University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process

Reports of Discrimination, Harassment, Intimidation, and Retaliation under University Policy 40.001 may be submitted by the complainant or by a third party on behalf of a person they believe has been adversely affected by conduct prohibited by the policy. Reports may be submitted regardless of the time elapsed since the alleged violation, keeping in mind that delays in reporting may limit access to evidence or present issues concerning the status and availability of the parties and/or witnesses.

Reports may be submitted online.

Reports may also be filed by email, phone, or in person using the contact information below.

Office of Civil Rights Compliance
006 Lindley Hall
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
(740) 593-9140
civilrights@ohio.edu

Anonymous complaints will be accepted; however, CRC may be limited in its ability to investigate or resolve anonymous complaints because the ability to obtain additional information may be compromised. If the anonymous complaint contains sufficiently detailed information about conduct that may violate University Policy 40.001, CRC will exercise due diligence to address the reported concerns with affected individuals and, where appropriate, planning units.

Under Ohio law and/or federal regulations, CRC must notify the appropriate law enforcement agency when a report indicates that a felony or other designated crime may have been committed. 

A reporting party is expected to actively provide information supporting their report in the time and manner deemed necessary and appropriate by the university to conduct an investigation. Failure to cooperate with the investigation process in a timely manner may compromise the university’s ability to conduct an investigation and address the allegations fully.

All employees and students are expected to participate and cooperate with investigations as requested by CRC.

CRC will review the report to determine whether the allegations may constitute a violation of University Policy 40.001. If so, CRC will evaluate whether the alleged conduct consists solely of protected speech. If the allegations in the report may constitute a violation of University Policy 40.001 and the reported conduct involves unprotected speech or behavior, CRC will initiate an investigation in accordance with the University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process. 

CRC will engage in continuous gatekeeping throughout the investigation. If, at any time during the investigation, CRC determines that the allegations, even if proven, would not constitute a violation of University Policy 40.001, the investigation will be concluded, and any charges against the respondent will be dismissed. 

If CRC’s initial review determines that the allegations would not constitute a violation of University Policy 40.001 and/or the reported conduct consists solely of protected speech such that an investigation and/or discipline would not be appropriate, CRC will nonetheless assess whether the reported conduct has created a hostile environment within the University’s education programs or activities, including when the alleged conduct occurred off campus or on social media. The assessment will include gathering information from the complainant, if willing and available, and from other relevant sources as needed.

If the reported incident has created a hostile environment, CRC will take steps to address the alleged discrimination. Such steps will not include discipline but may include, without limitation, university-wide training or messages, supportive measures for impacted individuals, or other non-punitive responses. If the reported incident has not created a hostile environment, CRC will refer the matter to the Campus Climate Concerns Team for support of the impacted individuals.

If a report alleges a violation of University Policy 40.001 and the reported conduct involves unprotected speech or behavior, the investigators will request an initial meeting with the complainant as soon as possible to explain the formal grievance and informal resolution processes, discuss possible supportive measures, and assess the appropriate next steps. The investigators may also ask the complainant whether they wish to participate in an interview during the initial meeting (See Section 4). The complainant may be accompanied at all meetings by an advisor and a support person (as defined in Appendix A), but the advisor and support person may not otherwise participate in the process.

Should the complainant not respond after the investigators have made two attempts to schedule the initial meeting, the investigators will send the complainant written acknowledgement of their non-participation and notice of the next steps to be taken. Should the complainant later choose to participate, they may re-engage at any point, keeping in mind that delays may limit access to evidence or affect the status and availability of the parties and/or witnesses.

If an interview was not conducted during the initial meeting, the investigators will schedule a separate meeting with the complainant to conduct an interview and gather relevant information regarding the allegations. Interviews may be conducted in person, remotely using Zoom or similar technology, or by phone, if necessary. Follow-up interviews may be scheduled as needed. The complainant may be accompanied by an advisor and a support person at interviews. 

The investigators will make at least two attempts to interview the complainant before proceeding with the grievance process. Should the complainant decide not to participate in the grievance process at any point, it may continue to a reasonable resolution. The complainant will continue to receive updates regarding the progress of the investigation and hearing, if any, and may re-engage with the grievance process at any point before its conclusion.

Following each complainant interview, the investigators will write a summary of the relevant information from the interview. The complainant will be given the opportunity to review and verify the summary of their interview prepared by the investigators. In the case of clear misunderstanding or error by the investigators, the summary will be corrected before being finalized. Any other additions, changes, or corrections provided by the complainant will be added to the summary with a notation.

The respondent will be sent a written notice of the investigation and allegations (NOIA) with sufficient time to prepare before being interviewed about the matter. The complainant will also be provided a copy of the NOIA. The notice will be sent in accordance with Section 21 of this process. The delivery of the notice commences the University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process.

After the NOIA has been sent, the investigators will schedule an initial meeting with the respondent to review the information in the NOIA, explain the formal grievance and informal resolution processes, discuss possible supportive measures, and provide additional information as needed. The investigators may also ask the respondent whether they wish to participate in an interview during the initial meeting (See Section 7). The respondent may be accompanied at all meetings by an advisor and a support person (as defined in Appendix A), but the advisor and support person may not otherwise participate in the process. 

Should the respondent not respond after the investigators have made two attempts to schedule the initial meeting, the investigators will send the respondent written acknowledgement of their non-participation and notice of the next steps to be taken. Should the respondent decide not to participate in the grievance process at any point, it may continue to a reasonable resolution. The respondent will continue to receive updates regarding the progress of the investigation and hearing, if any, and may re-engage with the grievance process at any point before its conclusion. 

If an interview was not conducted during the initial meeting, the investigators will schedule a separate meeting with the respondent to conduct an interview and gather relevant information regarding the allegations. Interviews may be conducted in person, remotely using Zoom or similar technology, or by phone if necessary. Follow-up interviews may be scheduled as needed. The respondent may be accompanied by an advisor and a support person at interviews.

The investigators will make at least two attempts to interview the respondent before proceeding with the grievance process. Should the respondent decide not to participate in the grievance process at any point, it may continue to a reasonable resolution. The respondent will continue to receive updates regarding the progress of the investigation and hearing, if any, and may re-engage with the grievance process at any point before its conclusion.

Following each respondent interview, the investigators will write a summary of the relevant information from the interview. The respondent will be given the opportunity to review and verify the summary of their interview prepared by the investigators. In the case of a clear misunderstanding or error by the investigators, the summary will be corrected before being finalized. Any other additions, changes, or corrections provided by the respondent will be added to the summary with a notation.

Throughout the investigation, the investigators will identify individuals they believe may have information relevant to the matter and will contact those individuals as potential witnesses. Additionally, the parties may suggest relevant witnesses. If unclear, the investigators may ask the parties to explain how the witnesses they suggest are connected to the matter being investigated and what relevant information they believe the person can provide. The investigators will interview the available, relevant witnesses, with follow-up interviews scheduled as needed. The investigators will make at least two attempts to schedule interviews with relevant witnesses before moving forward with the process. 

Following each witness interview, the investigators will write a summary of the relevant information from the interview. Interviewed witnesses will be given the opportunity to review and verify the summary of their respective interviews. In the case of a clear misunderstanding or error by the investigators, the summary will be corrected before being finalized. Any other additions, changes, or corrections provided by the witness will be added to the summary with a notation.

The investigators will gather, assess, and synthesize the interview summaries and relevant evidence into a draft investigative report, but they will make no conclusions, engage in no policy analysis, and render no recommendations in their report. 

Before the conclusion of the investigation, the parties and their respective advisors (at the request of the party they are advising) will be provided access to a secured electronic copy of the draft investigative report and the relevant evidence obtained as a part of the investigation. The draft investigative report and relevant evidence will be available to the parties for five business days so that each party may review it and respond to the report and evidence in writing. The parties may waive the full five business days. 

The parties may provide additional evidence or identify additional witnesses in response to the draft investigative report, but they should understand that doing so at this point in the investigation may delay the completion of the grievance process.

If the parties submit written responses to the draft report and evidence, the investigators will incorporate relevant elements of those written responses into the investigative report, include any additional relevant evidence, make any necessary revisions, and finalize the report. 

The final report and evidence will be shared with the parties and their respective advisors (at the request of the party they are advising) via secure electronic means at least ten business days before the hearing. If new evidence is provided by the parties after the investigative report is finalized, the Director may delay the hearing so that the investigation may be reopened to consider that evidence. 

The investigators will send the parties a notice of hearing at least ten business days before the hearing, including the date, time, and location or access information for the hearing. Notice will be sent in accordance with Section 21 of this process.

Upon completion of the investigative report, the investigators will schedule separate pre-hearing meetings with the parties. The parties may each be accompanied by an advisor and a support person at their pre-hearing meeting. The pre-hearing meetings will be scheduled at least five business days before the hearing. The purpose of the pre-hearing meeting is to allow the investigators to answer any final questions the parties have and to clarify logistical matters regarding the hearing. If a party does not attend the scheduled pre-hearing meeting, it will be canceled, but the party may ask questions of the investigators as needed.

The hearing panel has the authority to hear and make determinations on allegations of violations of University Policy 40.001: Nondiscrimination in Education and Employment. The hearing panel is composed of three panelists, one of whom serves as the hearing chair. The hearing chair answers all questions of procedure and conducts the hearing from a script, which is provided to the parties for their reference. 

Those present at the hearing will include the hearing panel, the investigators who conducted the investigation, the parties, the advisors and support persons to the parties, any called witnesses, and anyone providing authorized accommodations or assistive services. 

Parties must submit their questions for the other party and any witnesses to the hearing chair for consideration by 5:00 p.m., two business days before the hearing. The parties may also email any questions that arise during the hearing to the hearing chair for consideration. The hearing chair will determine the relevance of questions and may rephrase questions submitted by the parties to ensure clarity. All questions will be asked by the hearing panel, including the relevant questions submitted by the parties. The hearing panel may ask questions of anyone at the hearing at any time. Parties and witnesses must respond to questions on their own behalf. 

Hearings are audio-recorded for purposes of review in the event of an appeal. The hearing panel, the parties, their advisors, the appeal officer (if appropriate), and appropriate Ohio University administrators will be permitted to listen to the recording, if needed, through a controlled means determined by the Director. No person will be given or allowed to make a copy of the recording without permission from the Director.

The hearing panel will deliberate in a closed session and determine findings by a simple majority vote. To determine responsibility for a violation of university policy, the hearing panel will use the preponderance of the evidence standard. This means that the statements and information presented in the matter must indicate to a reasonable person that there was more likely than not a policy violation. 

When there is a finding of responsibility on one or more charges, the hearing panel will determine the appropriate sanction, conditions of sanction, and remedies and will include them in its written statement of findings, unless the respondent is a faculty member. If the respondent is a faculty member, the hearing panel will determine appropriate remedies for the complainant; however, the sanction and conditions of sanction for the respondent will be determined by the dean of the respondent’s college based on the hearing panel’s final determination, following any appeal.

In cases where the hearing panel determines the sanction, the panel will ask the Director to provide them with the respondent’s previous disciplinary history, if any, which the hearing panel may consider, at their discretion, when determining the appropriate sanctions. The hearing panel may also consult with appropriate university officials as necessary.

The hearing panel will prepare a written statement of findings and provide it to the Director. The statement of findings will specify the finding on each alleged policy violation; the findings of fact that support the determinations; conclusions regarding the application of relevant policy to the facts at issue; the rationale for the result of each allegation; credibility assessments, if credibility is at issue; and any sanctions and/or remedies, if applicable. 

Using the statement of findings, the Director will send a notice of outcome to the parties in accordance with Section 21 of this process. The notice of outcome will include information about the appeal process.

The following are the usual sanctions that maybe imposed on students and student organizations or groups:

• Reprimand – Official notification of unacceptable behavior and violation of University Policy 40.001: Nondiscrimination in Education and Employment and/or the Student Code of Conduct. Any further violations may result in more serious sanctions.
• Disciplinary Probation – Sanction imposed for a designated period of time. Further violations of prohibited conduct may result in additional disciplinary action, up to and including disciplinary suspension or disciplinary expulsion. Periodic probationary meetings may be required. Any assigned conditions of sanction must be completed before the conclusion of disciplinary probation; otherwise, the disciplinary probation will remain in effect until the conditions of sanction are completed. 

• Disciplinary Suspension (Student) – Sanction imposed for a designated period of time. During the period of disciplinary suspension, the student may not attend classed (either in person or online) or participate in University-related activities, whether they occur on or off campus. Additionally, a student under disciplinary suspension may not be present on University premises unless authorized in writing in advance by the Director. All assigned conditions of sanction must be completed before the conclusion of the disciplinary suspension; otherwise, the disciplinary suspension will remain in effect until the conditions of sanction are completed. 

  Students who have been suspended from the University through the University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process must petition for re-enrollment through the Director, who may grant the petition at their discretion. Students must complete a re-enrollment form through the registrar and be in good academic standing with their college to otherwise be eligible to re-enroll and return to the University. Students who re-enroll following a period of disciplinary suspension will return on disciplinary probation for the remainder of their academic career at Ohio University. 

• Disciplinary Expulsion (Student) – Sanction that permanently removes the student from their academic program and separates the student from the University without the opportunity to graduate or re-enroll. A student under disciplinary expulsion may not be present on University premises unless authorized in writing in advance by the Director. Disciplinary expulsion will be noted on the student’s academic transcript. 
• Disciplinary Suspension (Student Organization or Group) – A temporary revocation of University recognition. While an organization or group is suspended, it may not use University resources or participate as an organization in any University activities or events. Disciplinary suspension of a student organization or group will not exceed five years. Student organizations or groups that have been suspended from the University through the University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process must petition for re-enrollment through the Director, who may grant the petition at their discretion and in consultation with the Director of Community Standards and Student Responsibility. Student organizations or groups that return following disciplinary suspension will return on a period of disciplinary probation. 
• Disciplinary Expulsion (Student Organization or Group) – Permanent revocation of University recognition of the organization or group. 

In conjunction with a sanction, a student or student organization or group found to be in violation of University Policy 40.001 may be assigned conditions of sanction, which include, but are not limited to, access restriction, revocation of rights and privileges, housing or worksite reassignments, educational activities, etc. 

For an employee respondent, sanctions may include censure, reprimand, suspension without pay, demotion and/or loss of tenure, and dismissal/termination of employment. In conjunction with a sanction, an employee found to be in violation of University Policy 40.001 may be assigned conditions of sanction, which include, but are not limited to, a performance improvement plan, denial of pay increase/pay grade, worksite reassignment, educational or training activities, restriction of stipends, research, and/or professional development resources, etc.

Either party may file a request for appeal of the hearing panel’s findings, which must be submitted in writing within five business days of the delivery of the notice of outcome. The notice of outcome will include a link to the online appeal form, which should be used to submit any appeal to the Director. Any sanctions imposed as a part of the findings are typically stayed during the appeal process. 

Appeals are limited to the following grounds:

• A procedural irregularity that significantly affected the outcome of the hearing; and
• New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the determination regarding responsibility was made and that could affect the outcome of the matter. 

If either party submits an appeal, the other party will be given access to the appeal and provided with a link to the online rebuttal form. The other party will have five business days to submit a rebuttal. As appropriate based on the content of the appeal, the Director, the investigators, and/or the hearing panelists will also have five business days to submit a response to the appeal. 

The appeal, the rebuttal and responses (if any), and the case file will be provided to the appeal officer for their consideration. The appeal officer will be trained for this function and will not have previously been involved in this process. 

A written notice of the outcome of the appeal will be sent to the parties. The finding on each ground for appeal and the rationale for each decision will be specified. If applicable, the notice may include specific instructions for remand or reconsideration and the rationale for these instructions. The notice will be sent in accordance with Section 21 of this process. 

Once an appeal is decided, the outcome is final. Further appeals are not permitted unless a case is remanded to the original hearing body or a new hearing is ordered. The finding and sanction (if any) that result from the remand or new hearing may be appealed on the grounds listed above and in accordance with the appeal process.

Following the conclusion of the process, the Director will issue a notice of final determination to both parties. This notice will confirm that the grievance process has concluded and will be sent in accordance with Section 21 of this process. If a faculty respondent is found in violation, the final determination will also be forwarded to the dean of the respondent’s college for sanctioning through the appropriate process.

The informal resolution process is an alternative, voluntary process that may allow parties to forgo some or all of the formal grievance process. Any party may request informal resolution at any time before a determination regarding responsibility is reached. Informal resolution may be utilized when the Director deems it appropriate, given the nature and severity of the alleged conduct. Further, all parties must agree in writing to participate in the informal resolution process. The informal resolution process is described in detail in Appendix D of this document.

Any person living with a disability who is involved in the University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process has the right to request reasonable accommodation through the Office of Accessibility Services to ensure their full and equal participation. Parties do not have to disclose information about the complaint to request reasonable accommodation, except to the extent that it may assist in determining specific accommodations. 

Accessibility Services will determine accommodations individually and implement them in consultation with the investigators. Examples of reasonable accommodations include sign language interpretation, real-time communication access during hearings, large print documents, extended time to review documents, or assistance with transcribing questions during interviews or the hearing.

Formal correspondence to parties, witnesses, and others in this process will be sent via email to the person’s Ohio University email address or to the email address provided by a participant who is not a member of the Ohio University community. If circumstances warrant, the Director may utilize an alternative means of delivering the correspondence. Correspondence will be presumptively delivered once emailed, otherwise sent, or given in person.

At the Director's discretion, counterclaims may be resolved through the same investigation and hearing as the underlying allegation, or the investigation of such claims may take place after resolution of the underlying allegation.

The University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process may be initiated when a respondent is charged with behavior that potentially violates both civil/criminal law and University policy without regard to pending litigation in court or criminal arrest and prosecution. The grievance process may be carried out prior to, simultaneously with, or following criminal or civil proceedings. Determinations made and sanctions imposed under University Policy 40.001 will not be subject to change because criminal charges arising out of the same facts were dismissed, reduced, or resolved in favor of or against the criminal law defendant.

A student, student organization, or student group that violates University Policy 40.001: Nondiscrimination in Education and Employment may also violate the Student Code of Conduct. Further, allegations of other conduct prohibited by the Student Code of Conduct may be investigated and adjudicated through the University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process in conjunction with violations of University Policy 40.001.

Grievance process proceedings are private. All persons present during the grievance process are expected to maintain the privacy of the proceedings in accordance with Ohio University policy and federal and state laws and regulations. Every effort is made to preserve the privacy of reports and the identities of those involved in investigations. This information will not be shared except as necessary to carry out the purposes of University Policy 40.001, as required by law, or as permitted by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

Records regarding students generated as a result of this process are considered education records governed by FERPA and are therefore subject to release pursuant to a lawful subpoena. Records generated regarding employees as a result of this process are considered employment records and are subject to release pursuant to a lawful subpoena and Ohio public records laws. 

Additional information regarding privacy within the grievance process may be found in University Policy 40.001: Nondiscrimination in Education and Employment, Section 6.

The Offices of Legal Affairs and Civil Rights Compliance (CRC) will review this process periodically to assess its effectiveness and continued compliance. Changes will be made as necessary and are in effect once posted on the CRC website. The version of the University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process posted on the CRC website is the version in use at that time and controls in the event of discrepancies between that version and any other versions available online or elsewhere. 

During the grievance process, the Director may make minor modifications to the process that do not materially jeopardize the fairness owed to any party (e.g., to accommodate summer schedules, medical leave, etc.).

For the purposes of this process, the following definitions apply:

Advisor – A person chosen by a party (the complainant or respondent) to accompany the party to meetings related to the grievance process, including informal resolution, and to advise the party on that process. A party may have one advisor with them at meetings, interviews, and the hearing, if any, although the advisor does not have to be the same person throughout the process. The advisor may assist the party by helping to prepare materials and draft questions and may confer with the party during meetings and the hearing, provided that doing so does not unreasonably disrupt or delay the process.

The advisor may be anyone of the party’s choosing, including an attorney, if the person is eligible and available. “Available” means the party cannot insist on an advisor who does not have the inclination, time, or availability. Also, the advisor cannot have conflicting roles, such as being a witness in the investigation, a supervisor who must monitor and implement sanctions, or someone with another active role in the matter. Parties are not required to have an advisor. 

For parties entitled to union representation, the University will allow the unionized employee to have their union representative (if requested by the party) and an advisor of their choice present for all grievance process meetings, interviews, and hearings. To uphold the principles of parity, the other party (regardless of union membership) will also be permitted to have two advisors. Witnesses are not permitted to have union representatives or advisors in grievance process interviews, meetings, or hearings. 

Appeal Officer – The person who has decision-making authority when one or more parties appeal findings resulting from a hearing in the grievance process. 

Business Day – Weekdays (Monday-Friday) when Ohio University offices are open for normal operations.

Complainant – An individual who is alleged to have been subjected to conduct that could constitute a violation of University Policy 40.001. There may be more than one complainant for an incident. 

Director – The Director of Civil Rights Compliance or their designee.

Employee – A person who performs work for the University and is paid for that work. For the purposes of University Policy 40.001, employees include faculty, administrators, staff, and graduate research and teaching assistants, as well as all student employees when acting within the scope of their employment. 

Final Determination – The final outcome of the University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process.

Finding – A conclusion by the standard of proof that the alleged conduct did or did not occur, and if so, that it did or did not violate policy.

Grievance Process – The method of resolution utilized to address allegations of violation of University Policy 40.001: Nondiscrimination in Education and Employment. 

Hearing Panel – Those with decision-making authority when allegations proceed to a hearing within the grievance process. One member of the hearing panel will serve as its chair. 

Investigator – A person charged with gathering information about an alleged violation of University Policy 40.001 and compiling it into an investigative report and file of related evidence. Two investigators will be assigned to each case and conduct a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation.

Parties – The complainant(s) and respondent(s) in a matter, collectively.

Preponderance of the Evidence – Standard of proof used by the hearing panel. The preponderance of the evidence means that the statements and information presented in the matter indicate to a reasonable person that it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred and violated policy.

Relevant – Tending to prove or disprove an element of an alleged offense or an issue material to resolving a complaint. Questions and evidence are relevant when they may aid the hearing panel in determining whether it is more likely than not that the alleged violation occurred and, if so, the appropriate response to the violation. 

Report – Information provided to CRC indicating that a violation of University Policy 40.001 may have occurred.

Remedies – Post-finding actions designed to restore and ensure a safe educational and/or employment environment free of discrimination, harassment, and intimidation for the complainant. 

Respondent – An individual who is alleged to have violated University Policy 40.001. There may be more than one respondent for an incident. 

Sanction – A consequence imposed by the University on a respondent who is found to have violated University Policy 40.001.

Support Person – A person chosen by a party (the complainant or respondent) to provide support to the party during the grievance process, including informal resolution. A party may have one support person with them at meetings, interviews, and the hearing, if any, although the support person does not have to be the same person throughout the process. Support people do not actively participate in the grievance process. 

The support person may be anyone of the party’s choosing, including an attorney, if the person is eligible and available. “Available” means the party cannot insist on a support person who does not have the inclination, time, or availability. Also, the support person cannot have conflicting roles, such as being a witness in the investigation, a supervisor who must monitor and implement sanctions, or someone with another role in the matter. Parties are not required to have a support person. 

Supportive Measures – Supportive measures are non-disciplinary, non-punitive individualized services offered as appropriate, as reasonably available, and without fee or charge to the complainant or respondent before, during, or after an investigation or when no investigation occurs.

Supportive measures are designed to restore or preserve equal access to the University’s education program or activity, including employment, without unreasonably burdening the other party. Ohio University will act to minimize the academic and/or occupational impact on the parties as much as possible and will maintain the privacy of supportive measures to the extent that it does not impair their provision. 

Witness – A person who is requested to participate in the grievance process because they may have information about the alleged violation. The investigators may identify potential witnesses, or their names may be supplied by the complainant, respondent, or others with knowledge of the matter. All witnesses are considered to be witnesses called by the University. 

Respondents have the right to be, and will be, presumed not responsible for the alleged conduct until a determination regarding responsibility is made at the conclusion of the grievance process. 

Additionally, both complainants and respondents have the right to:

• A fundamentally fair resolution as described in the University Policy 40.001 Grievance Process,
• Have their matter handled in a forthright and timely manner and to be treated with respect by Ohio University officials,
• Regular updates on the status of the grievance process,
• Have University Policy 40.001: Nondiscrimination in Education and Employment and its related grievance process followed without material deviation,
• The preservation of privacy, to the extent possible and as permitted by law,
• Petition to request that any Ohio University representative participating in the grievance process be recused on the basis of demonstrated bias and/or conflict of interest,
• Be informed of supportive measures, as available and appropriate and without fee or charge, whether an investigation occurs or not, and to have supportive measures remain private, provided privacy does not impair Ohio University’s ability to provide them,
• Request reasonable accommodations due to disability,
• Timely written notice of all alleged violations, including the identity of the parties involved (if known); the misconduct being alleged; the date, time, and location of the alleged misconduct (if known); the implicated policies and procedures; and possible sanctions,
• Timely written notice of any material adjustments to the allegations (e.g., additional incidents or allegations, additional complainants, unsubstantiated allegations) and any adjustments needed to clarify potentially implicated policies,
• Not participate in the grievance process with the understanding that it may proceed without their participation,
• Have an advisor and a support person, as defined in Appendix A of this process, with them at meetings, interviews, and the hearing, if any,
• Receive written advance notice of any meetings in which they are entitled to participate and the purpose of those meetings,
• Request that the allegations be resolved through the informal resolution process, as defined in Appendix C,
• Withdraw from the informal resolution process and initiate or resume the formal grievance process prior to agreeing to a resolution,
• A fair opportunity to provide the investigators with a statement regarding the incident and relevant evidence as part of the investigation,
• Identify relevant witnesses to be interviewed by the investigators as a part of the investigation,
• Know the names of all witnesses that are contacted as part of the investigation,
• Provide the investigators with a list of questions to be asked of the other party and witnesses, if deemed relevant by the investigators,
• Secure electronic access to the draft investigative report, made available to the parties and their advisors for a five-business-day review and comment period, so that each party may respond to the evidence in writing,
• Secure electronic access to the final report at least ten business days before a hearing,
• Speak or not speak as a part of the grievance process,
• Submit questions to be asked by the hearing panel of the other party and witnesses during the hearing,
• The opportunity to be present during all testimony given and evidence presented during the hearing,
• The preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof to be used to make a finding after an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence,
• Receive a written notice of outcome containing the findings and sanctions, if applicable, and a detailed rationale for the decision,
• File a written appeal to be reviewed and decided by an appeal officer, 
• Be informed in writing when the decision is considered to be final. 

The parties may each have one advisor with them at meetings, interviews, and the hearing, if any, during the grievance process, including informal resolution. The advisor does not have to be the same person throughout the grievance process, and parties are not required to have an advisor.

For parties entitled to union representation, the University will allow the unionized employee to have their union representative (if requested by the party) and an advisor of their choice present for all grievance process meetings, interviews, and hearings. To uphold the principles of parity, the other party (regardless of union membership) will also be permitted to have two advisors. Witnesses are not permitted to have union representatives or advisors in grievance process interviews, meetings, or hearings.

1. Who Can Serve as an Advisor

   The advisor may be anyone of the party’s choosing, including an attorney, if the person is eligible and available. “Available” means the party cannot insist on an advisor who does not have the inclination, time, or availability. Also, the advisor cannot have conflicting roles, such as being a witness in the investigation, a supervisor who must monitor and implement sanctions, or someone with another active role in the matter.

   Otherwise, the advisor may be a friend, mentor, family member, attorney, or any other individual a party chooses to advise, support, and consult with them throughout the grievance process. The parties may choose advisors from inside or outside the Ohio University community.

2. The Advisor’s Role

   The parties may be accompanied by their advisor at all meetings at which they are entitled to be present, including intake, interviews, the pre-hearing meeting, the hearing, and informal resolution meetings. The advisor may help the party prepare materials and draft questions and may confer with the party during meetings and the hearing, provided doing so does not unreasonably disrupt or delay the process. Advisors are expected to advise ethically, with integrity, and in good faith.

3. Expectations of Advisors

   All advisors, whether attorneys or not, are subject to the same University policies and procedures. Advisors are expected to advise their advisees without disrupting the proceedings. They may not make a presentation or represent their advisee during any meeting or proceeding, and they may not speak to the investigators or hearing panel on behalf of their advisee. 

   The parties are expected to ask and respond to questions on their own behalf throughout the investigation phase of the grievance 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 quietly conferring or passing notes during any grievance process meeting, interview, or hearing. For lengthier 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 this policy will typically be warned only once. If the advisor continues to disrupt or otherwise fails to respect the limits of the advisor role, the meeting or hearing will be ended, or other appropriate measures implemented. Subsequently, the Director will determine how to address the advisor’s non-compliance and future role. 

   Ohio University generally expects advisors to adjust their schedules to attend grievance process meetings when planned. However, if doing so does not cause an unreasonable delay, the investigators may change scheduled meetings to accommodate an advisor’s inability to attend. The investigators may also make reasonable provisions to allow an advisor who cannot attend in person to participate in a meeting by telephone, videoconference, or other similar technologies, as convenient and available. 

4. Expectations of the Parties with Respect to Advisors

   A party may elect to change advisors during the grievance process and is not obligated to use the same advisor throughout. The parties are expected to inform the investigators of the identity of their advisor when the advisor first participates with the party and to provide timely notice to the investigators if they change advisors at any time during the grievance process. 

   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 investigators of the identity of their hearing advisor at least fifteen business days before the hearing so that the advisor may be properly listed in the notice of hearing that must be sent to the parties no less than ten business days before the hearing. 

5. Sharing Information with the Advisor

   Ohio University understands that the parties may wish to have the University share documentation and evidence related to the allegations with their advisors. There is an expectation of privacy around information and evidence shared with the parties during the investigation and hearing; however, parties may share this information directly with their advisors. Doing so may help the parties participate more meaningfully in the grievance process. (The parties have the discretion to share their own knowledge and evidence with others if they so choose. Parties are encouraged to discuss any sharing of information with their advisors before doing so.)

   Parties may also sign a consent form that authorizes Ohio University to share such information directly with their advisors. The parties must complete and submit this form to the investigators before the University can share records with an advisor. 

   At the discretion of the Director, Ohio University will comply with a request for all communication to occur through a party’s attorney serving as their advisor. 

6. Privacy of Records Shared with the Advisor

   Advisors are expected to keep the records shared with them private. They may not share them with third parties, disclose them publicly, or use them for purposes not explicitly authorized by Ohio University. The Director may seek to restrict the role of any advisor who does not respect the sensitive nature or the process or fails to abide by Ohio University’s privacy expectations.

The informal resolution process is an alternative, voluntary process that may allow parties to forgo some or all of the formal grievance process. Any party may request informal resolution at any time before a determination regarding responsibility is reached. Informal resolution may be utilized when the Director deems it appropriate and all parties voluntarily consent in writing. 

Informal resolution is voluntary for all parties. The University does not require anyone to waive the right to an investigation and adjudication of allegations under University Policy 40.001 as a condition of enrollment or continuing enrollment, employment or continuing employment, or enjoyment of any other right. 

Before the informal resolution process commences, the parties will receive a written notice stating the allegations and describing the process. The parties will also be given the name of the CRC staff member or other person assigned to facilitate the informal resolution process (the facilitator) and can raise concerns regarding a conflict of interest to the Director. 

Informal Resolution Process

• The facilitator will hold a process meeting with each party to discuss the informal resolution process and the party’s interests, objectives, and proposed remedies.
• The facilitator may ask one or both parties to submit written proposals for resolution or work with the parties to craft a written proposal. 
• The facilitator will then act as an intermediary between the parties to share proposals, identify and facilitate areas of agreement, and develop a resolution agreement that is acceptable to each party and satisfies each party’s interests.
• At the discretion of the Director and with the parties’ voluntary agreement, the matter may be referred for mediation with a neutral party other than the facilitator. This referral may occur at any point during the informal resolution process.
• Statements made during the informal resolution process will not be used in any pending or subsequent formal grievance processes relating to the same allegations arising from the same incident. However, documentary evidence disclosed during the informal resolution process may be used in any pending or subsequent grievance process. Further, any records generated in the informal or formal process may be subject to public records laws or a court-ordered subpoena. 

No Agreement Reached

• Any party may withdraw from the informal resolution process before a resolution agreement is signed. In which case, the allegations will return to the formal grievance process. 
• If the Director determines before the signing of a resolution agreement that the informal resolution process is no longer appropriate, the Director may terminate the informal resolution process and refer the allegations back to the formal grievance process. 
• If the informal resolution process is discontinued or the parties cannot reach a mutually agreeable outcome, the allegations will return to the formal grievance process, and the informal resolution process will no longer be available as an option to resolve the allegations. 

Resolution Agreement Reached

• Both parties must voluntarily sign the resolution agreement to move it forward for approval.
• The Director must approve resolution agreements before they are in effect.
• Except as provided in this process or the agreement itself, the parties are bound by the terms of the resolution agreement upon approval, and the allegations addressed by the agreement are considered resolved and not subject to further investigation, adjudication, remediation, or discipline by the University.
• An approved resolution agreement precludes the parties from initiating or resuming the formal grievance process or utilizing any other University grievance or resolution process to address the same allegations arising from the same incident. 
• Informal resolution agreements do not appear on the respondent’s University disciplinary record or transcript.
• A respondent’s participation in a prior informal resolution process will generally not be considered relevant in the resolution of a subsequent, unrelated complaint filed by a different complainant under University Policy 40.001. 
• Informal resolution agreements are not appealable.
• As a part of the informal resolution process, the parties will agree to consequences to be implemented if the terms of the resolution agreement are violated by one or both parties. Further, failure to comply with the approved resolution agreement may result in disciplinary action for either party. Alleged violation of a resolution agreement or allegations that the agreement was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or any other misconduct should be reported to CRC.
• If a party’s circumstances change significantly (e.g., changes to the party’s academic program or work responsibilities conflict with a term of the agreement), they may notify the Director and request to revise the agreement. If the Director determines that the changed circumstances make the original resolution agreement impracticable, the Director will facilitate an informal resolution process explicitly focused on revising the resolution agreement to address the changed circumstances.