Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Regulatory status, checked against the Department of Education’s own published material on 2026-08-23: the operative federal regulation governing Title IX grievance procedures is the 2020 Title IX Rule (34 CFR Part 106, as amended, effective August 14, 2020). The Department issued a separate 2024 Final Rule that took effect August 1, 2024, but a federal district court vacated that 2024 rule on January 9, 2025; the Department’s own guidance states the 2024 regulations “are not effective in any jurisdiction” as a result. This page describes the 2020 rule’s grievance-process requirements, which are the ones currently governing. Because this area has changed twice in five years and remains subject to litigation and potential further rulemaking, institutions should verify current status directly at ed.gov before relying on any secondary summary, including this one, for a specific pending matter.
What triggers the process: actual knowledge and formal complaints
Under the 2020 rule, an institution’s Title IX response obligation is triggered when it has actual knowledge of sexual harassment or allegations of sexual harassment in an education program or activity — meaning notice to the Title IX Coordinator or any official with authority to institute corrective measures. A grievance process specifically begins with a formal complaint: a document filed by a complainant, or signed by the Title IX Coordinator, alleging sexual harassment against a respondent and requesting that the institution investigate. See CASRAI’s Title IX Coordinator guide for who holds that role and when a coordinator may sign a complaint without a complainant’s request.
Mandatory dismissal and jurisdiction
The 2020 rule requires an institution to dismiss a formal complaint from its Title IX grievance process, for purposes of Title IX specifically, if the alleged conduct would not meet the regulatory definition of sexual harassment, did not occur in the institution’s education program or activity, or did not occur against a person in the United States. A mandatory dismissal under Title IX does not prevent the institution from addressing the same conduct under a separate code of conduct process; it only means the matter proceeds outside the Title IX-specific grievance framework.
Presumption of non-responsibility
The grievance process must presume the respondent is not responsible for the alleged conduct until a determination is made at the conclusion of the process. This presumption is a structural requirement of the process itself, not a comment on the credibility of either party.
Notice, investigation, and equal opportunity to participate
Once a formal complaint proceeds, the institution must provide written notice to both parties with sufficient detail to prepare a response, including the identities of the parties, the conduct alleged, and the date and location if known, along with a statement that the respondent is presumed not responsible and information about the parties’ rights during the process, including the right to an advisor of their choice. The institution, not the parties, bears the burden of gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination; it cannot restrict either party’s ability to discuss the allegations or gather evidence. Both parties must have an equal opportunity to present witnesses and evidence, and both must be sent evidence directly related to the allegations, with time to review and respond before any determination is finalized.
Live hearing and cross-examination (postsecondary institutions)
For postsecondary institutions specifically, the 2020 rule requires a live hearing at which the decision-maker (who cannot be the same person as the Title IX Coordinator or the investigator) must permit each party’s advisor — not the parties themselves — to ask the other party and any witnesses relevant questions and follow-up questions, including questions challenging credibility. If a party does not have an advisor present at the hearing, the institution must provide one, without cost to that party, for the purpose of conducting cross-examination. Before any question is answered, the decision-maker must first determine whether it is relevant, and the rule excludes questions about a complainant’s prior sexual behavior except in narrow, specified circumstances. If a party or witness does not submit to cross-examination at the live hearing, the decision-maker cannot rely on any statement of that party or witness in reaching a determination. Elementary and secondary institutions are not required to hold a live hearing under the 2020 rule and may use a different, non-hearing determination process, provided parties still have the opportunity to submit written questions and receive answers.
Standard of evidence
The institution may use either the preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and convincing evidence standard, but it must apply the same standard to all formal complaints of sexual harassment, and it must apply the same standard it uses for other comparable proceedings against employees, including faculty, unless the disparity is due only to a legally binding requirement such as a collective bargaining agreement.
Written determination and appeal
The decision-maker must issue a written determination, applying the chosen standard of evidence, that includes the allegations, a description of the procedural steps taken, findings of fact, conclusions on whether the conduct occurred, the rationale for the determination and any sanctions, and a description of any procedures and bases available to each party to appeal. Both parties must be given the same appeal rights on specified grounds, which the rule defines to include procedural irregularity affecting the outcome, newly discovered evidence, and conflict of interest or bias by the Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker.
Informal resolution
At any time before a determination is reached, and after a formal complaint has been filed, the institution may offer an informal resolution process, such as mediation, provided both parties give voluntary, informed, written consent, the institution is not resolving allegations that an employee sexually harassed a student, and either party can withdraw from the informal process and resume the formal grievance process at any time before the informal resolution is agreed to.
Training requirements for personnel
Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any facilitator of an informal resolution process must be trained on the definition of sexual harassment, the scope of the institution’s education program or activity, how to conduct an investigation and grievance process including hearings, appeals, and informal resolution as applicable, and how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of facts, conflicts of interest, and bias. Materials used to train these individuals must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications.
Retaliation is separately prohibited
Independent of the outcome of any specific complaint, the regulation prohibits intimidation, threats, coercion, or discrimination against any person for exercising rights under Title IX, including for filing a complaint, participating in an investigation, or refusing to participate. This retaliation prohibition applies regardless of whether the underlying conduct is ultimately found to have occurred.
Where this intersects Clery and FERPA
An incident that triggers a Title IX investigation may also be a Clery Act reportable crime — particularly under the Violence Against Women Act categories of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking — requiring separate, anonymized statistical disclosure independent of the Title IX case outcome; see CASRAI’s Clery Act compliance guide. Records generated during a Title IX investigation are also generally education records subject to FERPA, and institutions must apply FERPA’s disclosure restrictions alongside Title IX’s own notice and disclosure requirements to the parties; the two regimes are independent and neither automatically supersedes the other.
What is contested or unsettled right now
- The 2024 Title IX Final Rule — which would have broadened the definition of sex discrimination and sex-based harassment, removed the mandatory live-hearing/cross-examination requirement, and changed several procedural elements described above — is vacated nationwide following the January 9, 2025 district court decision and is not currently in effect anywhere, per the Department of Education’s own published statement.
- Litigation and further Department rulemaking in this area are ongoing and have moved more than once in recent years; the 2020 rule being “currently operative” is a snapshot as of the date at the top of this page, not a guarantee of the rule’s status going forward.
- Sub-regulatory guidance and enforcement priorities from the Department’s Office for Civil Rights can shift with changes in administration without a new final rule, which can affect how existing regulatory text is interpreted and enforced even while the underlying regulation stays the same.
- Some states have their own statutes or agency guidance addressing campus sexual harassment procedures that can impose requirements in addition to federal Title IX — institutions should confirm applicable state requirements separately; this page addresses the federal regulatory floor only.
Given this, institutions should treat any specific procedural deadline, form, or hearing script as something to confirm against current Department of Education material and their own legal counsel before applying it to an active case, rather than something a general reference page can responsibly assert as fixed.
Frequently asked questions
Is the 2024 Title IX rule in effect anywhere right now?
No. The Department of Education’s own published guidance states that following the January 9, 2025 court decision vacating the 2024 Final Rule, the 2024 regulations are not effective in any jurisdiction. The 2020 rule is the operative regulation.
How long does a Title IX investigation take?
The 2020 rule requires the process to be completed in a “reasonably prompt manner” and requires institutions to designate reasonably prompt time frames in their own policy, including for filing and resolving appeals, but it does not set a fixed federal deadline in days. Institutions should consult their own published grievance process for the specific time frames that apply.
Does the respondent get to personally cross-examine the complainant?
No. Under the 2020 rule’s live hearing requirement for postsecondary institutions, only the parties’ advisors — not the parties themselves — may conduct cross-examination, and the institution must provide an advisor at no cost to any party who does not have one for that purpose.
Can an institution use the same investigation process for employees and students?
The 2020 rule’s grievance process requirements apply to formal complaints against a respondent, whether student or employee, though institutions commonly maintain separate procedural documents for student and employee respondents to align with other applicable employment law and collective bargaining obligations, while still applying a consistent standard of evidence as the rule requires.
