Title IX: What You Need to Know About the Disciplinary Process at Daemen College

Being accused of sexual misconduct, such as sexual harassment, rape, or sexual assault in federally funded universities like Daemen College is considered a violation of Title IX under federal law. If you are found “responsible” for this conduct, it could jeopardize your plans for graduation and result in serious penalties. This article will focus on Daemen’s College disciplinary process and why you need an attorney-advisor if you find yourself in this situation.

Daemen College’s Disciplinary Process

Under Title IX, Daemen College must investigate any reports of sexual misconduct brought to their attention promptly and with equity. The Department of Education mandates that higher education institutions must respond adequately to allegations; otherwise, the school risks losing its federal funding. Complainants (the person who reported the complaint), and more significantly, respondents (the accused person of sexual misconduct), should understand that the college will regard their case seriously and act accordingly.

Reporting an Incident

Victims, survivors, complainants, or witnesses are encouraged but not obliged to report incidents to the Title IX Coordinator via complaint. The complaint should contain essential information such as the names of the people involved in the incident, witnesses’ names, a detailed description of what transpired during the alleged conduct with relevant evidence attached(text messages, emails or social media); reporting any form of act has no time constraint but filing earlier is encouraged.

Initial Assessment

Once notified by complainant(s), initial appraisal shall be immediately done by Title IX Coordinator to determine the authenticity of an accusation made is valid; investigation follows after data collection confirms that academic institution requires further inspection. Before proceeding with an inquiry into claims made against a respondent(e.g., being accused), consent from complainants will be sought where applicable.

Investigation

The Title IX Coordinator investigates complaints filed by discussing allegations separately with both parties separately – making available equal opportunities to identify witnesses and present evidence supporting their respective positions at meetings.

The Hearing

The Campus Standards Board hearing will be called to review complaints and the respondent’s response, as well as any witnesses, before determining responsibility or sanctions if found guilty.

Appeals

After the conduct review body has passed its judgment or decision, either the respondent or the complainant may appeal to a higher authority. Within five working days of the announcement made in official records, an appeal request— stating reasons for seeking a reversal—will be forwarded to VSPA.

Reasons for requesting an appeal could include but are not limited to:

– The underlying College procedures governing conduct review were violated.
– There is evidence of new information discovered post-hearing.
– Misinterpretation of alleged policies used in decision making
– Improper sanction(s)
– Decision not supported by a preponderance of evidence.

New York Title IX Attorney

As a respondent in sexual misconduct charges raised against you by Daemen College; while you can choose anyone to advise you during such processes triggered by violation, it’s in your best interest to hire an attorney who understands Title IX better than most. You will be adequately assisted through all stages of build-up prior defense provided by legal experts with years of experience in dealing with similar cases.Call Attorney Todd Spodek now for adequate assistance at 212-300-5196.

Table I: Violations under Title IX in Universities

| Sexual harassment |
|————————————————————————————————————————————–|
| Gender-based harassment |
| Sexual assault |
| Dating abuse |
| Domestic violence |
| Stalking |

Table II: Reasons for appealing decisions that don’t sit well with respondents/complainants

Violation of College conduct review procedures
Misinterpretation of the policies alleged to be violated
New evidence not reasonably available at the time of hearing
Improper or excessive sanction(s)
Decision not supported by preponderance evidence