resolution can include three different approaches:

• When the Parties agree to resolve the matter through an alternate resolution mechanism including mediation*, restorative practices, etc.;
• When the Respondent accepts responsibility for violating policy, and desires to accept a Sanction and end the Resolution Process; or
• When the Title IX Coordinator can resolve the matter informally by providing Supportive Measures to remedy the situation.

To initiate Informal Resolution, a Complainant needs to submit a Formal Complaint, as defined in the Policy. If a Respondent wishes to initiate Informal Resolution, they should contact the Title IX Coordinator to so indicate.

It is not necessary to pursue Informal Resolution first in order to pursue a Formal Grievance Process, and any Party participating in Informal Resolution can stop the process at any time and begin or resume the Formal Grievance Process.

Prior to implementing Informal Resolution, the university will provide the Parties with written notice of the reported misconduct and any Sanctions or measures that may result from participating in such a process, including information regarding any records that will be maintained or shared by the university.

The university will obtain voluntary, written confirmation that all Parties wish to resolve the matter through Informal Resolution before proceeding and will not pressure the Parties to participate in Informal Resolution.

* Mediation is prohibited to resolve allegations of sexual violence (i.e., sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking), even on a voluntary basis.

b. Alternate Resolution

Alternate Resolution is an informal process, including mediation or restorative practices, etc. by which a mutually agreed upon resolution of an allegation is reached. All Parties must consent to the use of Alternate Resolution.

The Title IX Coordinator may look to the following factors to assess whether Alternate Resolution is appropriate, or which form of Alternate Resolution may be most successful for the Parties:

• The Parties’ amenability to Alternate Resolution;
• Likelihood of potential resolution, taking into account any power dynamics between the Parties;
• The Parties’ motivation to participate;
• Civility of the Parties;
• Cleared violence risk assessment/ongoing risk analysis;
• Disciplinary history;
• Whether an emergency removal is needed;
• Skill of the Alternate Resolution facilitator with this type of Complaint;
• Complaint complexity;
• Emotional investment/intelligence of the Parties;
• Rationality of the Parties;
• Goals of the Parties;
• Adequate resources to invest in Alternate Resolution (time, Staff, etc.)

The ultimate determination of whether Alternate Resolution is available or successful is to be made by the Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX Coordinator maintains records of any resolution that is reached, and failure to abide by the resolution agreement may result in appropriate responsive/disciplinary actions. Results of Complaints resolved by Informal Resolution or Alternate Resolution are not appealable.

c. Respondent Accepts Responsibility for Alleged Violations

The Respondent may accept responsibility for all or part of the alleged policy violations at any point during the Resolution Process. If the Respondent indicates an intent to accept responsibility for all of the alleged misconduct, the formal process will be paused, and the Title IX Coordinator will determine whether Informal Resolution can be used according to the criteria in that section above.

If Informal Resolution is applicable, the Title IX Coordinator will determine whether all Parties and the university are able to agree on responsibility, Sanctions, and/or remedies. If so, the Title IX Coordinator implements the accepted finding that the Respondent is in violation of University of the Pacific policy and implements agreed-upon Sanctions and/or remedies, in coordination with other appropriate administrator(s), as necessary.

This result is not subject to appeal once all Parties indicate their written assent to all agreed upon terms of resolution. When the Parties cannot agree on all terms of resolution, the Formal Grievance Process will resume at the same point where it was paused.

When a resolution is accomplished, the appropriate Sanction or responsive actions are promptly implemented in order to effectively stop the Harassment or Discrimination, prevent its recurrence, and remedy the effects of the discriminatory conduct, both on the Complainant and the community.

d. Negotiated Resolution

The Title IX Coordinator, with the consent of the Parties, may negotiate and implement an agreement to resolve the allegations that satisfies all Parties and University of the Pacific. Negotiated Resolutions are not appealable.

7. Grievance Process Pool

The Formal Grievance Process relies on a pool of administrators (“the Pool”) to carry out the process. Members of the Pool are announced in an annual distribution of this policy to all Students, parents/guardians of Students, employees, prospective Students, and prospective employees.

The list of Pool members and a description of the Pool can be found on this page.

a. Pool Member Roles

Members of the Pool are trained annually, and can serve in in the following roles, at the direction of the Title IX Coordinator:

• To provide appropriate intake of and initial guidance pertaining to Complaints
• To act as an Advisor to the Parties
• To serve in a facilitation role in informal resolution or Alternate Resolution if appropriately trained in appropriate resolution modalities (e.g., mediation, restorative practices)
• To perform or assist with initial assessment
• To investigate Complaints
• To serve as a hearing facilitator (process administrator, no decision-making role)
• To serve as a Decision-maker regarding the Complaint
• To serve as an Appeal Decision-maker

b. Pool Member Appointment

The Title IX Coordinator, in consultation with the President, appoints the Pool, which acts with independence and impartiality. While members of the Pool are typically trained in a variety of skill sets and can rotate amongst the different roles listed above in different cases, the university can also designate permanent roles for individuals in the Pool, using others as substitutes or to provide greater depth of experience when necessary. This process of role assignment may be the result of particular skills, aptitudes, or talents identified in members of the Pool that make them best suited to particular roles.

c. Pool Member Training

The Pool members receive annual training based on their respective role(s). This training includes, but is not limited to:

• The scope of University of the Pacific’s Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation
• How to conduct investigations and hearings that protect the safety of Complainants and Respondents, and promote accountability
• Implicit bias
• Disparate treatment and impact
• Reporting, confidentiality, and privacy requirements
• Applicable laws, regulations, and federal regulatory guidance
• How to implement appropriate and situation-specific remedies
• How to investigate in a thorough, reliable, and impartial manner
• How to uphold fairness, equity, and due process
• How to weigh evidence
• How to conduct questioning
• How to assess credibility
• Impartiality and objectivity
• How to render findings and generate clear, concise, evidence-based rationales
• The definitions of all offenses
• How to apply definitions used by the university with respect to Consent (or the absence or negation of consent) consistently, impartially, and in accordance with policy
• How to conduct an investigation and grievance process including hearings, appeals, and informal Resolution Processes
• How to serve impartially by avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias
• Any technology to be used at a live hearing
• Issues of relevance of questions and evidence
• Issues of relevance to create an investigation report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence
• How to determine appropriate Sanctions in reference to all forms of Harassment, Discrimination, and/or Retaliation allegations

Specific training is also provided for Appeal Decision-makers, intake personnel, Advisors (who are University of the Pacific employees), and Chairs. All Pool members are required to attend these trainings annually. The materials used to train all members of the Pool are publicly posted on this page.

d. Pool Membership

The Pool includes:

• 4 or more chairs
• 4 or more Investigators
• 4 or more Advisors
• 6 or more Decision-Makers
• 6 or more Appeal Decision-Makers
• At least 1 Deputy Title IX Coordinator for Students
• At least 1 Deputy Title IX Coordinator for Employees
• At least 1 Deputy Title IX Coordinator for Athletics
• At least 1 Deputy Title IX Coordinator on the Stockton Campus
• At least 1 Deputy Title IX Coordinator on the Sacramento Campus
• At least 1 Deputy Title IX Coordinator on the San Francisco Campus

Pool members may be drawn from any of the three Pacific campuses. In some cases, the university may include in the Pool retired judges, attorneys, or other individuals with relevant and/or specialized training or expertise. Individuals who are interested in serving in the Pool are encouraged to contact the Title IX Coordinator.

8. Formal Grievance Process: Notice of Investigation and Allegations

The Title IX Coordinator will provide written notice of the investigation and allegations (the “NOIA”) to the Respondent upon commencement of the Formal Grievance Process. This facilitates the Respondent’s ability to prepare for the interview and to identify and choose an Advisor to accompany them. The NOIA is also copied to the Complainant, who is to be given advance notice of when the NOIA will be delivered to the Respondent.

The NOIA will include:

• A meaningful summary of all of the allegations,
• The identity of the involved Parties (if known), 
• The precise misconduct being alleged,
• The date and location of the alleged incident(s) (if known),
• The specific policies implicated,
• A description of the applicable procedures,
• A statement of the potential Sanctions/responsive actions that could result,
• A statement that the university presumes the Respondent is not responsible for the reported misconduct unless and until the evidence supports a different determination,
• A statement that determinations of responsibility are made at the conclusion of the process and that the Parties will be given an opportunity to inspect and review all directly related and/or relevant evidence obtained during the review and comment period,
• A statement about the university’s policy on Retaliation,
• Information about the privacy of the process,
• Information on the need for each Party to have an Advisor of their choosing and suggestions for ways to identify an Advisor,
• A statement informing the Parties that the university’s Policy prohibits knowingly making false statements, including knowingly submitting false information during the Resolution Process,
• Detail on how the Party may request disability accommodations during the interview process,
• The university’s Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Brochure (or a link) as per 42 USC §13701,
• The name(s) of the Investigator(s), along with a process to identify, in advance of the interview process, to the Title IX Coordinator any conflict of interest that the Investigator(s) may have, and
• An instruction to preserve any evidence that is directly related to the allegations.

Amendments and updates to the NOIA may be made as the investigation progresses and more information becomes available regarding the addition or dismissal of various charges.

Notice will be made in writing and may be delivered by one or more of the following methods: in person, mailed to the local or permanent address(es) of the Parties as indicated in official university records, or emailed to the Parties’ university-issued email or designated accounts. Once mailed, emailed, and/or received in-person, notice will be presumptively delivered.

9. Resolution Timeline

University of the Pacific will make a good faith effort to complete the Resolution Process within a sixty-to-ninety (60-90) business Day time period, including appeal, which can be extended as necessary for appropriate cause by the Title IX Coordinator, who will provide notice and rationale for any extensions or delays to the Parties as appropriate, as well as an estimate of how much additional time will be needed to complete the process.

10. Appointment of Investigators

Once the decision to commence a formal investigation is made, the Title IX Coordinator appoints Pool members to conduct the investigation typically using a team of two Investigators, usually within five (5) business Days of determining that an investigation should proceed.

11. Ensuring Impartiality

Any individual materially involved in the administration of the Resolution Process including the Title IX Coordinator, Investigator(s), and Decision-makers may neither have nor demonstrate a conflict of interest or bias for a Party generally, or for a specific Complainant or Respondent.

The Title IX Coordinator will vet the assigned Investigator(s) to ensure impartiality by ensuring there are no actual or apparent conflicts of interest or disqualifying biases. The Parties may, at any time during the Resolution Process, raise a concern regarding bias or conflict of interest, and the Title IX Coordinator will determine whether the concern is reasonable and supportable. If so, another Pool member will be assigned and the impact of the bias or conflict, if any, will be remedied. If the source of the conflict of interest or bias is the Title IX Coordinator, concerns should be raised with the university President.

The Formal Grievance Process involves an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence obtained, including evidence which supports that the Respondent engaged in a policy violation and evidence that supports that the Respondent did not engage in a policy violation. Credibility determinations may not be based solely on an individual’s status or participation as a Complainant, Respondent, or witness.

University of the Pacific operates with the presumption that the Respondent is not responsible for the reported misconduct unless and until the Respondent is determined to be responsible for a policy violation by preponderance of the evidence.

12. Investigation Timeline

Investigations are completed expeditiously, though some investigations may take weeks or months, depending on the nature, extent, and complexity of the allegations, availability of witnesses, police involvement, etc.

University of the Pacific will make a good faith effort to complete investigations as promptly as circumstances permit and will communicate regularly with the Parties to update them on the progress and timing of the investigation.

13. Delays in the Investigation Process and Interactions with Law Enforcement

University of the Pacific may undertake a short delay in its investigation (several Days to a few weeks) if circumstances require. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to: a request from law enforcement to temporarily delay the investigation, the need for language assistance, the absence of Parties and/or witnesses, and/or accommodations for disabilities or health conditions.

The university will communicate in writing the anticipated duration of the delay and reason to the Parties and provide the Parties with status updates if necessary. The university will promptly resume its investigation and Resolution Process as soon as feasible. During such a delay, the university will implement Supportive Measures as deemed appropriate.

University action(s) are not typically altered or precluded on the grounds that civil or criminal charges involving the underlying incident(s) have been filed or that criminal charges have been dismissed or reduced.

14. Steps in the Investigation Process

All investigations are thorough, reliable, impartial, prompt, and fair. Investigations involve interviews with all relevant Parties and witnesses; obtaining available, relevant evidence; and identifying sources of expert information, as necessary.

All Parties have a full and fair opportunity, through the investigation process, to suggest witnesses and questions, to provide evidence and expert witnesses, and to fully review and respond to all evidence on the record.

The Investigator(s) typically take(s) the following steps, if not already completed (not necessarily in this order):

• Determine the identity and contact information of the Complainant
• In coordination with campus partners (e.g., the Title IX Coordinator), initiate or assist with any necessary Supportive Measures
• Identify all policies implicated by the alleged misconduct and notify the Complainant and Respondent of all of the specific policies implicated
• Assist the Title IX Coordinator with conducting a prompt initial assessment to determine if the allegations indicate a potential policy violation
• Commence a thorough, reliable, and impartial investigation by identifying issues and developing a strategic investigation plan, including a witness list, evidence list, intended investigation timeframe, and order of interviews for all witnesses and the Parties
• Meet with the Complainant to finalize their interview/statement, if necessary
• Prepare the initial Notice of Investigation and Allegation (NOIA). The NOIA may be amended with any additional or dismissed allegations
  • Notice should inform the Parties of their right to have the assistance of an Advisor, who could be a member of the Pool or an Advisor of their choosing present for all meetings attended by the Party
• Provide each interviewed Party and witness an opportunity to review and verify the Investigator’s summary notes (or transcript) of the relevant evidence/testimony from their respective interviews and meetings
• Make good faith efforts to notify the Parties of any meeting or interview involving the other Party, in advance when possible
• When participation of a Party is expected, provide that Party with written notice of the date, time, and location of the meeting, as well as the expected participants and purpose
• Interview all available, relevant witnesses and conduct follow-up interviews as necessary
• Allow each Party the opportunity to suggest witnesses and questions they wish the Investigator(s) to ask of the other Party and witnesses, and document in the report which questions were asked, with a rationale for any changes or omissions
• Complete the investigation promptly and without unreasonable deviation from the intended timeline
• Provide regular status updates to the Parties throughout the investigation.
• Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, provide the Parties and their respective Advisors (if so desired by the Parties) with a list of witnesses whose information will be used to render a finding
• Write a comprehensive investigation report fully summarizing the investigation, all witness interviews, and addressing all relevant evidence. Appendices including relevant physical or documentary evidence will be included
• The Investigator(s) gather, assess, and synthesize evidence, but make no conclusions, engage in no policy analysis, and render no recommendations as part of their report
• Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, provide the Parties and their respective Advisors (if so desired by the Parties) a secured electronic or hard copy of the draft investigation report as well as an opportunity to inspect and review all of the evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the reported misconduct, including evidence upon which the university does not intend to rely in reaching a determination, for a ten (10) business Day review and comment period so that each Party may meaningfully respond to the evidence. The Parties may elect to waive the full ten Days. Each copy of the materials shared will be watermarked on each page with the role of the person receiving it (e.g., Complainant, Respondent, Complainant’s Advisor, or Respondent’s Advisor).
• The Investigator(s) may elect to respond in writing in the investigation report to the Parties’ submitted responses and/or to share the responses between the Parties for additional responses
• The Investigator(s) will incorporate relevant elements of the Parties’ written responses into the final investigation report, include any additional relevant evidence, make any necessary revisions, and finalize the report. The Investigator(s) should document all rationales for any changes made after the review and comment period
• The Investigator(s) shares the report with the Title IX Coordinator and/or legal counsel for their review and feedback
• The Investigator(s) will incorporate any relevant feedback, and the final report is then shared with all Parties and their Advisors through secure electronic transmission or hard copy at least ten (10) business Days prior to a hearing. The Parties are also provided with a file of any directly related evidence that was not included in the report. In cases involving Faculty Respondents, the final report is shared with the Faculty Grievance Committee Chair (FGCC).

15. Role and Participation of Witnesses in the Investigation

Witnesses (as distinguished from the Parties) who are employees of University of the Pacific are expected to cooperate with and participate in the university’s investigation and Resolution Process. Failure of such witnesses to cooperate with and/or participate in the investigation or Resolution Process constitutes a violation of policy and may warrant discipline.

While in-person interviews for Parties and all potential witnesses are ideal, circumstances (e.g., study abroad, summer break) may require individuals to be interviewed remotely. Skype, Zoom, FaceTime, WebEx, Teams or similar technologies may be used for interviews if the Investigator(s) determine that timeliness or efficiency dictate a need for remote interviewing. The university will take appropriate steps to reasonably ensure the security/privacy of remote interviews.

Witnesses may also provide written statements in lieu of interviews or choose to respond to written questions, if deemed appropriate by the Investigator(s), though not preferred. If a witness submits a written statement but does not intend to be and is not present for cross examination at a hearing, their written statement may not be used as evidence.

16. Recording of Interviews

No unauthorized audio or video recording of any kind is permitted during investigation meetings. If Investigator(s) elect to audio and/or video record interviews, all involved Parties must be made aware of and consent to audio and/or video recording.

17. Evidentiary Considerations in the Investigation

The investigation does not consider: 1) incidents not directly related to the possible violation, unless they evidence a pattern; 2) the character of the Parties; or 3) questions and evidence about the Complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior, unless such questions and evidence about the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior are offered to prove that someone other than the Respondent committed the conduct alleged by the Complainant, or if the questions and evidence concern specific incidents of the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior with respect to the Respondent and are offered to prove Consent.

Parties may not introduce evidence, including Witness testimony, at the hearing that the Party did not identify during the investigation and that was available at the time of the investigation. However, the Decision Maker has discretion to accept for good cause, or exclude, such new evidence offered at the hearing.

18. Referral for Hearing

Provided that the Complaint is not resolved through Informal Resolution, once the final investigation report is shared with the Parties, the Title IX Coordinator will refer the matter for a hearing.

The hearing cannot be less than ten (10) business Days from the conclusion of the investigation –when the final investigation report is transmitted to the Parties and the Decision-maker–unless all Parties and the Decision-Maker agree to an expedited timeline.

The Title IX Coordinator will select three appropriate Decision-Makers from the Pool. In cases involving Faculty Respondents, the Title IX Coordinator will work in conjunction with the FGCC to select three appropriate Decision-Makers.

19. Hearing Decision-Maker Composition

University of the Pacific will designate a three-member Decision-Maker panel from the Pool, at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator in cases where a Student or Staff Member is the Respondent, and at the discretion of the FGCC in consultation with the Title IX Coordinator in cases where a Faculty Member is the Respondent. One of the three members will be appointed as Chair by the Title IX Coordinator.

The Decision-Makers will not have had any previous involvement with the investigation. The Title IX Coordinator may elect to have an alternate from the Pool sit in throughout the Resolution Process in the event that a substitute is needed for any reason.

Those who have served as Investigators will be witnesses in the hearing and therefore may not serve as Decision-Makers. Those who are serving as Advisors for any Party may not serve as Decision-Makers in that matter.

The Title IX Coordinator may not serve as a Decision-Maker or Chair in the matter but may serve as an administrative facilitator of the hearing if their previous role(s) in the matter do not create a conflict of interest. Otherwise, a designee may fulfill this role. The hearing will convene at a time determined by the Chair or designee.

20. Evidentiary Considerations in the Hearing

Any evidence that the Decision-Makers determine is relevant and credible may be considered. The hearing does not consider: 1) incidents not directly related to the possible violation, unless they evidence a pattern; 2) the character of the Parties; or 3) questions and evidence about the Complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior, unless such questions and evidence about the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior are offered to prove that someone other than the Respondent committed the conduct alleged by the Complainant, or if the questions and evidence concern specific incidents of the Complainant’s prior sexual behavior with respect to the Respondent and are offered to prove Consent.

Previous disciplinary action of any kind involving the Respondent may be considered in determining an appropriate Sanction upon a determination of responsibility. This information is only considered at the Sanction stage of the process.

The Parties may each submit a written impact statement prior to the hearing for the consideration of the Decision-Maker(s) at the Sanction stage of the process when a determination of responsibility is reached.

After post-hearing deliberation, the Decision-makers render a determination based on the preponderance of the evidence; whether it is more likely than not that the Respondent violated the Policy as alleged.

21. Notice of Hearing

No less than ten (10) business Days prior to the hearing, the Title IX Coordinator or the Chair will send notice of the hearing to the Parties. Once mailed, emailed, and/or received in-person, notice will be presumptively delivered.

The notice will contain:

• A description of the alleged violation(s), a list of all policies allegedly violated, a description of the applicable procedures, and a statement of the potential Sanctions/responsive actions that could result.
• The time, date, and location of the hearing and a reminder that attendance is mandatory, superseding all other campus activities.
• Any technology that will be used to facilitate the hearing.
• Information about the option for the live hearing to occur with the Parties located in separate rooms using technology that enables the Decision-Maker(s) and Parties to see and hear a Party or witness answering questions. Such a request must be raised with the Title IX Coordinator at least five (5) business Days prior to the hearing.
• A list of all those who will attend the hearing, along with an invitation to object to any Decision-maker on the basis of demonstrated bias. This must be raised with the Title IX Coordinator at least two (2) business Days prior to the hearing.
• Information on how the hearing will be recorded and on access to the recording for the Parties after the hearing.
• A statement that if any Party or witness does not appear at the scheduled hearing, the hearing may be held in their absence, and the Party’s or witness’s testimony and any statements given prior to the hearing will not be considered by the Decision-maker(s). For compelling reasons, the Chair may reschedule the hearing.
• Notification that the Parties may have the assistance of an Advisor of their choosing at the hearing and will be required to have one present for any questions they may desire to ask. The Party must notify the Title IX Coordinator if they do not have an Advisor, and the university will appoint one. Each Party must have an Advisor present. There are no exceptions.
• A copy of all the materials provided to the Decision-maker(s) about the matter, unless they have been provided already.
• An invitation to each Party to submit to the Chair an impact statement pre-hearing that the Decision-maker will review during any Sanction determination.
• An invitation to contact the Title IX Coordinator to arrange any disability accommodations, language assistance, and/or interpretation services that may be needed at the hearing, at least seven (7) business Days prior to the hearing.
• A statement that the hearing will be recorded by the university. This recording will be the only official record of the hearing. This recording will be maintained in compliance with federal and state law, and the university records retention policy. After this matter concludes, any Party wishing to review this recording should submit a written request to the Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX Coordinator has the authority to grant that request as permitted by law.

Hearings for possible violations that occur near or after the end of an academic term (assuming the Respondent is still subject to the Policy) and are unable to be resolved prior to the end of term will typically be held immediately after the end of the term or during the summer, as needed, to meet the resolution timeline followed by the university and remain within the 60-90 business Day goal for resolution.

In these cases, if the Respondent is a graduating Student, a hold may be placed on graduation and/or official transcripts until the matter is fully resolved (including any appeal). A Student facing charges under the Policy is not in good standing to graduate.

22. Alternative Hearing Participation Options

If a Party or Parties prefer not to attend or cannot attend the hearing in person, the Party should request alternative arrangements from the Title IX Coordinator or the Chair at least five (5) business Days prior to the hearing.

The Title IX Coordinator or the Chair can arrange to use technology to allow remote testimony without compromising the fairness of the hearing. Remote options may also be needed for witnesses who cannot appear in person. Any witness who cannot attend in person should let the Title IX Coordinator or the Chair know at least five (5) business Days prior to the hearing so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

23. Pre-Hearing Preparation

The Chair, after any necessary consultation with the Parties, Investigator(s) and/or Title IX Coordinator, will provide the names of persons who will be participating in the hearing, all pertinent documentary evidence, and the final investigation report to the Parties at least ten (10) business Days prior to the hearing.

Any witness scheduled to participate in the hearing must have been first interviewed by the Investigator(s) or have proffered a written statement or answered written questions, unless all Parties and the Chair assent to the witness’s participation in the hearing. The same holds for any evidence that is first offered at the hearing. If the Parties and Chair do not assent to the admission of evidence newly offered at the hearing, the Chair will delay the hearing and instruct that the investigation needs to be re-opened to consider that evidence.

The Parties will be given a list of the names of the Decision-maker(s) at least five (5) business Days in advance of the hearing. All objections to any Decision-maker must be raised in writing, detailing the rationale for the objection, and must be submitted to the Title IX Coordinator as soon as possible and no later than three (3) business Days prior to the hearing. Decision-makers will only be removed if the Title IX Coordinator concludes that their bias or conflict of interest precludes an impartial hearing of the allegation(s).

The Title IX Coordinator will give the Decision-Makers a list of the names of all Parties, witnesses, and Advisors at least five (5) business Days in advance of the hearing. Any Decision-Maker who cannot make an objective determination must recuse themselves from the proceedings when notified of the identity of the Parties, witnesses, and Advisors in advance of the hearing. If a Decision-Maker is unsure of whether a bias or conflict of interest exists, they must raise the concern to the Title IX Coordinator as soon as possible.

During the ten (10) business Day period prior to the hearing, the Parties have the opportunity for continued review and comment on the final investigation report and available evidence. That review and comment can be shared with the Chair at the pre-hearing meeting or at the hearing and will be exchanged between each Party by the Chair.

24. Pre-Hearing Meetings

The Chair may convene a pre-hearing meeting(s) with the Parties and/or their Advisors to invite them to submit the questions or topics they (the Parties and/or their Advisors) wish to ask or discuss at the hearing, so that the Chair can rule on their relevance ahead of time to avoid any improper evidentiary introduction in the hearing or provide recommendations for more appropriate phrasing. However, this advance review opportunity does not preclude the Advisors from asking at the hearing for a reconsideration based on any new information or testimony offered at the hearing. The Chair must document and share their rationale for any exclusion or inclusion at this pre-hearing meeting.

The Chair, only with full agreement of the Parties, may decide in advance of the hearing that certain witnesses do not need to be present if their testimony can be adequately summarized by the Investigator(s) in the investigation report or during the hearing.

At each pre-hearing meeting with a Party and their Advisor, the Chair will consider arguments that evidence identified in the final investigation report as relevant is, in fact, not relevant. Similarly, evidence identified as directly related but not relevant by the Investigator(s) may be argued to be relevant. The Chair may rule on these arguments pre-hearing and will exchange those rulings between the Parties prior to the hearing to assist in preparation for the hearing. The Chair may consult with legal counsel and/or the Title IX Coordinator, or ask either or both to attend pre-hearing meetings.

The pre-hearing meeting(s) will not be recorded.

25. Hearing Procedures

At the hearing, the Decision-makers have the authority to hear and make determinations on all allegations of Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation and may also hear and make determinations on any additional alleged policy violations that have occurred in concert with the Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation, even though those collateral allegations may not specifically fall within the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation.

Participants at the hearing will include the Chair, two (2) additional panelists, the hearing facilitator, the Investigator(s) who conducted the investigation, the Parties (or three (3) organizational representatives when an organization is the Respondent), Advisors to the Parties, any called witnesses, the Title IX Coordinator, and anyone providing authorized accommodations or assistive services. In some cases university counsel or their designee may be in attendance.

The Chair will answer all questions of procedure. Anyone appearing at the hearing to provide information will respond to questions on their own behalf.

The Chair will allow witnesses who have relevant information to appear at a portion of the hearing in order to respond to specific questions from the Decision-Maker(s) and the Parties and will then be excused.

26. Joint Hearings

In hearings involving more than one Respondent or in which two (2) or more Complainants have accused the same individual of substantially similar conduct, the default procedure will be to hear the allegations jointly.

However, the Title IX Coordinator may permit the investigation and/or hearings pertinent to each Respondent to be conducted separately if there is a compelling reason to do so. In joint hearings, separate determinations of responsibility will be made for each Respondent with respect to each alleged policy violation.

27. The Order of the Hearing – Introductions and Explanation of Procedure

The Chair explains the procedures and introduces the participants. This may include a final opportunity for challenge or recusal of the Decision-Maker(s) on the basis of bias or conflict of interest. The Chair will rule on any such challenge unless the Chair is the individual who is the subject of the challenge, in which case the Title IX Coordinator will review and decide the challenge.

The Chair then conducts the hearing according to the hearing script. At the hearing, recording, witness logistics, Party logistics, curation of documents, separation of the Parties, and other administrative elements of the hearing process are managed by a non-voting hearing facilitator appointed by the Title IX Coordinator. The hearing facilitator may attend to: logistics of rooms for various Parties/witnesses as they wait; flow of Parties/witnesses in and out of the hearing space; ensuring recording and/or virtual conferencing technology is working as intended; copying and distributing materials to participants, as appropriate, etc. 

28. Investigator Presents the Final Investigation Report

The Investigator(s) will then present a summary of the final investigation report, including items that are contested and those that are not, and will be subject to questioning by the Decision-makers and the Parties (through their Advisors). The Investigator(s) will be present during the entire hearing process, but not during deliberations.

Neither the Parties nor the Decision-makers should ask the Investigator(s) their opinions on credibility, recommended findings, or determinations, and the Investigators, Advisors, and Parties will refrain from discussion of or questions about these assessments. If such information is introduced, the Chair will direct that it be disregarded.

29. Testimony and Questioning

Once the Investigator(s) present their report and are questioned, the Parties and witnesses may provide relevant information in turn, beginning with the Complainant, and then in the order determined by the Chair. The Parties/witnesses will submit to questioning by the Decision-maker(s) and then by the Parties through their Advisors (“cross-examination”).

All questions are subject to a relevance determination by the Chair. The Advisor, who will remain seated during questioning, will pose the proposed question orally, electronically, or in writing (orally is the default, but other means of submission may be permitted by the Chair upon request or agreed to by the Parties and the Chair), the proceeding will pause to allow the Chair to consider it, and the Chair will determine whether the question will be permitted, disallowed, or rephrased.

The Chair may explore arguments regarding relevance with the Advisors, if the Chair so chooses. The Chair will then state their decision on the question for the record and advise the Party/witness to whom the question was directed, accordingly. The Chair will explain any decision to exclude a question as not relevant, or to reframe it for relevance.

The Chair will limit or disallow questions on the basis that they are irrelevant, unduly repetitious (and thus irrelevant), or abusive. The Chair has final say on all questions and determinations of relevance, subject to any appeal. The Chair may consult with legal counsel on any questions of admissibility. The Chair may ask Advisors to frame why a question is or is not relevant from their perspective but will not entertain argument from the Advisors on relevance once the Chair has ruled on a question.

If the Parties raise an issue of bias or conflict of interest of an Investigator or Decision-Maker at the hearing, the Chair may elect to address those issues, consult with legal counsel, and/or refer them to the Title IX Coordinator, and/or preserve them for appeal. If bias is not in issue at the hearing, the Chair should not permit irrelevant questions that probe for bias.

30. Refusal to Submit to Cross-Examination and Inferences

Any party or witness may choose not to offer evidence and/or answer questions at the hearing, either because they do not attend the hearing, or because they attend but refuse to participate in some or all questioning. The Decision-maker(s) can only rely on whatever relevant evidence is available through the investigation and hearing in making the ultimate determination of responsibility. The Decision-maker(s) may not draw any inference solely from a party’s or witness’s absence from the hearing or refusal to submit to cross-examination or answer other questions. 

31. Recording Hearings

Hearings (but not deliberations) are recorded by University of the Pacific for purposes of review in the event of an appeal. The Parties may not record the proceedings and no other unauthorized recordings are permitted.

The Decision-Maker(s), the Parties, their Advisors, and appropriate administrators of the university will be permitted to listen to the recording in a controlled environment determined by the Title IX Coordinator. No person will be given or be allowed to make a copy of the recording without permission of the Title IX Coordinator.

32. Deliberation, Decision-Making, and Standard of Proof

The Decision-Maker(s) will deliberate in closed session to determine whether the Respondent is responsible or not responsible for the policy violation(s) in question. A simple majority vote is required to determine the finding. The preponderance of the evidence standard of proof is used. The hearing facilitator may be invited to attend the deliberation by the Chair, but is there only to facilitate procedurally, not to address the substance of the allegations.

When there is a finding of responsibility on one or more of the allegations, the Decision-maker(s) may then consider the previously submitted Party impact statements in determining appropriate Sanction(s).

The Chair will ensure that each of the Parties has an opportunity to review any impact statement submitted by the other Party(ies). The Decision-makers may – at their discretion – consider the statements, but they are not binding.

The Decision-maker(s) will review the statements and any pertinent conduct history provided by the Title IX Coordinator and will recommend the appropriate Sanction(s) in consultation with other appropriate administrators, as required.

The Chair will then prepare a written deliberation statement and deliver it to the Title IX Coordinator, detailing the determination, rationale, the evidence used in support of its determination, the evidence disregarded, credibility assessments, and any Sanctions.

This report typically should not exceed three (3) to five (5) pages in length and must be submitted to the Title IX Coordinator within two (2) business Days of the end of deliberations, unless the Title IX Coordinator grants an extension. If an extension is granted, the Title IX Coordinator will notify the Parties.

33. Notice of Outcome

Using the deliberation statement, the Title IX Coordinator will work with the Chair to prepare a Notice of Outcome. The Notice of Outcome may then be reviewed by legal counsel. The Title IX Coordinator will then share the letter, including the final determination, rationale, and any applicable Sanction(s) with the Parties and their Advisors within five (5) business Days of receiving the Decision-Makers’ deliberation statement.

The Notice of Outcome will then be shared with the Parties simultaneously. Notification will be made in writing and may be delivered by one or more of the following methods: in person, mailed to the local or permanent address of the Parties as indicated in official university records, or emailed to the Parties’ university-issued email or otherwise approved account. Once mailed, emailed, and/or received in-person, notice will be presumptively delivered.

The Notice of Outcome will identify the specific policy(ies) reported to have been violated, including the relevant policy section, and will contain a description of the procedural steps taken by the university from the receipt of the misconduct report to the determination, including any and all notifications to the Parties, interviews with Parties and witnesses, site visits, methods used to obtain evidence, and hearings held.

The Notice of Outcome will specify the finding on each alleged policy violation; the findings of fact that support the determination; conclusions regarding the application of the relevant policy to the facts at issue; a statement of, and rationale for, the result of each allegation to the extent the university is permitted to share such information under state or federal law; any Sanctions issued which the university is permitted to share according to state or federal law; and any remedies provided to the Complainant designed to ensure access to the university’s educational or employment program or activity, to the extent the university is permitted to share such information under state or federal law (this detail is not typically shared with the Respondent unless the remedy directly relates to the Respondent).

The Notice of Outcome will also include information on when the results are considered by the university to be final, any changes that occur prior to finalization, and the relevant procedures and bases for any available appeal options.

34. Sanctions

Factors considered when determining a Sanction/responsive action may include, but are not limited to:

• The nature, severity of, and circumstances surrounding the violation(s)
• The Respondent’s disciplinary history
• Previous allegations or allegations involving similar conduct
• The need for Sanctions/responsive actions to bring an end to the Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation
• The need for Sanctions/responsive actions to prevent the future recurrence of Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation
• The need to remedy the effects of the Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation on the Complainant and the community
• The impact on the Parties
• Any other information deemed relevant by the Decision-maker(s)

The Sanctions will be implemented as soon as is feasible, either upon the outcome of any appeal or the expiration of the window to appeal without an appeal being requested.

The Sanctions described in this policy are not exclusive of, and may be in addition to, other actions taken or Sanctions imposed by external authorities. Sanctions the Decision-Makers may put in place include but are not limited to the following:

• Disciplinary Warning – Verbal or Written
• Performance Improvement/Management Process (employment)
• Required Training or Education
• Disciplinary Probation
• Educational, interventional or restorative requirements
• Loss of Annual Pay Increase (employment)
• Loss of Oversight or Supervisory Responsibility (employment)
• Restricted Access to University facilities, organizations, or events
• Imposition or continuation of a “no contact” order
• Loss of Student housing privileges (Students)
• Employment Discipline
• Suspension, reduction, or loss of compensation
• Demotion (employment)
• Termination of employment, contract, appointment, and/or tenure
• Suspension from educational program or campus access
• Delayed awarding of a degree if enrolled in Pacific degree program (Students)
• Dismissal (expulsion)
• Termination (employment)
• Revocation of degree (Students)
• Organizational Sanctions: Deactivation, loss of recognition, loss of some or all privileges (including University of the Pacific registration) for a specified period of time
• Other Actions: In addition to or in place of the above Sanctions, the university may assign any other Sanctions as deemed appropriate.

35. Withdrawal or Resignation While Charges Pending

Students: If a Student has an allegation pending for violation of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation, University of the Pacific may place a hold on a Student’s ability to graduate and/or to receive an official transcript/diploma.

Should a Student decide to not participate in the Resolution Process, the process proceeds absent their participation to a reasonable resolution. Should a Student Respondent permanently withdraw from the university, the Resolution Process ends, as the university no longer has disciplinary jurisdiction over the withdrawn Student.

However, the university will continue to address and remedy any systemic issues, variables that may have contributed to the alleged violation(s), and any ongoing effects of the alleged Harassment, Discrimination, and/or Retaliation. The Student who withdraws or leaves while the process is pending may not return to the university. Such exclusion applies to all campuses of the university. A hold will be placed on their ability to be readmitted. They may also be barred from university property and/or events.

If the Student Respondent only withdraws or takes a leave for a specified period of time (e.g., one semester or term), the Resolution Process may continue remotely and that Student is not permitted to return to the university unless and until all Sanctions have been satisfied.

During the Resolution Process, the university may put a hold on a Student Respondent’s transcript or place a notation on a Student Respondent’s transcript or dean’s disciplinary certification that a disciplinary matter is pending.

Employees: Should an employee Respondent resign with unresolved allegations pending, the Resolution Process ends, as the university no longer has disciplinary jurisdiction over the resigned employee.

However, the university will continue to address and remedy any systemic issues, variables that contributed to the alleged violation(s), and any ongoing effects of the alleged Harassment or Discrimination.

The employee who resigns with unresolved allegations pending is not eligible for rehire with the university, and the records retained by the Title IX Coordinator will reflect that status.

All university responses to future inquiries regarding employment references for that individual will include that the former employee resigned during a pending disciplinary matter.

36. Appeals

Any Party may file a request for appeal (“Request for Appeal”), but it must be submitted in writing to the Title IX Coordinator within five (5) business Days of the delivery of the Notice of Outcome.

A three-member Decision-Maker appeal panel chosen from the Pool will be designated by the Title IX Coordinator. No Decision Maker appeal panelists will have been involved in the process previously, including any dismissal appeal that may have been heard earlier in the process. A voting Chair of the Appeal panel will be designated.

The Request for Appeal will be forwarded to the Appeal Chair for consideration to determine if the request meets the grounds for appeal (a Review for Standing).

This review is not a review of the merits of the appeal, but solely a determination as to whether the request meets the grounds and is timely filed.

a. Grounds for Appeal

Appeals are limited to the following grounds:

(A) Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter;

(B) New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination regarding responsibility or dismissal was made, that could affect the outcome of the matter;

(C) The Sanction is disproportionate to the offense; and

(D) The Title IX Coordinator, Investigator(s), or Decision-maker(s) had a conflict of interest or bias for or against Complainants or Respondents generally or the specific Complainant or Respondent that affected the outcome of the matter.

If any of the grounds in the Request for Appeal do not meet the grounds in this Policy, that request will be denied by the Chair and the Parties and their Advisors will be notified in writing of the denial and the rationale.

If any of the grounds in the Request for Appeal meet the grounds in this Policy, then the Appeal Chair will notify the other Party(ies) and their Advisors, the Title IX Coordinator, and, when appropriate, the Investigators and/or the original Decision-Makers.

The other Party(ies) and their Advisors, the Title IX Coordinator, and, when appropriate, the Investigators and/or the original Decision-Maker(s) will be mailed, emailed, and/or provided a hard copy of the request with the approved grounds and then be given three (3) business Days to submit a response to the portion of the appeal that was approved and involves them. All responses will be forwarded by the Chair and to all Parties for review and comment.

The non-appealing Party (if any) may also choose to raise a new ground for appeal at this time. If so, that will be reviewed for standing by the Appeal Chair and either denied or approved. If approved, it will be forwarded to the Party who initially requested an appeal, the Investigator(s) and/or original Decision-maker(s), as necessary, who will submit their responses in three (3) business Days, which will be circulated for review and comment by all Parties.

Neither Party may submit any new requests for appeal after this time period. The Appeal Chair will collect any additional information needed and all documentation regarding the approved grounds and the subsequent responses will be shared with the Appeal Panel, and the Chair will render a decision in no more than three (3) business Days, barring exigent circumstances. All decisions are by majority vote and apply the preponderance of the evidence standard.

A Notice of Appeal Outcome will be sent to all Parties simultaneously including the decision on each approved ground and rationale for each decision. The Notice of Appeal Outcome will specify the finding on each ground for appeal, any specific instructions for remand or reconsideration, any Sanctions that may result which the university is permitted to share according to state or federal law, and the rationale supporting the essential findings to the extent the university is permitted to share under state or federal law.

Notification will be made in writing and may be delivered by one or more of the following methods: in person, mailed to the local or permanent address of the Parties as indicated in official institutional records, or emailed to the Parties’ University of the Pacific-issued email or otherwise approved account. Once mailed, emailed and/or received in-person, notice will be presumptively delivered.

b. Sanctions Status During the Appeal

Any Sanctions imposed as a result of the hearing are stayed during the appeal process. Supportive Measures may be reinstated, subject to the same supportive measure procedures above.

If any of the Sanctions are to be implemented immediately post-hearing, then emergency removal procedures (detailed above) for a hearing on the justification for doing so must be permitted within 48 hours of implementation.

University of the Pacific may still place holds on official transcripts, diplomas, graduations, and course registration pending the outcome of an appeal when the original Sanctions included separation.

c. Appeal Considerations

• Decisions on appeal are to be deferential to the original decision, making changes to the finding only when there is clear error and to the Sanction(s)/responsive action(s) only if there is a compelling justification to do so.
• Appeals are not intended to provide for a full re-hearing (de novo) of the allegation(s). In most cases, appeals are confined to a review of the written documentation or record of the original hearing and pertinent documentation regarding the specific grounds for appeal.
• An appeal is not an opportunity for Appeal Decision-makers to substitute their judgment for that of the original Decision-maker(s) merely because they disagree with the finding and/or Sanction(s).
• The Appeal Chair/Panel may consult with the Title IX Coordinator on questions of procedure or rationale, for clarification, if needed. Documentation of all such consultation will be maintained.
• Appeals granted based on new evidence should normally be remanded to the original Investigator(s) and/or Decision-maker(s) for reconsideration. Other appeals may be remanded at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator or, in limited circumstances, decided on appeal.
• Once an appeal is decided, the outcome is final: further appeals are not permitted, even if a decision or Sanction is changed on remand (except in the case of a new hearing).
• In rare cases where a procedural or substantive error cannot be cured by the original Decision-makers (as in cases of bias), the appeal may order a new hearing with new Decision-makers.
• The results of a remand to Decision-makers cannot be appealed. The results of a new hearing can be appealed, once, on any of the three available appeal grounds.
• In cases in which the appeal results in reinstatement to the university or resumption of privileges, all reasonable attempts will be made to restore the Respondent to their prior status, recognizing that some opportunities lost may be irreparable in the short term.

37. Long-Term Remedies/Other Actions

Following the conclusion of the Resolution Process, and in addition to any Sanctions implemented, the Title IX Coordinator may implement additional long-term remedies or actions with respect to the Parties and/or the campus community that are intended to stop the Harassment, Discrimination, and/or Retaliation, remedy the effects, and prevent reoccurrence.

These remedies/actions may include, but are not limited to:

• Referral to counseling and health services
• Referral to the Employee Assistance Program
• Education to the individual and/or the community
• Permanent alteration of housing assignments
• Permanent alteration of work arrangements for employees
• Provision of public safety escorts
• Climate surveys
• Policy modification and/or training
• Provision of transportation accommodations
• Implementation of long-term contact limitations between the Parties
• Implementation of adjustments to academic deadlines, course schedules, etc.

At the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator, certain long-term support or measures may also be provided to the Parties even if no policy violation is found.

When no policy violation is found, the Title IX Coordinator will address any remedies owed by the university to the Respondent to ensure no effective denial of educational access.

The university will maintain the privacy of any long-term remedies/actions/measures, provided privacy does not impair the university’s ability to provide these services.

38. Failure to Comply with Sanctions and/or Interim and Long-term Remedies and/or Responsive Actions

All Respondents are expected to comply with the assigned Sanctions, responsive actions, and/or corrective actions within the timeframe specified by the final Decision-makers (including the Appeal Panel).

Failure to abide by the Sanction(s)/action(s) imposed by the date specified, whether by refusal, neglect, or any other reason, may result in additional Sanction(s)/action(s), including suspension, expulsion, and/or termination from University of the Pacific and may be noted on a Student’s official transcript.

A suspension will only be lifted when compliance is achieved to the satisfaction of the Title IX Coordinator. 

39. Recordkeeping

University of the Pacific will maintain for a period of at least seven years records of:

a. Each sexual Harassment investigation including any determination regarding responsibility and any audio or audiovisual recording or transcript required under federal regulation;

b. Any disciplinary Sanctions imposed on the Respondent;

c. Any remedies provided to the Complainant designed to restore or preserve equal access to the university’s education program or activity;

d. Any appeal and the result therefrom;

e. Any Informal Resolution and the result therefrom;

f. All materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, Investigators, Decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an Informal Resolution process. University of the Pacific will make these training materials publicly available on University of the Pacific’s website; and

g. Any actions, including any supportive measures, taken in response to a report or formal Complaint of sexual Harassment, including:

• a. The basis for all conclusions that the response was not deliberately indifferent;
• b. Any measures designed to restore or preserve equal access to the university’s education program or activity; and
• c. If no supportive measures were provided to the Complainant, document the reasons why such a response was not clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.

University of the Pacific will also maintain any and all records in accordance with state and federal laws.

RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE POLICY PROHIBITING SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, DISCRIMINATION, AND RETALIATION (KNOWN AT “PROCESS B”)

• Process B is applicable when the Title IX Coordinator determines Process A is inapplicable, or all offenses subject to Process A have been dismissed.
• If Process A is applicable, Process A must be applied in lieu of Process B.
• The university can substitute any alternative process instead of Process B, if desired.
• VAWA Section 304 requirements apply to Process B or any alternative process for reports that fall under VAWA.
   
• Title IX requirements outside of Section 106.30 (based on the original 1975 regulations, the 2001 Revised Guidance, etc.) may also be applicable to Process B.

1. Overview

University of the Pacific will act on any formal or informal allegation or notice of violation of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation that is received by the Title IX Coordinator, with the exception of Confidential Resources, as articulated in the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation.

The procedures described below apply to all allegations of sex or gender-based Harassment or Discrimination involving Students, Staff, Faculty members, or Third Parties. Unionized employees may be subject to the terms of their respective collective bargaining agreements to the extent those agreements do not conflict with federal or state compliance obligations.

These procedures may also be used to address collateral misconduct arising from the investigation of or occurring in conjunction with harassing or discriminatory conduct (e.g., vandalism, physical abuse of another). All other allegations of misconduct unrelated to incidents covered by the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation will be addressed through the procedures elaborated in the respective Student, Faculty, and Staff handbooks.

2. Initial Assessment

Following intake, receipt of Notice, or a Complaint of an alleged violation of University of the Pacific’s Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation, the Title IX Coordinator engages in an initial assessment, which is typically one to five business Days in duration. The steps in an initial assessment can include:

• The Title IX Coordinator reaches out to the Complainant to offer supportive measures.
• The Title IX Coordinator works with the Complainant to ensure they have an Advisor.
• The Title IX Coordinator works with the Complainant to determine whether the Complainant prefers a supportive response or an Administrative Resolution.
  • If a supportive and remedial response is preferred, the Title IX Coordinator works with the Complainant to identify their wishes and then seeks to facilitate implementation. The Administrative Resolution process is not initiated, though the Complainant can elect to initiate it later, if desired.
  • If an Informal Resolution option is preferred, the Title IX Coordinator assesses whether the Complaint is suitable for informal resolution, which informal mechanism may serve the situation best or is available, and may seek to determine if the Respondent is also willing to engage in Informal Resolution.
  • If Administrative Resolution is preferred, the Title IX Coordinator initiates the investigation process and determines whether the scope of the investigation will address:
    • Incident, and/or
    • A potential pattern of misconduct, and/or
    • A culture/climate issue.
• In many cases, the Title IX Coordinator may determine that a Violence Risk Assessment (VRA) should be conducted by the BIT as part of the initial assessment. A VRA can aid in ten critical and/or required determinations, including:
  • Interim suspension of a Respondent who is a threat to health/safety;
  • Whether the Title IX Coordinator should pursue Administrative Resolution absent a willing/able Complainant;
  • Whether to put the investigation on the footing of incident and/or pattern and/or climate;
  • To help identify potentially predatory conduct;
  • To help assess/identify grooming behaviors;
  • Whether a Complaint is amenable to Informal Resolution, and what modality may be most successful;
  • Whether to permit a voluntary withdrawal by the Respondent;
  • Whether to impose transcript notation or communicate with a transfer institution about a Respondent;
  • Assessment of appropriate Sanctions/remedies;
  • Whether a Clery Act Timely Warning/Trespass order is needed.

3. Informal Resolution

In some situations, the university may seek to resolve Complaints through an Informal Resolution Process. The University, the Complainant, or the Respondent may propose informal resolution of the Complaint at any time.  When permissible, informal resolution may include an agreement to stay away from persons, alter behavior or change schedules.

If the university finds the informal resolution proposal acceptable, the Title IX Coordinator may propose an informal resolution to the other Party. If both Parties agree to the proposed informal resolution and the outcome satisfies the university’s obligations, the matter shall be considered resolved. If either Party disagrees with the proposed informal resolution, the Complaint Review Process will continue.  In situations involving Faculty, the Chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee must be notified.

In some situations, mediation may be used to resolve a Complaint, but only with the consent of both the Complainant and Respondent. Mediation typically involves an attempt to resolve a dispute through the help of an objective Party. Mediation is not available in cases of Sexual Assault. Mediation participants may end their participation at any time and the Complaint Review Process will continue. If mediation successfully resolves the Complaint, the matter shall be considered resolved.

4.Administrative Resolution

If it is determined there will be an investigation of policy violation under “Process B,” this process will include an investigation of policy violation(s), hearing by a three-person Decision-Maker Panel, and opportunity to appeal to a three-person Decision-Maker Panel.

5. Notification

If it is determined there will be a formal investigation under “Process B,” the Complainant and Respondent will be provided with written information regarding the Complaint Review Process. This will include a link to the policies and procedures related to the Complaint Review Process, resources available both on and off campus, and information on Supportive Measures that may be available. The primary method for Notice and communication will be university email. All persons involved in the Complaint Review Process have an obligation to promptly read all university emails.

Complainants and Respondents will simultaneously receive Notice of:

• The Complaint, including alleged policy violations of the process for review and investigation of the Complaint
• The option for Informal Resolution
• The decision by a Respondent to accept responsibility for any Policy violations
• The opportunity to review the investigation report and all documents/evidence gathered during the investigation (subject to Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) limitations)
• The date, time, and location of the review hearing
• The names of the Decision-Maker Panel members, the process to challenge members, and any conflict of interest challenges
• The Decision-Maker Panel finding and reason for each finding
• The Sanction decision
• The process for appealing either the finding or recommended Sanction(s)
• The filing of any appeal
• The outcome of any appeal

The Complainant and Respondent will each receive the above information unless one or both request in writing not to receive further information.

The university may modify these notification standards to accommodate a criminal investigation.

6. Right to an Advisor

a. Who Can Serve as an Advisor

The Complainant and Respondent may choose anyone (including legal counsel or a union representative) to voluntarily serve as an Advisor of their choice. The Complainant and Respondent may be accompanied to any meeting or hearing by their Advisor. The Advisor may support and advise the Complainant or Respondent; however, the Advisor may not speak on behalf of the Complainant or Respondent or otherwise engage with the investigators, Decision-Maker Panel members, witnesses, or other individuals associated with the Complaint Review Process. 

Choosing an Advisor who is also a witness in the process creates potential for bias and conflict-of-interest. A Party who chooses an Advisor who is also a witness can anticipate that issues of potential bias will be explored by the hearing Decision-maker(s).

Upon request, the University will also assign a university-trained Advisor to each Complainant and Respondent. The university-provided Advisor will not otherwise be involved in the current investigation. The university-provided Advisor will explain the steps involved in the Sexual Misconduct Complaint Review Process and be available to answer questions regarding the process. The university-provided Advisor may not speak on behalf of the Complainant or Respondent or otherwise engage with the investigators, Decision-Maker Panel members, or witnesses.

The university may permit Parties to have more than one Advisor upon special request to the Title IX Coordinator. The decision to grant this request is at the sole discretion of the Title IX Coordinator and will be granted equitably to all Parties.

b. Advisor’s Role

The Parties may be accompanied by their Advisor in all meetings and interviews at which the Party is entitled to be present, including intake and interviews. Advisors should help the Parties prepare for each meeting and are expected to advise ethically, with integrity, and in good faith.

University of the Pacific cannot guarantee equal Advisory rights, meaning that if one Party selects an Advisor who is an attorney, but the other Party does not or cannot afford an attorney, the is not obligated to provide an attorney.

c. Advisor Violations of University of the Pacific Policy

All Advisors are subject to the same University of the Pacific policies and procedures, whether they are attorneys or not. Advisors are expected to advise their advisees without disrupting proceedings. Advisors should not address University of the Pacific officials in a meeting or interview unless invited to (e.g., asking procedural questions). The Advisor may not make a presentation or represent their advisee during any meeting or proceeding and may not speak on behalf of the advisee to the Investigator(s) or other Decision-Maker(s).

Any Advisor who oversteps their role as defined by the Policy and associated procedures will be warned only once. If the Advisor continues to disrupt or otherwise fails to respect the limits of the Advisor role, the meeting will be ended, or other appropriate measures implemented. Subsequently, the Title IX Coordinator will determine how to address the Advisor’s non-compliance and future role.

d. Sharing Information with the Advisor

University of the Pacific expects that the Parties may wish to have the university share documentation and evidence related to the allegations with their Advisors. Parties may share this information directly with their Advisor or other individuals if they wish. Doing so may help the Parties participate more meaningfully in the Resolution Process.

The university also provides a consent form that authorizes the university to share such information directly with their Advisor. The Parties must either complete and submit this form to the Title IX Coordinator or provide similar documentation demonstrating consent to a release of information to the Advisor before the university is able to share records with an Advisor.

If a Party requests that all communication be made through their attorney Advisor, the university will comply with that request at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator.

The Complainant and Respondent must notify the Title IX Coordinator at least three business days prior to the hearing date if they wish to bring an Advisor to a Decision-Maker Panel Hearing.  The notification must include the name of the Advisor.

e. Privacy of Records Shared with Advisor

Advisors are expected to maintain the Privacy of the records shared with them. These records may not be shared with third Parties, disclosed publicly, or used for purposes not explicitly authorized by University of the Pacific. The university may seek to restrict the role of any Advisor who does not respect the sensitive nature of the process or who fails to abide by the university’s Privacy expectations.

f. Expectations of an Advisor

University of the Pacific generally expects an Advisor to adjust their schedule to allow them to attend university meetings when planned, but may change scheduled meetings to accommodate an Advisor’s inability to attend, if doing so does not cause an unreasonable delay.

The university may also make reasonable provisions to allow an Advisor who cannot attend in person to attend a meeting by telephone, video conferencing, or other similar technologies as may be convenient and available.

g. Expectations of the Parties with Respect to Advisors

A Party may elect to change Advisors during the process and is not obligated to use the same Advisor throughout. The Parties are expected to inform the Investigator(s) of the identity of their Advisor at least two (2) business days before the date of their first meeting with Investigators (or as soon as possible if a more expeditious meeting is necessary or desired).

The Parties are expected to provide timely notice to the Title IX Coordinator if they change Advisors at any time. It is assumed that if a Party changes Advisors, consent to share information with the previous Advisor is terminated, and a release for the new Advisor must be secured. Parties are expected to inform the Title IX Coordinator of the identity of their hearing Advisor at least three (3) business days before the hearing.

University of the Pacific fully respects and accords the Weingarten rights of employees. For Parties who are entitled to union representation, the university will allow the unionized employee to have their union representative (if requested by the Party) as well as an Advisor of their choice present for all resolution-related meetings and interviews. To uphold the principles of equity, the other Party (regardless of union membership) will also be permitted to have an additional Advisor. Witnesses are/are not permitted to have union representation or Advisors in grievance process interviews or meetings.

j. Assistance in Securing an Outside Advisor

For representation, Respondents may wish to contact organization such as:

• FACE (http://www.facecampusequality.org),
• SAVE (http://www.saveservices.org).

Complainants may wish to contact organizations such as:

• The Victim Rights Law Center (http://www.victimrights.org),
• The National Center for Victims of Crime (http://www.victimsofcrime.org), which maintains the Crime Victim’s Bar Association,
• The Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund: http://nwlc.org/times-up-legal-defense-fund/.

7. Investigation

The investigation and review hearing will generally be completed within sixty-ninety (60-90) business days following receipt of the Complaint. However, this time period may be extended by the Title IX Coordinator in consultation with University counsel for good cause given the circumstances of the Complaint, investigation and/or Decision-Maker Panel hearing process.

The investigation will include some or all of the following steps:

• If the university decides not to investigate a Complaint, this decision will be communicated in writing, including the reasoning, and provided to the Complainant
• If the Complainant requests that the University not conduct an investigation, the university will evaluate this request in light of its obligations under applicable laws
• If the university decides to investigate following a request from the Complainant that the matter not be investigated, the Respondent will be informed in writing that the Complainant requested that the matter not be investigated
• The university will notify the Complainant before investigation interviews start
• The university will appoint trained investigator(s) to conduct interviews of the Complainant, Respondent, and witnesses and collect relevant evidence related to the Complaint. In some cases, the University may appoint outside an investigator to review a Complaint
• Interviews may be recorded at the discretion of the investigator and will be maintained by the Title IX Coordinator. It will be the sole recording permitted. No recording devices, including cell phones, will be permitted in the room where the interview is taking place
• Investigator(s) will not consider information from character witnesses or other individuals who do not possess factual information specifically related to the Complaint
• The sexual history of the Complainant and Respondent will not be considered, except information regarding history between the Complainant and Respondent
• Prior violations of this or other University policies by the Complainant and/or Respondent will be evaluated by the investigators for relevance to the matter under investigation and possible inclusion in the investigation report
• Formal rules of evidence and discovery are not applicable. All relevant information will be considered, including medical and police reports, digital communications (e.g., text messages, emails, and other forms of social media) when/if available. Investigators determine the relevance of the information to their investigation. 
• At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigators will present their findings to the Title IX Coordinator or their designee
• A draft report will then be shared with the Complainant and Respondent for their review and response consistent with FERPA regulations. Any response is limited to correction of factual discrepancies.  The Title IX Coordinator will determine whether any response requires additional investigation.
• A final report will be issued to the Complainant and Respondent consistent with FERPA.

8. Investigation Report

The investigator(s) will prepare a report summarizing the information gathered. The report should include a description of the alleged incident, factual agreements and disputes, and supporting information. The investigation team will review all of the facts and write a report to be presented to the Title IX Coordinator or their designee. In cases involving a Faculty Respondent, the final report is shared with the FGCC.

Complaints involving a Faculty Respondent will follow the hearing procedures described in Section 7.11.9-7.11.18 of the University’s Faculty Handbook with elaboration below.

9. Decision-Maker Panel and Hearing

If the informal resolution or mediation process is inappropriate or unsuccessful, and the university or one of the Parties requests a hearing, the University will convene a 3-person Decision-Maker Panel to conduct a review hearing. The Decision-Maker Panel will consider all information presented, including the investigation report, and determine whether (a) a Policy violation has occurred; or (b) there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a Policy violation has occurred by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard.  The Decision-Maker Panel will also make Sanction recommendations when a finding of a policy violation is made.

The Decision-Maker Panel, appointed by the Title IX Coordinator or their designee, will be composed of three persons.  Decision-Maker Panel members may be trained Faculty or Staff. The Title IX Coordinator in consultation with the Decision-Maker Panel will designate one of the three members to serve as the Decision-Maker hearing chair.  Decision-Maker Panel members may be from any of the university's three campuses. In some cases, the university may include in the panel retired judges, attorneys, or other individuals from outside the university with relevant and/or specialized training or expertise. Pre-hearing training of Decision-Maker Panel members will include the hearing process as well as specialized training for the unique issues related to cases of Sexual Misconduct.

a. The Complainant and Respondent will be provided with the names of the Decision-Maker Panel members in advance of the hearing process. The Complainant and Respondent may each request in writing, at least three business days prior to the hearing, that panel members be excused for good cause (e.g. conflict of interest, prior knowledge of the case). The reason provided will be evaluated by the Title IX Coordinator in consultation with Student Conduct, Human Resources, and/or the Provost, as appropriate.  Following consultation, the Title IX Coordinator will make a decision regarding any challenges and provide Notice of the decision to both the Complainant and Respondent. If excused, a replacement will be selected.Written Statements and Witnesses

The Complainant and Respondent may provide a written response to the investigation report, as well as any additional information relevant to the case, to the Decision-Maker Panel. Both the Complainant and Respondent will have the opportunity to review all materials submitted to the Decision-Maker Panel. The Complainant and Respondent may bring witnesses to the facts to the hearing. Title IX Coordinator must be notified of the witnesses’ names and their relevance to the case identified, at least three business days before the hearing. Should the Title IX Coordinator (or FGCC in Faculty Respondent cases) determine that the witness(s) have no direct relevance to the facts of the case, the witnesses may be dis-allowed.

b. Hearing Procedures

Generally, the Complainant and Respondent will have at least five (5) Business Days advance Notice of the scheduled hearing. The Notice period may be shortened or extended in emergency circumstances or with agreement of all Parties and subject to holiday and no school periods.

Hearings are closed proceedings. Participants who may be present during the hearing include:

• Decision-Maker Panel Members (including a Chair)
• Complainant (with Advisor only when Respondent not present)
• Witnesses (only when called by Decision-Maker Panel)
• Investigator(s)
• Hearing Facilitator (this may be the Title IX Coordinator but they may not serve in a decision-making capacity)
• The Title IX Coordinator may be present to observe and/or answer policy-related or hearing process questions from the Decision-Maker Panel
• In some cases, the University may provide subject matter experts to the Decision-Maker The experts will not speak to individual cases. Their role is to provide expert information in response to queries from the Decision-Maker Panel
• University counsel or designee, if requested by the Chair

The review hearing will generally proceed in the following order (note that the Complainant and Respondent will not be in the same room at the same time unless both Parties agree to waive this):

1. Investigator(s) Introduction of Report
2. Questions to the Investigator(s) by the Decision-Maker Panel
3. Questions to the Investigator(s) by the Complainant
4. Questions to the Investigator(s) by the Respondent
5. Complainant Statement
6. Questions to the Complainant by the Decision-Maker Panel
7. Questions to the Complainant from the Respondent
8. Respondent Statement
9. Questions to the Respondent by the Decision-Maker Panel
10. Questions to the Respondent from the Complainant
11. Witness statements and questioning by the Decision-Maker Panel
12. Questions to Witnesses from the Complainant
13. Questions to Witnesses from the Respondent
14. Final questions to the Complainant and/or Respondent
15. Closing statement by the Complainant
16. Closing statement by the Respondent
17. Closed deliberations by the Decision-Maker Panel

Only the Decision-Maker Panel may ask questions of the Complainant, Respondent, and witnesses. The Complainant and Respondent may submit questions to the Decision-Maker Panel in writing.  The Chair will pose questions on behalf of the Parties if the questions are relevant. The Decision maker has the authority and obligation to discard or rephrase any question that the Decision Maker deems to be repetitive, irrelevant, or harassing. In making these determinations, the Decision Maker is not bound by, but may take guidance from, the formal rules of evidence.

The Decision-Maker Panel may, at its discretion, alter the order of proceedings and establish reasonable limits on time allotted for any portion of the hearing process. The Decision-Maker Panel may determine the relevance of, restrict or exclude any witnesses or information presented.

In the event that the Complainant or Respondent is unable to attend the review hearing, alternative means for participation will be identified.

Parties may not introduce evidence, including Witness testimony, at the hearing that the Party did not identify during the investigation and that was available at the time of the investigation. However, the Decision Maker has discretion to accept for good cause, or exclude, such new evidence offered at the hearing.

The Investigators and Decision Makers are prohibited from following evidentiary considerations:

1. The past sexual history of a Complainant or Respondent except when the conditions in 3) and 4) are present;
2. Prior or subsequent sexual history between the Complainant and anyone other than the Respondent for any reason unless directly relevant to prove that the physical injuries alleged to have been inflicted by the Respondent were inflicted by another individual; or
3. The existence of a dating relationship or prior or subsequent consensual sexual relationship between the Complainant and Respondent unless the evidence is relevant to how the parties communicated consent in prior or subsequent consensual sexual relations,
4. When evidence in 3) is permitted, investigators or Decision Makers who allow consideration of evidence about a dating relationship or prior subsequent consensual sexual relations between the Complainant and the Respondent are required to consider that the fact the Complainant and Respondent engaged in other consensual sexual relations with one another is never sufficient by itself to establish the conduct at issue was consensual.

Prior to allowing the consideration of any evidence as described above, the Investigators or Decision Makers will provide a written explanation to the Parties as to why the evidence is consistent with this clause.

Typically, the Complainant and Respondent are not in the hearing room at the same time, although this may be waived if both Parties agree. The Complainant and Respondent, along with their Advisors, when not before the Decision-Maker Panel, will be able to listen to the proceedings via speaker-phone or other appropriate means (e.g., closed circuit TV, live streaming).

c. Hearing Recording

The University will make an audio recording of the hearing for use, if necessary, by the Decision-Maker Panel, Appeal Committee, and University administrators. It will be the sole recording permitted. The Complainant and Respondent may request to review the hearing recording; however, no duplication or copy of the recording will be provided.  Complainant, Respondent, Advisors and Witnesses are not permitted to record the proceedings.

d. Standard of Proof

The standard of proof used by the Decision-Maker Panel is “preponderance of the evidence.” The Decision-Maker Panel will use this standard to determine whether the Respondent(s) violated this Policy. A preponderance of the evidence requires that the Decision-Maker Panel members determine, based upon the evidence available to them at the time of the hearing, that the Respondent is more likely than not to have violated the Policy.

e. Majority Vote

A Policy violation finding will be based upon a majority vote of the Decision-Maker Panel.

f. Sanctions

If the Decision-Maker Panel finds the Respondent responsible for a policy violation, the Decision-Maker Panel will recommend a Sanction or Sanctions by a majority vote. In considering an appropriate Sanction, the Decision-Maker Panel shall consider all the evidence presented during the hearing and the following:

• Impact statements provided by the Complainant and Respondent to the Decision-Maker Panel. Impact statements should not be part of the process of determining a Policy violation.
• What is reasonable, appropriate, and fair given the facts of the case and the determination of responsibility, including but not limited to:
  • What were the specific acts involved? (e.g. touching over the clothes, penetration, etc.)
  • What factors contributed to the absence of Consent? (e.g. coercion, force, incapacitation)
  • What motivated the Respondent’s behavior? (negligence, intentional, reckless, biased)
  • What is the impact on the Complainant?
  • What is the impact on others?
  • What is the Respondent’s disciplinary history with regard to Misconduct?
  • Is the proposed Sanction consistent with Sanctions imposed for similar offenses at the University?
  • Are there aggravating or mitigating circumstances?
  • What will be the most effective way to stop the Misconduct?
  • What will be the best way to reasonably prevent the recurrence?
  • The Panel must consider appropriate remedial response for the Complainant when determining a Sanction.

Sanctions the Decision-Maker Panel may recommend include but are not limited to the following:

• Disciplinary Warning
• Disciplinary Probation
• Educational, interventional or restorative requirements
• Restricted Access to University facilities, organizations or events
• Imposition or continuation of a “no contact” order
• Loss of Student housing privileges
• Employment Discipline
• Suspension, reduction, or loss of compensation
• Demotion (employment)
• Termination of employment, contract, appointment and/or tenure.
• Suspension from educational program or campus access
• Delayed awarding of a degree if enrolled in Pacific degree program
• Dismissal (expulsion)
• Revocation of a degree

The recommendation will generally be issued within three (3) Business Days of the conclusion of the review hearing. The Decision-Maker Panel will include an explanation of the reasoning for its recommendation and the basis for its recommended Sanction(s).  The Decision-Maker Panel will submit its recommendation to the Title IX Coordinator.  The Title IX Coordinator will consult with the appropriate person (Student Conduct and Community Standards, Provost, or Human Resources) to make a final Sanction decision supported by appropriate rationale.  The final decision will generally be issued within five (5) business days of the consultation.

Where a Sanction is recommended against a union employee, the employee will have all rights provided by the applicable collective bargaining agreement to appeal discipline under the union procedures prior to imposition of a Sanction.

10. Appeals

Both the Respondent and Complainant may request an appeal of the decision of the Decision-Maker Panel and/or the Sanctions imposed. Appeals are limited to the following grounds:

(A) Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter;

(B) New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination regarding responsibility or dismissal was made, that could affect the outcome of the matter;

(C) The Sanction is disproportionate to the offense; and

(D) The Title IX Coordinator, Investigator(s), or Decision-maker(s) had a conflict of interest or bias for or against Complainants or Respondents generally or the specific Complainant or Respondent that affected the outcome of the matter.

Disagreement with the findings or recommended Sanction, in and of itself, is insufficient grounds for appeal. Non-participation by a Party to the Complaint may not be used as a basis for appeal.

The Complainant or Respondent must submit a written appeal request within three (3) Business Days of Notice of the Decision-Maker Panel decision and/or Sanction(s). The Appeal should include information or documentation that supports the bases on which the Appeal is made. The appeal shall be submitted to the Title IX Coordinator. If either the Complainant or Respondent submits an appeal based on the reasons provided above, the University will notify the other Party of the appeal and provide an opportunity to review the appeal. The non-appealing Party may submit a written response within three (3) business days of receiving Notice of the appeal.

a. Initial Review

The Title IX Coordinator will perform an initial review of any appeal to determine whether the Party states an appropriate basis for appeal.  If not, the appeal will be dismissed by the Title IX Coordinator.  This review will be performed in consultation with Student Conduct and Community Standards, Human Resources, and/or the Provost, as appropriate depending upon the persons implicated by the Complaint.

b. Appeal Committee

An Appeal Committee will be constituted in the same manner as the Decision-Maker Panel, but will not include any person serving on the original panel. The Complainant and Respondent will be provided with the names of the Appeal Committee members in advance of the hearing process. The Complainant and Respondent may each request that panel members be excused for good cause (e.g. conflict of interest, prior knowledge of the case). Such request must be made in writing and submitted at least three (3) business days prior to the appeal date.

The request should include information or documentation that supports the basis on which the request is made. When appropriate, the reason provided will be evaluated by the Title IX Coordinator, in consultation with Student Conduct and Community Standards, and/or the Assistant Vice President of Human Resources, and/or the Provost. Following appropriate consultation, the Title IX Coordinator will make a decision regarding any challenges and provide the decision to both the Complainant and Respondent. A replacement will be selected, if necessary.

The Appeal Committee will meet in closed session. This meeting is not a hearing. The Appeal Committee should evaluate the bases of appeal and review the hearing record to determine whether or not the bases for appeal may have impacted the original decision. The Appeal Committee’s review is limited to upholding the original decision, modifying the Sanction, or reaching a new finding. The original Decision-Maker Panel’s alleged deviation from procedures will not necessarily warrant reversing the decision of the Decision-Maker Panel, unless there is significant prejudice to the Respondent, Complainant, or the University (if the Complainant did not participate), and a different outcome would have been likely.

The Appeal Committee will use the preponderance of the evidence standard and a majority vote in reaching a decision. The Appeal Committee will generally issue its written decision within three (3) Business Days of the conclusion of the meeting of the Appeal Committee. The appeal decision will include an explanation of the reasoning for the decision, including review of any Sanction(s) recommended by the Decision-Maker Panel. The Appeal Committee will submit its written decision to the Title IX Coordinator for evaluation and implementation.

11. Sanction Implementation

Sanction consideration and/or implementation will be conducted by the Title IX Coordinator in conjunction with the following:

The recommended Sanction shall be imposed unless a compelling reason exists for adopting an alternate Sanction.

12. Withdrawal or Resignation While Charges are Pending

Students: University of the Pacific does not permit a Student to withdraw if that Student has an allegation pending for violation of the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation. The university may place a hold, bar access to an official transcript, and/or prohibit graduation as necessary to permit the Resolution Process to be completed.

Employees: Should an employee resign with unresolved allegations pending, the records of the Title IX Coordinator will reflect that status, and any university responses to future inquiries regarding employment references for that individual will include the former employee’s unresolved status.

13. Failure to Complete Sanctions/Comply with Interim and Long-term Remedies/Responsive Actions

All Respondents are expected to comply with conduct Sanctions, responsive actions, and corrective actions within the timeframe specified by the Title IX Coordinator.

Failure to abide by the Sanction(s)/action(s) imposed by the date specified, whether by refusal, neglect, or any other reason, may result in additional Sanction(s)/responsive/corrective action(s), including suspension, expulsion, and/or termination from University of the Pacific and may be noted on a Student’s official transcript.

A suspension will only be lifted when compliance is achieved to the satisfaction of the Title IX Coordinator.

14. Recordkeeping

In implementing this policy, records of all allegations, investigations, resolutions, and hearings will be kept indefinitely, or as required by state or federal law or institutional policy, by the Title IX Coordinator in the Title IX case database.

These procedures are effective February 8, 2022.

ATIXA 2020 ONE POLICY, TWO PROCEDURES MODEL. USE AND ADAPTATION OF THIS MODEL WITH CITATION TO ATIXA IS PERMITTED THROUGH A LIMITED LICENSE TO UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC. ALL OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED. ©2020. ATIXA