g "',

:;;:

.;!

,,,,,\~T ~.F?I)(/.
'; ,"~'
,;?' ,1:/

,y

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF EDUCATION

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

32 OLD SLIP, 26TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005'

.
rt-

r'

':":,';;'

.?-,;/~:~~,f'V
TIMOTHY C. J. BLANCHARD DIRECTOR NEW YORK OFFICE

November 4, 2011 Melissa Goodman, Esq. New York Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, New York 10004
I

Re:C:~se No. 02-11-1203 Ont~orll Central School District Dear.Ms.Goodman: This letter isto notify you of the determination made by the U.S. Department of Education, New York Office for Civil Rights (OCR) with respect to the above-referenced complaint you filed against the Onteora Central School District. You alleged that the District discriminated against students, on the basis of sex, by failing to respond appropriately to incidents of peer-an-peer sexual harassment (Allegation I); and by failing to adopt and publish grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sex discrimination and/or sexual harassment (Allegation 2). Hereinafter, you will be referred to as "the complainant."
r

OCR is responsible for enforcing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). The District is a recipient of financial assistance from the Department and is a public elementary and secondary education system. Therefore, OCR has jurisdictional authority to investigate this complaint under Title IX. In its investigation, OCR interviewed District staff. OCR also reviewed documentation complainant and the District submitted. OCR made the following determinations. Allegation 1. With respect to Allegation 1, the complainant alleged that the District failed to respond appropriately to incidents of peer-on-peer sexual harassment. In support of her allegation, the complainant identified two students who allegedly reported to District staff that they were subjected to sexual harassment by their peers at the Onteora High School (the School). Specifically, the complainant alleged that students at the School repeatedly subjected a female student (Student 1) to sexual harassment, and a male student (Student 2) to gender-based harassment. The complainant alleged that the harassment was reported to District staff, but that the District failed to take appropriate action. the

The Department o/ Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation/or fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

global competitiveness

by

Page 2 of 10-Melissa

Goodman, Esq.

Title IX and its implementing regulation prohibit discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and can include sexual advances, request .for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct. Hostile environment sexual harassment is sexually harassing conduct that is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive to limit a student's ability to participate in or receive benefits, services or opportunities in the recipient's program. If a recipient has actual or constructive notice of the hostile environnient, a recipient is required to take immediate and effective corrective action reasonably calculated to stop the harassment, prevent its recurrence and, as appropriate, remedy its effects. A. Student 1 The complainant alleged that students at the School, all of whom were female, subjected Student . Lt.sexual harassment, Additionally, the.complainantalleged that Student l 's.mother repeatedly reported the alleged harassment to District staff, including the Superintendent and the School's Assistant Principal, who failed to take appropriate action. OCR determined that on October 20, 2010, Student l's parents complained to the Assistant Principal that certain students at the School were subjecting Student 1 to threatening text messages and Facebook posts. OCR determined that in response, on October 22, 2010, the Assistant Principal and Student l' s guidance counselor met with Student 1 and her parents, who provided copies of the text messages and Facebook posts. OCR determined that neither Student 1 nor her parents indicated at this meeting that they believed the text messages and Facebook posts constituted sexual harassment or were because of Student l' s sex. OCR determined that none of the Facebook posts or text messages were based on Student l ' s sex or were of a sexual nature. Additionally, none of the Facebook posts referred to Student 1 by name or were posted on Student l' s Facebook page. OCR determined that during this meeting, Student l' s parents also alleged that students were spreading a rumor that Student 1 was pregnant. The Assistant Principal informed OCR that although the parents provided the names of the students who allegedly spread the rumor, they did. not state when the alleged rumor was spread, how it was spread, or to whom. The Assistant Principal informed OCR that she did not understand that Student 1 or her parents were raising the rumor asan allegation of sexual harassment; rather, it appeared -that there was animosity between Student 1 and these students that manifested in name-calling and the spreading of the pregnancy rumor. OCR found no evidence that Student l's parents reported to the Assistant Principal, or that the Assistant Principal knew or otherwise should have known, that Student 1 or her parents believed these students had subjected Student 1 to harassment based on her sex. Nevertheless, in response to the concerns raised, the District changed Student 1's schedule so that she would not be in the same classes as the students involved, and allowed her to have lunch in the guidance office with her friends. .Additionally, the Assistant Principal contacted the parents of the other students involved to discuss the situation. The Assistant Principal informed OCR that between the meeting on October 22, 2010, and the date the complainant wrote to the District on November 30, 2010, she received two complaints from Student' 1 regarding alleged threatening/harassing conduct; but neither complaint involved alleged sexual harassment, or was reported as such.

Page 3 of 10-Melissa Goodman, Esq. OCR determined that by letter dated November 30, 2010, the complainant alleged to the Superintendent that Student 1 was subjected to sexual harassment. OCR determined that this was the first time the District was on notice of an allegation of alleged sexual harassment of Student 1. The complainant alleged that students had subjected Student 1 to name-calling, and had spread rumors of a sexual nature about Student 1; however, the complainant did not provide the names of these students. OCR determined that in response to the complainant's letter, the Assistant Superintendent, in her role as Title IX Coordinator, commenced an investigation in December 2010. OCR determined that the Assistant Superintendent commenced her investigation by speaking with District staff and the complainant about the allegations.: OCR determined that the Assistant Superintendent then attempted to contact Student' l' s parents repeatedly beginning January 3, 2011, but had difficulty reaching them and scheduling a meeting; they did not meet until February 7, 2011. aGR. determined that during the meeting, the Assistant Superintendent asked Student 1 to provide copies of text messages discussed at the meeting; however, Student 1 did not provide these until March 29,2011. On March 29, 201'1, Student 1 provided the Assistant Superintendent with several Facebook posts from the previous school year, May and June 2010, which she alleged were evidence of sexual harassment; some of which included language such as "I hate stupid bitches like her," "she's a pussy" and "dumb bitch," but none of which referred to Student 1 by name or identified her in any manner. Student 1 also informed the Assistant Superintendent that on several occasions in October and November 2010, students had called her a "cunt" and a "whore" in person or via text message; however, in support of her allegation, Student 1 only provided the Assistant Superintendent with two text messages from a student from May 2010 of the previous school year. In the messages, the student wrote "stupid dumb hoe [sic]" and "bye bitch." Student 1 also informed the Assistant Superintendent that students spread a rumor in fall 2010, and previously in spring 2010, that she was pregnant and "going into the woods with [her] exboyfriend and doing things with him"; however, the Student provided nothing to support these accusations. OCR determined that the Assistant Superintendent interviewed the students allegedly involved, and all denied calling Student 1 a "whore" or "cunt," or spreading any rumors about her being pregnant or having sexual encounters with her boyfriend. OCR determined that the Assistant Superintendent interviewed a total of 11 individuals during the course of the investigation; including Student 1, her parents, other students, and District staff. OCR determined that by letter dated April 11, 2011, the Assistant Superintendent notified Student l' s parents that she found no evidence to support that Student 1 "endured severe and pervasive harassment" or "discrimination on the basis of her sex," or that the District "failed to adequately address allegations of harassment based on [Student l' s] gender brought forth by the [complainant] or her parents." The Assistant Superintendent noted that she did "uncover evidence of inappropriate conduct which was directed towards [Student 1]," but that "I do not find that this conduct was based on [Student 1's] sex," and "school personnel immediately and adequately addressed such conduct once they became aware of it." The District informed OCR

Page 4 of 10-Melissa Goodman, Esq. that it was not informed or aware of any further incidents of alleged harassment regarding Student 1. Based on the above, OCR determined that the evidence did not substantiate that Student 1 or her parents reported any incidents as sexual harassment prior to the complaint filed by the complainant on November 30, 2010; nevertheless, the District investigated Student l's parents' concerns and took appropriate action. Additionally, OCR determined that once on notice of alleged sexual harassment, as of November 30, 2010, the District promptly and appropriately investigated the complaint. OCR further determined that the evidence failed to support that Student 1 was subjected to name-calling that constituted harassment based on Student l' s sex. Further, the evidence failed to establish that any students had spread rumors about Student 1 being pregnant or having sexual encounters with her boyfriend. Accordingly, OCR determined that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegation that the District failed to respond appropriately to incidents of peer-an-peer sexual harassment with respect to Student 1. B. Student 2 The complainant alleged that students at the School subjected Student 2 to gender-based harassment. The complainant alleged that Student 2 reported the harassment to School staff, including a guidance counselor and social worker, but that School personnel failed to take appropriate action to address the harassment. The complainant informed OCR that in September 2010, Student 2 became "depressed and fearful"; his parents therefore agreed that he be temporarily homeschooled. OCR determined that on October 6, 2010, Student 2's father sent an electronic mail message (email) to the Principal stating that Student 2 was being harassed by his peers. Specifically, Student 2' s father stated that the previous week, a student commented that Student 2 was "holding his coffee cup like a faggot." Student 2's father also stated that Student 2 overheard another student comment about the recent suicide of a Rutgers University student who was gay, statingthat the student's problem was that he was "too sensitive." OCR further determined that by email dated October 7, 2010, Student 2's mother notified the District that during that week and the previous one, "[s]omeone in the lunch room imitated [Student 2] in a falsetto voice, and commented about his clothing," and told him "you run like you're gay." Student 2's mother also stated that Student 2 "never walks down the hall without getting a look or being called a faggot, or worse" and that the "comments are often graphic and sexual." IOCR determined that Student 2' s parents did not identify any of the students allegedly involved by name. OCR determined that on October 8, 2010, the Principal met with Student 2, his parents, and School staff. Student 2' s parents stated that during the meeting, they discussed name-calling by other students in the hall; however, Student 2 and his parents did not provide the names of students involved, or any other specific information concerning the alleged incidents of harassment. OCR determined that the District attempted to obtain further information about the incidents raised by Student 2 and his parents by speaking with building monitors and others to
IOn October 13,2010, Student 2's parents also complained to the District's Board of Education, who informed the parents that the District's administration was responding to the matter.

Page 5 of 10 -Melissa Goodman, Esq. determine whether the identity of the alleged harassers could be determined; however, the District was unable to confirm that students subjected Student 2 to name-calling, other conduct of a sexual nature, or conduct based on gender stereotyping. Nevertheless, OCR determined that the Principal spoke with School staff; including the Assistant Principal, all of the guidance counselors and. social workers, and building monitors. The Principal also spoke with members of a student club, the Gay-Straight Alliance, to see if other students believed they had been harassed. Both staff and students stated there were occasional inappropriate statements (e.g., "that's so gay"), which were not directed towards or about particular students. Additionally, OCR determined that the District provided bullying awareness trainings for staff to address the concerns raised by Student 2 and his parents, which were conducted on November 12, 2010, and December 10, 2010, by the National Education Association and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). OCR determined that on October 27, 2010, Student 2's parents requested home instruction for Student 2, and Student 2 received home instruction for a period of several weeks. OCR determined that by email, dated November 18, 2010, Student 2's mother notified District staff that when the Student returned to school to attend an extracurricular event, a student (Student A) told Student 2 that "I'm as gay about my clothing as you are," and another student (Student B) "talked in a falsetto voice and commented about the voice of a gay teen" he knew. This time, Student 2's mother identified the students involved by name. OCR determined that the Principal and guidance counselor met with Students A and B. The Principal advised OCR that he and the guidance counselor determined that Students A and B did not intend to offend or harass Student 2 by their statements; and that Students A and B were supportive of the Student in general. Additionally, Students A and B agreed to "continue being an ally" for Student 2; i.e., to intervene if they heard inappropriate language and to report any observed inappropriate behaviors. The Principal advised OCR that he counseled Students A and B; and that the students understood that regardless of their intentions, their comments were inappropriate. OCR determined that by email message dated November 19, 2010, the Principal advised Student 2's parents that he had spoken to the students involved, that it was a "very positive meeting", and that "these students are very supportive of [Student 2] and will advocate for him." OCR determined that no further incidents occurred involving Students A or B. OCR determined that on January 14, 20ll,Student 2 complained that he was hit with a snowball in the face and allegedly called a "prick." The Assistant Principal informed OCR that she spoke with students and requested Facebook postings to try to determine who was responsible, but was unable to make such determination. OCR determined that there was no evidence to indicate that this incident constituted an act of alleged sexual harassment, or that it was reported to the District as such. OCR determined that on January 19, 2011, Student 2'sparents requested home instruction through the remainder of the school year, and onApril29, 2011, Student 2 withdrew from the District. Based on the above, OCR determined that Student 2 and his parents were unable to provide . sufficiently specific information for the District to take further action with respect to alleged incidents of harassment reported in October 2010, such as the names of the students allegedly

Page 6 of 10-Melissa

Goodman, Esq.

involved. Nevertheless, OCR determined that the District promptly and appropriately responded to Student 2's parents' complaints by attempting to determine the identity of the students through interviews with staff and other students; and, conducting bullying awareness training. OCR further determined that Student 2 and his parents provided sufficient information for the District to investigate allegations of gender-based harassment in November 2010, and that the Principal and guidance counselor promptly and appropriately responded by meeting with and counseling the students involved in those incidents. OCR determined that the evidence was insufficient to " indicate that any other incidents occurred or were reported during school year 2010-2011 that were sexual in"nature, or based on Student 2's sex. Accordingly, OCR determined that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegation that the District failed to respond appropriately to incidents of peer-on-peer sexual harassment with respect to Student 2. OCR determined that the District did not receive any other complaints of peer-on-peer sexual harassment during school year 2010-2011 from any other students. Therefore, based on the foregoing, OCR determined that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegation that the District failed to respond appropriately to incidents of peer-on-peer sexual harassment. Accordingly, OCR will take no further action with respect to Allegation 1. Allegation 2 With respect to Allegation 2, the complainant alleged that the District failed to adopt and publish grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sex discrimination and/or sexual harassment. OCR reviewed whether the District had: (a) designated a Title IX Coordinator; (b) provided notification of the name, office address, and telephone number of the Title IX Coordinator; (c) adopted and published grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of student and. employee complaints of discrimination/harassment on the basis of sex; and (d) provided notice that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex.

A. Designation of Title IX Coordinator

The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. 106.8(a), requires that each recipient designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under Title IX. The District identified three individuals as its designated Title IX Coordinators: the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction (2009-2010 and 20102011); the Principal of the Bennett Elementary School (as of May 3, 2011) and the Principal of the Onteora Middle School (as of May 3, 2011). Therefore, OCR determined that the District designated at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under the requirements of Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. 106.8(a). B. Notification of the Name/Title, Office Address, and Telephone Number of the Designated TitleIX Coordinator The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. 106.8(a), also requires the recipient to notify all students, employees, and beneficiaries of the name and/or title, office address, and telephone number of the designated Title IX Coordinator. The District submitted an annual

Page 7 of 10-Melissa

Goodman, Esq.

notification that it disseminates to students at the beginning of each school year in response to OCR's request for information regarding the means by which the District notifies students,staff and other beneficiaries of the identity and contact information for its designated Title IX Coordinators. The District also informed OCR that the contact information for its designated Title IX Coordinators can be found in the District's Board of Education meeting minutes, which are available on the District's website. OCR reviewed the notification and determined that it contains the name, title, office address, and telephone number of one of the District's designated Title IX Coordinators; however, the notification solely directs employees with disability-related concerns to contact the Title IX Coordinator. OCR determined that the District has two regulations for complaints of sexual harassment: Policy Number 6121-Sexual Harassment of District Personnel (Procedure 1); and Policy Number 7551-Sexual Harassment of Students (Procedure 2). OCR reviewed Procedures 1 and 2, and determined that neither of these documents contains all of the required elements for notification; namely, the name and/or title, office address, and telephone number of the designated Title IX Coordinators. OCR also reviewed the District's website, and determined that the Board of Education Meeting minutes do not contain all of the required elements for notification; namely, the office addresses and telephone numbers of the designated Title IX Coordinators. . C. Grievance Procedures The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34C.F.R. 106.8(b), requires that each recipient adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student, employee, and third party complaints that allege any action which would be prohibited by the regulation. OCR has identified a number of elements in determining if grievance procedures are prompt and equitable, including whether the procedures provide for: (a) notice to students and employees of procedures, including where .complaints may be filed; (b) application of the . procedures to discrimination byemployees, students, and third parties; (c) adequate, reliable,and . impartial investigation, including an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence; (d) designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for major stages of the grievance process; (e) notice to parties of the outcome; and (f) assurance that the institution will take steps to prevent further harassment and to correct its effects if appropriate. OCR determined that the District has four grievance procedures that may be used to address .complaints of discrimination/harassment on the basis of sex: Procedures 1 and 2 referred to above; Policy Number 6122-Complaints and Grievances by Employees (Procedure 3); and Policy Number 7550-Complaints and Grievances by Students (Procedure 4). OCR determined that these procedures are published on the District's website; are included in an annual mailing to all community members; are set forth in the District's Policy Manual, which is available in the District's offices for review; and are included in the District's Handbook, which is provided to all District personnel.

2 The District informed OCR that this notification was mailed to all District residents on September 13, 2010, as part of a bulk mailing.

Page 8 of lO-Melissa

Goodman, Esq.

OCR determined that it is not clearly stated in the procedures themselves, or any other District publications, which procedure should be followed in addressing a particular complaint. OCR also determined that none of these procedures provides complete information about whom the District has designated as the individual with whom to file a complaint of discrimination/harassment on the basis of sex.3 OCR further determined that although the procedures, in sum, cover complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex made by students and employees, no procedure specifies whether it would be applicable to complaints by third parties. Additionally, none of the procedures provide for notice to parties of the outcome; specify a timeframe by which the District will investigate and resolve complaints; or state that the District will take steps to prevent further harassment and to correct its effects, if appropriate. D. Non-Discrimination Notice

The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. l06.9(a), requires that a recipient implement specific and continuing steps to notify applicants for employment, students, parents of elementary and secondary school students, employees, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the education programs or activities it operates; that the prohibition against discrimination extends to employment; and that inquiries to recipients concerning the application of Title IX and its implementing regulation may be referred to the Title IX coordinator or to OCR. The regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. l06.9(b), requires recipients to include the notice of nondiscrimination in each announcement, bulletin, catalog, or application form which it makes available to the persons described above, or which is otherwise used in the recruitment of students or employees. OCR determined that the District does not have a non-discrimination notice that complies with Title IX. OCR determined that the District has Policy Number 3420-Anti-Harassment in the School District (the Anti-Harassment Policy), which prohibits sexual harassment, but does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, as required by Title IX. OCR further determined that the District does not include the Anti-Harassment Policy in each, announcement, bulletin, catalog, or application form which it makes available to applicants for employment, students, parents of elementary and secondary school students, employees, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient, or which is otherwise used in the recruitment of students or employees, as required by Title IX for a notice of non-discrimination. Additionally, OCR determined that the Anti-Harassment Policy does not state that any inquiries concerning the application of Title IX and its implementing regulation may be referred to the District's designated Title IX Coordinator or to OCR, as required by Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. l06.9(b).4

3 Procedures land 2 direct individuals to report sexual harassment to unnamed Compliance Officers; Procedures 3 and 4 state that the Superintendent will designate a Title IX Coordinator, but do not identify the designated Title IX Coordinator, or clearly state that complaints of sex discrmination and/or sexual harassment should be directed to the designated Title IX Coordinator. 4 The District's Anti-Harassment Complaint Officer(s). Policy directs individuals to report sexual harassment to the Distrct's designated

Page 9 of 10-Melissa

Goodman, Esq.

On November 4, 2011, the District agreed to implement the enclosed resolution agreement, which addresses the above-mentioned compliance concerns with respect to Allegation 2. OCR will monitor the implementation of the resolution agreement. If the District fails to implement the terms of the resolution agreement, OCR will resume its investigation of the complaint. This letter sets forth OCR's determination in an individual OCR case. This letter is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. OCR's formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to the public. The complainant may have the right to file a private suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds a violation. It is unlawful to harass or intimidate an individual who has filed a complaint or participated in actions to secure protected rights. If this should occur, you may file a separate complaint with OCR alleging such harassment or intimidation. Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, it may be necessary to release this letter and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information that, if released, could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. If you have questions, please contact Emma Kim, Senior Compliance Team Attorney, at (646) 428-3824 or Emma.Kim@ed.gov; Terri Russo, Compliance Team Attorney, at (646) 428-3790 or Terri.Russo@ed.gov; or Emily Frangos, Complian Team Leader, at (646) 428-3831 or Emily.Frangos@ed.gov. If you still have concerns following the conversation, you may appeal OCR's determination to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement at the address indicated below, within 60 days of the date of this letter. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20202; 01' OCRAppeals@ed.gov While you are encouraged to do so, having a discussion with the case team members about the OCR determination is not a prerequisite to filing an appeal with the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, and it does not stop the running of the 60-day timeline. Should you decide to file an appeal, be as specific as possible. Your correspondence should focus on factual or legal concerns that you believe may change the determination. You should explain why you believe the determination was incorrect, Le., why the factual information was

'1

,{

Page 10 of 10 -Melissa Goodman, Esq. incomplete, the analysis of the facts was incorrect, the legal standard was not applied correctly, and/or the incorrect legal standard was applied. The Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Enforcement will respond in writing. Sincer ly,

----_

...

,.

Timothy C. J. Blanchard Ericl.

.:J

RESOLUTION AGREEMENT , Onteora Central School District Case No. 02..11..1203 In order to resolve the compliance concerns identified in Case No. 02..11..1203, the Onteora Central School District assures the U.S. Department of Education, New York Office for Civil Rights (OCR), that it will take the aetions detailed below pursuant to the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 106. . Action Item 1: Title IX Coordinators By February 15, 2012, therDJtl'lct disseminated to students, parents, and employees to notify all '~itU1L<1t~Ji1t~l,.l:1111~l;y.~~es, ~Ul~I/p;~'llet'fcialils.(~fthe name and/or title, office address, and telephone number of the its efforts to comply with Title IX,

Reporting Requirement:

By February 15, 2012, the District will provide OCR with documentation demonstrating. its compliance with Action Item 1, including copies of the printed versions of a1l publications disseminated to students, parents, and employees containing the required notification, and printouts or a link to all on-line publications containing the required notification.

t\tion Item 2: Notice of Non-Discrimination By February 15, 2012, the District will revise its notice of non-discrimination to clearly state that the District does not discriminate on the basis of sex (and may include other bases such as race, color, national origin, disability and age). The revised notice will also include a statement that inquiries concerning the application of Title IX and its implementing regulation may be referred to the designated Title IXcoordinator(s) or to OCR.

Reporting Requirement:

By February 15, 2012, the District will documentation demonstrating its compliance with Action Item 2, including '1:el~$oll$}q!aJ.l pupff.c,tionsdisseminated to students, parents and employees, pll;~;I.tr~e'~lh1~oa:tilSontaining the notice, and copies of applications for p c nl~:ybellS(l,l'ngblgTvprinting of these publications.

provide OCR with copies of the printed printouts or a link to employment. Inserts

Action Item 3: Title IX Grievance Procedures The District .will adoptpul:tisll t'eyj~secl.f,l;~'j!~V:21Ue pto~durs crf sex discrimination (including ~e~pJhi\.rt~$SJlnt,. f;>"',""t,,U :tssau:lt requited .by the regulation implementing Title I~~at 34 .G,F.R, 'I'I.-,,~ ni;<i1ic;elt~;f'\,i~ill'lm)vi(le fortbe prmpt and equitable resolutionofc.ntpli\.:i.tlts fi't'llS of discrimination on the basiso.fs~i'f; 1. notice that the procedures apply to complaints alleging sex discrimination (including sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual violence, and gender-based harassment) by employees, students, or third parties; 2. an explanation to students, employees, and beneficiaries of how to file a complaint pursuant to the procedures;

Page 2 of 3- Resolution Agreement (Case No. 02~11~1203) 3. the name, title, office address, and telephone number of the individuals) with whom to file a complaint; 4. definitions and examples of what types of actions may constitute sex discrimination (including sexual harassment, gender-based harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence); 5. designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for major stages ofthe grievance process; 6. writtennotice to parties of the outcome of the investigation; and 7. an assurance that the District will take steps to prevent discrimination and harassment, to prevent the recurrence -of discrimination and harassment, and to correct its discriminatory effects, if appropriate. Reporting Requirements: (a) By February 15,2012, the District will provide its revised Title IX grievance procedures to OCR for review and approval. (b) Within fifteen (15) days of the District's receipt of OCR's approved revised Title IX grievance procedures, the District will provide OCR with documentation to substantiate that. it has formally adopted the OCR-approved revised procedures; updated its printed publications and on-line publications with the revised procedures (inserts may be used pending reprinting of these publications); and electronically disseminated the revised grievance procedures to students and employees. This documentation will include at a minimum: (i) printouts ora link. to all on-line publications containing the revised grievance procedures; (ii) evidence of the electronic dissemination of the revised grievance procedures to students and employees; and (iii) if not yet finalized, copies of inserts for printed publications. (c) By April 15, 2012, the District will provide to OCR copies of the printed versions of all publications disseminated to students and employees containing the revised Title IX grievance procedures. Action Item 4: 'fitle IX Training By April 15, 2012, the District will provide Title IX training to its Title IX Coordinatorfs), any other coordinators, and any District staff who will be directly involved in processing, investigating and/or resolving 'complaints of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, gender-based harassment, sexual assault, or sexual violence, or who will otherwise coordinate the District's compliance with Title IX. The District's training will cover the District's new grievance procedures for Title IX complaints and will provide attendees with instruction on recognizing and appropriately addressing allegations and complaints pursuant to Title IX. The training will include information concerning what constitutes sex discrimination, sexual harassment, gender-based harassment, sexual assault and sexual violence, and the District's responsibilities under Title IX to address allegations of inappropriate behaviors based on sex. Additionally, the training will include instruction on how to conduct and document adequate, reliable, and impartial Title IX investigations, including the appropriate legal standard of a preponderance of the evidence to apply in a Title IX investigation. The District will distribute copies of its revised nondiscrimination statement and Title IX grievance procedures to all attendees. Reporting Re.quirement: By Apri115, 2012, the District will provide OCR with documentation demonstrating that it provided training in accordance with Action Item (4) above. The documentation will include, at a rninimum, the name(s) and credentials of the traners), the

Page 3 of3 - Resolution Agreement (Case No. 02-11-1203) datees) and time(s) of the tranings), the names of staff in attendance, and copies of any training materials distributed.
The District understands that OCR will not close the monitoring of this agreement until OCR determines that the District has fulfilled the terms of this agreement and is in compliance with the regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 e.F.R. 106.S and 106.9, which were at issue in this case. The District also understands that by signing this agreement, it agrees to provide data and other information in a timely manner in accordance with the reporting requirements of this agreement. Further, the District understands that during the monitoring of this agreement, if necessary, OCR may visit the District, interview staff and students, and request such additional reports 01' data as are necessary for OCR to determine whether the District has fulfilled the terms of this agreement and is in compliance with the regulation implementing Title IX, at 34 e.F.R. 106.8 and 106.9, which were at issue in this case.

m,-IDate

(/
Elytis iegel ill~,'.,l.D.,ordeslghee) Superintendent of Schools Onteora Central School District