Middlebury Handbook

B.1.b (1) TIX Investigation & Resolutions Procedure (eff. 8/1/24)

NOTE: This Procedure will be in effect August 1, 2024, and will not apply retroactively.  For Prohibited Conduct allegedly occurring before August 1, 2024, the College will apply the definition of Prohibited Conduct and procedures in place at the time of the alleged conduct.[a] For Prohibited Conduct allegedly occurring on or after August 1, 2024, the definition of Prohibited Conduct and procedures set forth in this Procedure will apply, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.[b] Middlebury retains discretion to make appropriate adjustments to promote fairness and consistency. The Parties will be notified in advance of any proceedings which definition(s) and procedures apply.

[a] The prior policies and procedures that were in affect immediately prior to the effective date of the current policies and procedures can be found here. {a}

[b] As of the time this Procedure was published on August 1, 2024, several federal courts had enjoined the Department of Education from implementing, enacting, or enforcing the April 2024 Title IX regulations referenced above as to numerous states and hundreds of colleges and universities across the country attended by members of certain non-profit student organizations. In light of these developments, Middlebury will implement the policies and procedures set forth in this Procedure to the fullest extent that it can do so within the scope of its inherent authority to enact College policies for the benefit of the Middlebury community (including the definitions of Prohibited Conduct stated in this Procedure), but it will also apply procedural features of prior policies as deemed necessary under applicable law. Parties to formal proceedings conducted under this Procedure will be notified which procedures will apply.{b}

B.1.b (1) TIX Investigations & Resolutions Procedure (eff. 8/1/24)

A. General Provisions 

I.        Purpose 

Middlebury strictly prohibits conduct that constitutes unlawful sex-based discrimination and harassment, as well as related retaliation, through its Non-Discrimination Policy. Through this TIX Investigations and Resolutions Procedure (“Procedure”), administered by the Middlebury Civil Rights and Title IX office (“CRTIX”), Middlebury takes reasonable and appropriate remedial action to prevent unlawful sex-based discrimination, harassment, and related retaliation, eliminate any hostile environment, prevent its recurrence, and address its discriminatory effects on all those impacted, if applicable. CRTIX may, depending upon the circumstances, vary from this Procedure. So long as such a variation is consistent with relevant law and allows for fundamental fairness in the processes followed, variations from this Procedure under those circumstances will not invalidate an outcome or constitute a basis for appeal.

 II.      What this Procedure Covers

 This Procedure applies to allegations of sex-based discrimination and harassment falling under the Non-Discrimination Policy, and to allegations of related retaliation, in both employment and access to educational opportunities.[1] Where a complaint alleges other Middlebury policy violations arising out of the same facts and circumstances as allegations that must be addressed utilizing this Procedure, Middlebury may, in its discretion, address those other alleged violations through this Procedure.

Except as otherwise specified herein, this Procedure applies to all Middlebury students,[2] faculty, and staff, as well as to others who were participating or attempting to participate in Middlebury’s educational or employment programs and activities at the time the alleged misconduct occurred. This includes the undergraduate college, the Language Schools, the School of the Environment, Bread Loaf School of English, Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference, the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey ("the Institute"), and the Schools Abroad. Faculty and staff are, together, referred to as “Employee” or “Employees” in this Procedure.

B. Reporting Violations of the Non-Discrimination Policy

Middlebury encourages individuals to report potential violations of the Non-Discrimination Policy so that they can obtain support and information and so that Middlebury can respond appropriately.

In addition, as will be described below, Middlebury employees who learn of potential violations of the Non-Discrimination Policy are required to report that information to the Civil Rights and Title IX Coordinator (“CRTIX Coordinator”[3]) unless they are deemed Confidential Resources (see below subsections B.II and B.III).   

I.        Making A Report

Any person who believes that they have been impacted by a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy, or who has reason to believe that one has occurred or is occurring, should report this information to the immediate attention of the CRTIX Coordinator or to the Deputy Civil Rights and Title IX Coordinator (“Deputy CRTIX Coordinator”) at:

Butterfly Blaise Boire
Civil Rights and Title IX Coordinator
Middlebury College
Service Building, Room 213
84 S Service Rd
Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 443-2147
bboire@middlebury.edu

Taryn Moran
Deputy Civil Rights and Title IX Coordinator
Middlebury College
Service Building, Room 218
84 S Service Rd
Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 443-5840
tarynm@middlebury.edu

You may also report to knowyourrights@middlebury.edu, by using the online reporting tool at go/report, or by visiting this link to the official reporting form.

Middlebury’s CRTIX office staff also includes Human Relations Officers (“HROs”) who are able to receive reports of violations of the Non-Discrimination Policy in the event that the CRTIX Coordinator or Deputy CRTIX Coordinator are not available. For more information about the CRTIX office staff (including contact information), please visit https://www.middlebury.edu/title-IX/about. Concerns about discrimination, harassment, or related retaliation engaged in by any member of the CRTIX office should be directed to Middlebury’s Vice President for Equity and Inclusion, Khuram Hussain.  

II.      Confidential Reporting 

Some members of the Middlebury community have legal obligations or privileges not to disclose information that is disclosed with them in their professional capacities. These individuals are “Confidential Resources” who can be told about potential non-discrimination policy violations in a confidential manner—meaning, they will not share with anyone else (including CRTIX) the information that has been disclosed to them in a way that identifies a reporting party or the individuals involved in an incident of Prohibited Conduct (unless they are requested to by the reporting Party or a legal obligation requires it). At Middlebury, the following are designated Confidential Resources[4]: 

  • Medical and support staff at the Middlebury Center for Health & Wellness (including SANE nurses)
  • Counseling Services
  • MiddCare
  • MiddSafe Advocates
  • Chaplains within the Scott Center

Confidential Resources must explain to any reporting party who describes conduct that reasonably may constitute Prohibited Conduct

  • The Confidential Resource’s status as confidential for purposes of this Procedure, and that they will not report information about conduct that reasonably may constitute Prohibited Conduct to CRTIX without the reporting party’s permission;
  • How to contact CRTIX and how to make a complaint of sex discrimination; and
  • That CRTIX may be able to offer and coordinate supportive measures, as well as initiate an informal resolution process or an investigation under Middlebury policy and procedures.

Individuals who report incidents of discrimination and harassment to Confidential Resources should be aware that in certain limited circumstances, confidentiality may not be absolute.[5] Individuals who are not employed by or affiliated with Middlebury are under no obligation to report anything to Middlebury. 

III.    Mandatory Reporting 

All Middlebury faculty and employees, other than those designated as Confidential Resources under the circumstances described above, are required to promptly report all known information about conduct that reasonably may constitute actual or suspected violations of the Non-Discrimination Policy to the CRTIX Coordinator or Deputy CRTIX Coordinator. This requirement applies to student-employees who receive such information in the context of their employment. Failure of an employee to report such information is a violation of Middlebury Policy and can subject an employee to disciplinary action. 

IV.    Prohibition on Making False Reports 

Middlebury prohibits intentionally making a false report or providing false or misleading information in the reporting of a complaint. Reporting Individuals will not be deemed to have provided false or misleading information under this Procedure if their factual allegations are intended to be truthful and are made in good faith, regardless of whether the conduct complained of is ultimately found to constitute a policy violation. 

C. Supportive Measures and Non-Adjudicative Response Options 

In many instances when CRTIX receives a report of alleged violations of the Non-Discrimination Policy, an investigative and adjudicative process (see Section D) will follow. If investigation and adjudication is not possible or is not the most appropriate means of addressing the alleged policy violation(s), CRTIX takes other actions depending on the circumstances, as described below. (These actions may also be taken in conjunction with an investigation).   

I.        Supportive Measures 

Once CRTIX has received a report of an alleged Non-Discrimination Policy violation, a CRTIX staff member will engage in outreach to each known impacted Party to engage in a conversation about supportive measures.[6] Supportive Measures are non-punitive, non-disciplinary individualized services offered as appropriate, as reasonably available, and without fee or charge that are calculated  to restore or preserve access to Middlebury educational or employment programs, activities, and resources, and/or to provide support during an informal resolution process or an investigative resolution process. It is not necessary to participate in an investigation process in order to request supportive measures from Middlebury. Common supportive measures include: counseling; extensions of deadlines and other course-related adjustments; campus escort services; increased security and monitoring of certain areas of the campus; restrictions on contact applied to one or more parties; leaves of absence; changes in class, work, housing, or extracurricular or any other activity, regardless of whether there is or is not a comparable alternative; and training and education programs related to sex-based harassment. 

A Party seeking a supportive measure should request the measure by communicating with CRTIX, which will determine which supportive measures are reasonably necessary and appropriate.  CRTIX will notify both Parties, as appropriate, of approved, individualized supportive measures, and may deny, modify, or terminate any supportive measure based on all available information. Parties may also seek additional supportive measures or modification or termination of a supportive measure applicable to them if circumstances change materially. If a Party objects to an approved supportive measure, they must notify CRTIX within 5 business days of the approval. An impartial Middlebury employee, within CRTIX or otherwise, will determine whether or not to modify or reverse any initial decision to provide, deny, modify, or terminate supportive measures applicable to the Party requesting review. The question for consideration in such reviews will be whether the supportive measure under review is consistent or inconsistent with the definition of supportive measure stated above. 

Middlebury will maintain as confidential any supportive measures provided to the Reporting Individual or Respondent, to the extent that maintaining such confidentiality would not impair the ability of Middlebury to provide the supportive measures. 

All individuals are encouraged to report concerns about the failure of another individual to abide by any restrictions imposed by a supportive measure. Middlebury will take prompt and responsive action to enforce supportive measures, which may include additional supportive measures and/or disciplinary penalties under student or employment disciplinary policies, as applicable. 

Middlebury may, as appropriate, modify or terminate supportive measures at the conclusion of any informal resolution process or investigative resolution process, or may continue them in the same or modified form beyond that point. 

II.      Emergency Removal and/or Administrative Leave 

If a report indicates a risk of violence or an emergency situation, Middlebury may remove someone from its educational programs or from employment consistent with its Emergency Removals Policy and/or its Threat Assessment & Management practices. If Middlebury removes a Respondent under its Emergency Removals Policy, the Respondent will be given notice and an opportunity to challenge the decision immediately following the removal. 

When the Respondent is an employee, or a student employee accused of misconduct in the course of their employment, Middlebury may take action in the form of placing the employee on paid or unpaid Administrative Leave, depending on the circumstances. 

III.    Informal Resolution (Adaptable Resolution)  

Reports to CRTIX may be resolved through informal or “adaptable” resolutions, when appropriate. At all stages of the resolution process (including after an investigation has commenced), the CRTIX Coordinator, when appropriate, may make available to the Parties informal resolution options for resolving complaints. In assessing whether informal resolution is appropriate, the CRTIX Coordinator may consider factors such as, for example, (1) the nature of the allegations, (2) the agreement of the Reporting Individual and the Respondent, (3) other relevant factors such as any disability of the Reporting Individual or the Respondent, (4) any history of misconduct or other policy violations by the Respondent, and (5) whether the alleged conduct would present a future risk of harm to others. A Party will not be required to engage in informal resolution and may end the informal resolution process at any time. If a Party ends the informal resolution process or if the CRTIX Coordinator determines that the process is either not appropriate or is unsuccessful, CRTIX shall continue to respond to the allegations in accordance with this Procedure. 

Before the initiation of an informal resolution process, CRTIX provides a written explanation to the Parties including:

      i.        The allegations;

    ii.        The requirements of the informal resolution process;

   iii.        That any Party has the right to withdraw from the informal resolution process and initiate or resume investigative resolution procedures at any time before the parties sign an informal resolution agreement;

  iv.        That if the Parties agree to a resolution at the end of the informal resolution process, they cannot initiate or resume investigative resolution procedures arising from the same allegations;

    v.        The potential terms that may be requested or offered in an informal resolution agreement, including notice that an informal resolution agreement is binding only on the Parties; and

  vi.        That Middlebury will maintain records of the informal resolution process, but that if a matter is not resolved by informal resolution and an investigative resolution process is initiated or resumed thereafter, Middlebury will not use in the investigative resolution process communications between the Parties and the informal resolution facilitator or other information created specifically for use in the informal resolution process.

To proceed with informal resolution, the CRTIX Coordinator must obtain the Parties’ voluntary, written consent to the informal resolution process. Middlebury will not require or pressure a Party to participate in informal resolution or to engage in any particular form of informal resolution, and will not require waiver of applicable rights to participate in investigative resolution as a condition of enrollment or continuing enrollment, or employment or continuing employment, or exercise of any other right.

IV.    Referral to the Community Bias Response Team (CBRT)

When reports made to the CRTIX office do not fall within the scope of the Non-Discrimination Policy but involve behavior that may be based on protected personal characteristics, CRTIX may refer the matter to the Community Bias Response Team (Middlebury CBRT) to be addressed under CBRT’s procedures.

It is not the purpose of CBRT to investigate, arbitrate, or to take the place of other Middlebury administrative processes; CBRT does not initiate disciplinary action or impose sanctions regarding bias incidents.

D. Investigation and Adjudication Process

I.        Initial Evaluation 

a.       Report(s) indicate a potential violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy (sex-based Prohibited Conduct) 

The CRTIX Coordinator, in addition to conducting outreach and providing supportive measures described above, conducts an initial evaluation[7] in which they assess: 

  • whether the conduct reported, if established by a preponderance of the evidence, would constitute a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy’s prohibition against sex-based discrimination and harassment (and/or related retaliation); and
  • whether the Respondent and the reported conduct are subject to Middlebury’s authority

The CRTIX Coordinator communicates with the Reporting Individual whether an investigative process can proceed, information about what the investigative process entails, and information about alternative (non-investigative and non-adjudicative based) processes and solicits the Reporting Individual’s input as to whether the Reporting Individual would like to proceed with an investigation. This input is given significant but not controlling weight. 

b.       CRTIX Coordinator decision whether to initiate an investigation 

The CRTIX Coordinator initiates investigations consistent with Middlebury’s obligation to respond to reported sex-based discrimination and harassment occurring in its programs and activities, which may include situations where a Reporting Individual has not requested an investigation. The CRTIX Coordinator retains the ultimate discretion as to whether an investigation is initiated. The CRTIX Coordinator will consider, at a minimum, the following factors: 

(1)    The Reporting Individual’s request not to proceed with initiation of an investigation;

(2)    The Reporting Individual’s reasonable safety concerns regarding initiation of an investigation;

(3)    The risk that additional violations would occur if an investigation is not initiated;

(4)    The severity of the alleged violation, including whether the violation, if established, would require the removal of a Respondent from campus or imposition of another disciplinary sanction to end the violation and prevent its recurrence;

(5)    The age and relationship of the Parties, including whether the Respondent is an employee;

(6)    The scope of the alleged violation, including information suggesting a pattern, ongoing violations, or impacts to multiple individuals;

(7)    The availability of evidence to assist a decision-maker in determining whether a violation occurred; and

(8)    Whether other options exist to end the violation and prevent its recurrence without initiating an investigation. 

II.      Closure After Initial Evaluation 

Where the CRTIX Coordinator determines that the alleged conduct, if it were established by a preponderance of the evidence, would not constitute a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy’s prohibition against sex-based discrimination and harassment (and/or related retaliation), the matter is typically closed after an initial evaluation. Likewise, if the Respondent and/or the reported conduct is determined by the CRTIX Coordinator to not be subject to Middlebury’s authority, the matter is typically closed after initial evaluation. When a matter is closed after initial evaluation, the alleged conduct may be referred by CRTIX to another Middlebury office (including but not limited to Human Resources or Community Standards) or may be addressed under another resolution procedure, if applicable. The CRTIX Coordinator or designee will ordinarily notify the Reporting Individual of the closure of the matter within 14 business days of receiving a report with sufficient information for the CRTIX Coordinator to make the determination as to whether the matter will be investigated. 

For information on appeal rights regarding the CRTIX Coordinator’s closure of a matter after initial evaluation, please see Section VI (Appeals). 

III.    Investigation 

A.      CRTIX Coordinator decision re: Scope of the Investigation 

Based upon their initial evaluation of the matter, the CRTIX Coordinator will determine precisely which allegations will be investigated, with which Respondent(s). Ordinarily the CRTIX Coordinator will review a written version of the allegations with the Reporting Individual to confirm those assertions. Ordinarily this will be completed within 30 business days of the conclusion of the initial evaluation.  

In matters involving more than one Reporting Individual or more than one Respondent, the CRTIX Coordinator may consolidate the matters into a single investigation when the allegations arise out of the same facts or circumstances. 

B.      Written Notice issued 

Once the CRTIX Coordinator has determined the scope of the investigation, they will issue a written notice to the Parties,[8] along with a copy of the Non-Discrimination Policy and this Procedure. The notice will indicate that Middlebury is investigating the possibility that the Respondent has violated the Non-Discrimination Policy using this Procedure and will include at a minimum: 

  • Specific information about the investigation and adjudication process that is applicable to the matter;
  • A statement of the allegations of behavior potentially constituting a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy, including sufficient details known at the time. Sufficient details include the identities of the Parties involved in the incident, if known, the conduct allegedly constituting a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy, and the date and location of the alleged incident, if known;
  • A statement that retaliation is prohibited;
  • A statement that the Parties are entitled to an equal opportunity to access the relevant and not otherwise impermissible evidence and an investigative report that summarizes this evidence;
  • The specific policies and offenses implicated by the alleged conduct;
  • A statement that the Respondent is presumed not responsible for the alleged conduct and that a determination regarding responsibility is made at the conclusion of the investigation and adjudication, and that prior to that determination, the Parties will have an opportunity to present relevant and not otherwise impermissible evidence to a trained, impartial decision-maker;
  • Notification that each Party may have an advisor of their choice, who is not required to be (but may be) an attorney, and who may accompany them through all steps of the process;
  • A statement that Middlebury’s Non-Discrimination Policy prohibits knowingly making false statements, including knowingly submitting false information during the investigation and adjudication process; and
  • The name of the investigator, along with information about the process to notify the CRTIX Coordinator of any conflict of interest that the investigator may have in advance of the interview process.

The Notice Letter may be amended as appropriate during the course of the investigation. 

C.      Appointment of an Investigator 

The CRTIX Coordinator appoints investigators, either a Middlebury employee or an external investigator, who serves as a neutral, impartial fact-finder. External investigators are supervised by a Middlebury HRO[9], including tracking the investigation for reasonable progress, assisting with the creation and maintenance of investigative records, and assisting the external investigator as necessary.[10] Other Middlebury officials may at times be called upon to assist with an investigation, depending on the circumstances. 

In selecting the investigator for a particular matter, the CRTIX Coordinator will take care to select an individual who does not have a conflict of interest or bias against Reporting Individuals or Respondents generally or an individual Reporting Individual or Respondent. The CRTIX Coordinator will notify the Parties of the identity of the investigator and Parties may, within 3 business days of such notice, object to the appointment of the investigator by providing a written statement (which may be transmitted electronically) as to why the Party believes that the investigator has a conflict of interest or bias. The CRTIX Coordinator will make decisions regarding such objections and the appointment of an alternate investigator, as necessary. The CRTIX Coordinator’s decision about whether there is a conflict is final. 

D.      Fact Finding 

The investigator is authorized to contact and schedule interviews with any and all individuals who may have relevant information. The nature and scope of the investigation is primarily within the discretion of the investigator. The investigator is authorized to access relevant records, except those legally protected as confidential or privileged or otherwise impermissible,[11] and may collect any additional evidence relevant to the matter.[12] 

The Reporting Individual and Respondent will be asked to identify, preserve and submit all evidence (inculpatory and exculpatory)[13] pertaining to the matter under investigation, and to identify witnesses they believe may have relevant testimony to share. The investigator is not required to consider particular evidence submitted or to interview any particular witness, even if identified by one of the Parties. The investigator will only consider evidence that is deemed relevant[14] and not otherwise impermissible. 

Interviews may be conducted in person, via videoconferencing (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams), or by telephone. Interview participants may not make unauthorized recordings of investigative interviews or any other meetings occurring during the investigation and adjudication process. 

All witnesses identified in connection with an investigation under this Procedure are expected to cooperate fully in the investigation by providing complete, accurate, and truthful information. 

Investigations are expected to be completed expeditiously, ordinarily within no more than 90 calendar days from the date of issuance of the notice letter, though some investigations may take longer, depending on issues such as the nature, extent, and complexity of the allegations, the number of Respondents, witness availability, law enforcement involvement, and other factors. If a Party or witness chooses not to participate in the investigation or becomes unresponsive, the investigator retains the right to continue it without their participation to ensure a prompt resolution. 

The Parties may each have an Advisor of choice present with them for any investigative interviews (or at any other meetings occurring during the investigation and resolution process). The Parties may select whomever they wish to serve as their Advisor as long as the Advisor is eligible and available.[15] Advisors are precluded from copying, sharing, describing, and/or otherwise disseminating any investigation- or adjudication-related materials to which they are privy, and they shall not disclose the contents of these materials to other Parties or individuals. 

The advisor may advise the Party privately, but cannot act as a speaking advocate at any meeting or interview. An investigator or other Middlebury official may terminate meetings and remove or dismiss advisors if an advisor is disruptive or otherwise refuses to comply with the requirements of this Procedure. 

E.       The Preliminary Investigative Report 

A written preliminary investigative report is completed by the investigator, ordinarily within 30 calendar days after their completion of interviews and the gathering of evidence. The preliminary investigative report will impartially summarize the relevant evidence and will include as exhibits all evidence deemed by the investigator to be relevant and not otherwise impermissible. The investigator will provide the adjudicating HRO access to the preliminary investigative report and exhibits.[16] The adjudicating HRO (or another CRTIX staff member) will also provide the Parties and their advisors, if any, access to the preliminary investigative report and exhibits. 

The preliminary investigative report may include proposed findings of fact based on the preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., more likely than not), and may analyze how those findings relate to the Prohibited Conduct definitions at issue, but it will not include a recommendation regarding whether the Respondent should be found responsible for violating Middlebury policy.

The Parties will have a period of 10 business days to prepare and submit a written response to the preliminary investigative report and its exhibits, which may include a request for further gathering of evidence and/or investigation of specific issues. The adjudicating HRO may also review and comment on the preliminary report. To the extent that an investigator takes additional investigative steps based on the Parties’ or adjudicating HRO’s review/comment on the preliminary report, the additional fact finding may extend the timeframe of the investigation. 

F.       The Final Investigative Report 

Once the investigator has completed any additional investigative steps and/or policy analysis necessitated by the adjudicating HRO’s and Parties’ review and comment on the preliminary investigative report, the investigator will prepare a final investigative report that includes the results of any additional investigative steps and analysis.[17] The final investigative report includes factual findings and analysis of the relevant evidence, as well as the investigator’s recommendation, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, as to whether the Respondent should be found responsible for violating the policy provisions at issue.[18] 

IV.    HRO Adjudication Process 

Matters that do not include a student Party (i.e., cases involving employee Parties only) are adjudicated using the procedures set forth in subsection A below. Matters that do include at least one student Party are adjudicated using the procedures set forth in subsection B below.  

A.      Matters that do not include a student Party (i.e., cases involving employee Parties only) 

The adjudicating HRO will review the final investigative report and its exhibits, and request any additional information or fact finding, as appropriate, either from the investigator or the Parties (or other sources).[19] 

To the extent that the investigator or the adjudicating HRO has further developed the factual record from an evidentiary standpoint at any time after the preliminary report, any additional evidentiary material will be shared with the Parties (for their review and comment) before the HRO makes a determination. 

When the fact-finding is complete (which may be when the final investigative report is reviewed by the HRO), the HRO will notify the Parties and provide them with 5 business days to submit any written response they wish to submit regarding any post-preliminary and/or post-final investigative report information that has been gathered (if applicable). Any written response submitted by a Party will be shared with the other Party or Parties. Any Party may also request a live meeting with the adjudicating HRO to take place before the determination is made. 

The HRO determines whether a policy violation occurred using a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., is it more likely than not that the policy violation occurred). In making their determination, the HRO is in no way bound by the investigator’s final investigative report, which is advisory to the HRO. The HRO may accept or reject the investigator’s recommended finding(s) or proposed findings of fact in whole or in part. The HRO will reach their own independent conclusions based on the evidence presented. 

The HRO will prepare a written determination explaining the rationale behind the determination. The HRO will provide the Parties with notification of the determination, in writing (by electronic or other means), providing an appropriate level of detail consistent with applicable law, privacy practices, and the purposes of the Non-Discrimination Policy. The adjudicating HRO will notify the Parties of the determination ordinarily within 45 calendar days of the HRO’s receipt of the final investigative report.  If a policy violation is found, sanctions will be assigned pursuant to Section VII.D below (or remedial actions pursuant to Section VII.E) .  

B.      Matters that include at least one Party who is a student 

When the final investigative report is ready to be shared with the Parties for their review and comment, the HRO will notify the Parties and provide access to the evidence with instructions about their rights to review and comment and to propose questions that they would like to see asked of the other Party and/or any witnesses.[20] 

Each Party will be given 10 business days to review the final investigative report and exhibits and to submit a written response, which may include not only general comments about the report and exhibits but also specific questions each Party would like to see asked of other Parties or witnesses. The Parties will be asked to send their comments and proposed questions directly to the adjudicating HRO. 

The HRO may request additional relevant information from any Party or witnesses if the HRO believes it is necessary to do so before making a determination, including through requesting individual meetings with any Party or witness as appropriate. Any meetings the HRO decides to hold with any Party or witness will be recorded, and the records from these meetings will be shared with the Parties. 

The HRO is solely responsible for determining whether a proposed question is relevant (i.e., whether the question may aid in determining whether the allegation occurred, in determining whether the behavior constitutes a violation of policy, or in determining the credibility of the Parties or witnesses) and not otherwise impermissible. The HRO retains the sole discretion as to how any relevant proposed questions will be presented for response. Responses to the questions in any format will be shared with the Parties, such that the Parties have the opportunity to see how their proposed questions were addressed.

 Once all responses to these questions are available, the HRO will, in a manner similar to the original sharing of evidence with the Parties, share the newly generated evidence with each Party so that each Party may again have the opportunity to review and comment. (The Parties will be given 10 business days for any additional review and comment.) 

If any Party has additional requests for questions based on the responses shared with them, the HRO will repeat the process outlined above. The Parties may propose additional questions to be asked only to the extent that the newly generated evidence reasonably requires it. The HRO will determine whether any new questions are unnecessarily duplicative (and therefore not relevant) and whether they are otherwise relevant and not otherwise impermissible. Any Party may also request a meeting with the adjudicating HRO to take place before the determination is made. 

Once the Parties have had all of their relevant questions addressed and the HRO is satisfied that the record is complete, the HRO will determine, based on a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not), whether any applicable policy was violated. In making the determination, the HRO is in no way bound by the investigator’s final investigative report, which is advisory to the HRO. The HRO may accept or reject the investigator’s recommended finding(s) or proposed findings of fact in whole or in part. The HRO will reach their own independent conclusions based on the evidence of record.   

The HRO prepares a written determination which is shared with both Parties. The written determination will include: a description of the alleged misconduct; information about the policies and procedures that Middlebury used to evaluate the allegations; the HRO’s evaluation of the relevant and not otherwise impermissible evidence and their determination whether a policy violation occurred; if the HRO finds that a policy violation occurred, any disciplinary sanctions Middlebury will impose on the Respondent, pursuant to Section VII.D below; whether remedies other than the imposition of disciplinary sanctions will be provided by Middlebury to the Reporting Individual, and, to the extent appropriate, other students identified by Middlebury to be experiencing the effects of such policy violations; and Middlebury’s procedures for each of the Parties to appeal. The HRO notifies the Parties in writing (by electronic or other means), providing an appropriate level of detail consistent with applicable law, privacy practices, and the purposes of the Non-Discrimination Policy. There will be no review and comment period following the issuance of the HRO’s Determination.   

CRTIX strives to complete this process within a reasonable timeframe, ordinarily within 90 calendar days of the adjudicating HRO’s receipt of the investigator’s report (anticipating a single round of questions and answers being submitted by the Parties).   

The Parties may each have an Advisor present with them for any meetings or interviews occurring during the post-investigation adjudicative phase of the process. The Parties’ advisors may assist the Parties in developing questions they would like to see asked of the other Party or of any witnesses, and may assist the Parties more generally in developing a written response to the investigative report and any additional evidentiary materials reviewed. Although each Party may share access to the contents of the investigation materials with their Advisor of choice, the Parties’ Advisors must adhere to the same confidentiality requirements expected of the Parties. The Parties and their Advisors, in order to review any investigative reports, exhibits, and HRO determinations, must agree not to download, print, or share case materials to which they are provided access during the process. 

V.      Extensions 

For each major stage of the investigative and adjudication process, this Procedure provides target timeframes for completion. Depending on circumstances, CRTIX may have to deviate from these proposed timeframes. If circumstances cause a variation, CRTIX will communicate with the Parties, including the reason for the extension of time. Middlebury has also established the following process that allows the Parties to request the reasonable extension of timeframes on a case-by-case basis for good cause with written notice of any extension to the Parties that includes the reason for the delay: 

  • A Party who wishes to request an extension of any deadline established by this Procedure or during the investigation and adjudication process should make that request via email to the person who communicated the deadline;
  • The person who communicated the deadline will inform the requesting party promptly regarding whether the requested extension will be granted, modified, or denied.
  • When an extension is granted in whole or in part, the non-requesting Party will be notified and will receive a corresponding extension for the non-requesting Party’s compliance with any similar deadline, as applicable.

VI.    Appeals 

Appeals of dismissals, of closures after initial evaluation, and of HRO determinations regarding responsibility are permitted.[21] Appeal grounds are strictly limited to the following bases: 

  • Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter;
  • New evidence has become available that could affect the outcome of the matter and that was not reasonably available at the time the determination regarding responsibility, the dismissal, or the closure after initial evaluation was made; and/or
  • The CRTIX Coordinator (or designee), investigator, or decision-maker (HRO) had a disqualifying conflict of interest or bias for or against Reporting Individuals or Respondents generally, or the individual Reporting Individual or Respondent, that affected the outcome of the matter

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the CRTIX Coordinator within 5 business days[22] of the applicable CRTIX action, must articulate one of the permissible bases for appeal, and must provide information or evidence to support the appealing Party’s argument. 

Where a Reporting Individual appeals the closure of the matter after initial evaluation, and if the Respondent had not yet been notified of the complaint, the CRTIX Coordinator will then provide the Respondent with a written notice of allegation(s) that would be issued if the appeal of the closure is successful and also notify the Respondent of the Reporting Individual’s appeal with an opportunity to respond. 

For matters involving student Respondents, appeals will be decided by the Vice President of Student Affairs (or designee). For matters involving staff Respondents, appeals will be decided by the Vice President of Human Resources (or designee). For matters involving College Faculty Respondents, appeals will be decided by the Dean of Faculty (or designee). For Institute Faculty Respondents, appeals will be decided by the VPAA of the Institute. 

Regardless of which Party appeals, both Parties may participate in the appeals process. Once an appeal comes in, Middlebury’s CRTIX office, in addition to forwarding the appeal to the appropriate decision-maker, will notify the other Party and invite their response to the appeal. The other Party will be given a period of 5 business days to submit a statement in support of the determination and/or in opposition to the appeal.[23] 

CRTIX will also notify the Parties of the decision-maker for the appeal and permit the Parties a period of 2 business days to submit any written objection to the appellate decision-maker if they have evidence that the decision-maker has a bias or disqualifying conflict of interest. 

The appellate decision-maker may deny the appeal, or if one or more of the appeal grounds have been met, may: 

  • Return the case to CRTIX for action;
  • return the case to the original HRO for reconsideration; or
  • appoint an alternate HRO to review the case (if the original outcome was materially altered by bias or conflict of interest on the part of the adjudicating HRO).

It is the responsibility of the appellate decision-maker to determine which aspects of the case merit a new review, and to direct the CRTIX office or HRO accordingly. 

The appellate decision-maker will issue a written decision on the appeal, including a brief explanation of their reasoning, which will be provided simultaneously to both Parties.  Ordinarily this will be completed in 20 business days. A denial by an appellate decision-maker is final. In the event the appeal is accepted and the matter is returned to CRTIX or the HRO for reconsideration, the subsequent determination is final. 

**VII.  Outcomes **  

For matters that were investigated and adjudicated, there are several possible outcomes. 

A.      Dismissal 

1.       The CRTIX Coordinator may, at any time, in their sole discretion, dismiss a complaint under investigation, in whole or as to a particular Respondent, if they determine that: 

i.         The complained of conduct is the responsibility of a person who cannot reasonably be identified;

ii.       The Respondent is not participating in any Middlebury education program or activity and is not employed by Middlebury; or

iii.     The Reporting Individual voluntarily withdraws any or all of the allegations in the complaint, the CRTIX Coordinator declines to initiate a complaint under D.I.b, and the CRTIX Coordinator determines that, without the Reporting Individual’s withdrawn allegations, the conduct that remains alleged in the complaint, if any, would not constitute a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy even if established by a preponderance of the evidence. 

2.       The CRTIX Coordinator may elect to continue the investigation after dismissing the complaint as to a particular Respondent if: 

i.         There are one or more remaining named or identifiable Respondents whom the CRTIX Coordinator determines may potentially be responsible for the alleged conduct; or

ii.       The CRTIX Coordinator determines that the complaint alleges a potential hostile environment based on sex even in the absence of an identifiable Respondent over which Middlebury retains disciplinary control. 

3.       If a complaint is dismissed by Middlebury under the circumstances described above, Middlebury will simultaneously provide to the Parties written notice (by electronic or other means) of the dismissal and the reasons for the dismissal, and notice of the Parties’ opportunity to appeal the dismissal through the appeal procedures outlined in Section VI above. 

An Informal Resolution (Adaptable Resolution) process may include an outcome agreement entered into between the Parties in which it is agreed upon that the charges from the written notice of allegation letter will be dismissed (including waiver of the Parties’ right to appeal the dismissal). In such cases, the CRTIX Coordinator will dismiss the complaint, and appeal procedures will not be applicable. 

B.      Respondent Accepts Responsibility 

At any point in the proceedings, if a Respondent elects to admit to the charged violations and waive further process, the adjudicating HRO is authorized to accept that admission, adopt it as their finding or determination, and implement sanctions.  The Respondent has no right to appeal findings based on their acceptance of responsibility. If the Respondent admits to some but not to all conduct charged, the investigation and adjudication process continues to its conclusion with respect to the conduct not admitted to. The Reporting Individual retains their right to appeal a determination when a Respondent admits responsibility. 

C.      Finding of No Violation 

If the adjudicating HRO determines that the investigation has produced insufficient evidence to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy, or other relevant Middlebury policies, has occurred, the determination will be a finding of no policy violation. Under these circumstances, the full determination, or relevant information from the investigation, may still be shared with appropriate Middlebury officials to address concerns outside the scope of the Non-Discrimination Policy that come to light in the course of the investigation. (In most circumstances, consistent with Middlebury’s amnesty policy for Non-Discrimination Policy investigations, concerns related to student substance use or minor rules infractions uncovered during the investigation will not be referred to other Middlebury officials for disciplinary action.) 

D.      Sanctioning for Respondents found Responsible 

1.       If the adjudicating HRO finds that the Respondent engaged in behavior that violates Middlebury policy, the CRTIX Coordinator will, in accordance with this Procedure, forward the case to the appropriate supervisory authority for the program at issue (“sanctioning authority”), who will assign a sanction or sanctions, and take other actions as appropriate. The adjudicating HRO and the sanctioning authority will collaborate on the creation of a single written determination that will include the adjudicating HRO’s statement and rationale regarding responsibility as described in more detail above, the disciplinary action imposed, and the reasoning for it, and whether other steps will be taken by Middlebury. 

In determining the sanction or sanctions or other actions, the sanctioning authority will be guided by a number of considerations, including but not limited to the following: 

  • The severity, pervasiveness, and objective offensiveness of the behavior;
  • The nature of the violation;
  • The impact of the violation on the Reporting Individual;
  • The impact or implications of the violation within the Middlebury community;
  • Any prior misconduct by the Respondent, including the Respondent’s relevant prior conduct history, at Middlebury or elsewhere;
  • Whether the Respondent has accepted responsibility for the violation;
  • The maintenance of a safe, nondiscriminatory and respectful environment conducive to living, learning, and working, as applicable; and
  • Any other mitigating, aggravating, or compelling factors.

When a student Respondent is found responsible for sexual assault, suspension or expulsion are the likely outcomes. 

2.       Sanctions and other actions will go into effect at either the expiration of the deadline for the submission of an appeal where no appeal is submitted, or at the conclusion of the appeal process if applicable.[24] This language does not preclude the possibility of emergency action as needed; please see Section C.II. 

3.       Sanctions are assigned by the appropriate supervisory authority for the Respondent(s). When multiple supervisory authorities are involved in assigning sanctions, they may collaborate with each other as appropriate.  

4.      For students, the Dean of Students, the Dean of the Language Schools, the VPAA of the Institute, the Dean of the Bread Loaf School of English, etc..

5.     For staff, the appropriate Vice President (or designee for the area or unit in which the staff member works). 

6.     If the adjudicating HRO finds that a faculty member has engaged in conduct that violates the Non-Discrimination Policy, or other Middlebury policies under investigation, if applicable (absent or following an appeal of that finding in accordance with this Procedure, if an appeal was granted), CRTIX will provide the case materials to the Provost. The Provost will initiate the appropriate procedures under the applicable Handbook policies and/or contracts. The Provost may also assign a designee -- ordinarily the Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA) -- to initiate the appropriate procedures under the applicable Handbook policies or contracts.

7.       In any case in which a finding of a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy has been issued, violation of a plan or directive to address the Prohibited Conduct or related sanction may be grounds for discipline. 

E.       Recommendation of Steps to Ensure that Violations do not Continue or Recur 

1.       In any case where the adjudicating HRO determines that a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy occurred that cannot be attributed solely to the actions of an identifiable Respondent, the adjudicating HRO will identify appropriate prompt and effective steps to ensure that violations of the Non-Discrimination Policy do not continue or recur within the Middlebury programs or activities reviewed during the investigation. 

2.       When the adjudicating HRO determines that remedial actions under this section must be implemented, the HRO will notify the Vice President(s) with oversight of the programs or activities reviewed during the investigation that a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy has been found by providing a copy of the full determination prepared in accordance with  Section D.IV, and will also provide a copy of the determination to the General Counsel, Chief Risk Officer and the Vice President of the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. 

3.       The relevant Vice President(s) must then identify relevant employees with knowledge and oversight of the program or activity at issue and direct that they promptly meet with the adjudicating HRO to discuss feasible steps to address the violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy found by the adjudicating HRO. 

4.       After consulting with the identified employees, the adjudicating HRO will provide the Vice President(s) with a list of remedial actions, which may include policy or practice changes and other steps designed to ensure that violations of the Non-Discrimination Policy do not continue or recur within the Middlebury programs or activities reviewed during the investigation.  A copy of the remedial actions will also be provided to the General Counsel, Chief Risk Officer and the Vice President of the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

5.        The recommended steps will include time frames for progress reporting on implementation that must be adhered to by the employees tasked with implementing the recommendations.

[1] In accordance with Federal law and the Title IX regulations issued in April 2024, alleged Prohibited Conduct occurring before August 1, 2024 must be addressed using the policies and procedures in place at the time of the alleged conduct.

[2] Students at the undergraduate College will be held accountable in accordance the Scope of Oversight provision in section II.B.2.a.iii. of the Handbook. Students at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies will be held accountable in accordance with the Scope of Oversight provision in section IV.B.2.b.B. of the Handbook.

[3] The CRTIX Coordinator is ultimately responsible for coordinating Middlebury’s compliance with Title IX (and other anti-discrimination laws) and administering the Non-Discrimination Policy and this Procedure, but may choose to delegate specific duties, obligations and functions described in the Non-Discrimination Policy and this Procedure. Therefore, all references to the CRTIX Coordinator in the Non-Discrimination Policy and the Procedure should be read functionally as “CRTIX Coordinator or designee.”

[4] When an individual who otherwise would be a Confidential Resource receives information about Prohibited Conduct outside the context of their confidential provision of services to a patient or client, they are required to report such information to CRTIX.

[5] As one example, all individuals including Confidential Resources are typically obligated under state law to report instances of child abuse, or to make limited disclosures as necessary to address an imminent risk of physical harm to the reporting party or another person. Exceptions to confidentiality are governed by the law of the state in which the Confidential Resource is located.

[6] Note that in instances where a matter is being investigated, CRTIX will offer supportive measures to the Respondent as well.

[7] Ordinarily this occurs within 7 business days of receiving a report wherein a Reporting Individual has definitively requested they want to move forward with an investigative and adjudicative process and they have given the CRTIX Coordinator sufficient information for the CRTIX Coordinator to make the determination as to whether the matter can advance to an investigation.

[8] In cases where there is not a specific Respondent named, CRTIX will ordinarily send written notice to the Middlebury official responsible for the area or unit in which the alleged violation of Policy occurred.

[9] Middlebury’s HROs serve as the CRTIX Coordinator’s designees for the purposes of overseeing investigations and adjudicating sex-based harassment and discrimination (and related retaliation) complaints under this Procedure. Alternate HROs may serve in a similar capacity as the CRTIX Coordinator’s designee(s) when the HROs are unavailable or have a conflict of interest.

[10] Ordinarily the supervising HRO will also be the adjudicating HRO (who will ultimately render a decision as to whether the Non-Discrimination Policy was violated).

[11] The investigator may need to initially review relevant evidence that may or may not be otherwise impermissible, in order to determine whether an exception applies that would permit its consideration in the investigation.

[12] Middlebury recognizes, however, that individuals who are bound by legal privileges may not be able to disclose privileged information, unless an exception applies. The investigator will not access, consider, disclose or otherwise use a Party’s privileged records without the Party’s voluntary, written consent to do so, and such information will not be deemed relevant to an investigation or adjudication absent the voluntary, written consent of the Party.

[13] Inculpatory evidence refers to evidence that tends to show a Respondent’s responsibility for the alleged Prohibited Conduct, whereas exculpatory evidence refers to evidence that tends to clear a Respondent from responsibility for the alleged Prohibited Conduct.

[14] Relevant evidence is that which may aid in determining whether the alleged conduct occurred, in determining whether the conduct constitutes a violation of policy, or in determining the credibility of the Parties or witnesses.

[15] CRTIX may permit Parties to have more than one Advisor, or an Advisor and a support person, upon special request. The decision to grant this request is at the CRTIX Coordinator’s sole discretion and will be granted equitably to all Parties.

[16] Unless unforeseen circumstances arise necessitating otherwise, a Middlebury HRO will be the decision-maker responsible for rendering an official determination on behalf of the institution as to whether there was a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy.

[17] The final investigative report is expected to be finalized and submitted to the adjudicating HRO by the investigator within 20 calendar days of the investigator having received any feedback from the adjudicating HRO or the Parties on the preliminary investigative report.

[18] Or, in the case of a matter that does not involve a particular identifiable Respondent, whether there was otherwise a violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy.

[19] In the event of such meetings taking place, it is standard practice for the HRO to record the meeting. In addition, each Party may have an advisor present with them when attending any meetings with the adjudicating HRO.

[20] The HRO will send the materials to each Party simultaneously.

[21] Appeals of dismissals following successful completion of an informal resolution process are excepted, as ordinarily in such matters there is an outcome agreement entered into between the Parties in which it is agreed upon that the charges from the written notice of investigation will be dismissed (including waiver of the Parties’ right to appeal the dismissal).

[22] CRTIX or the appellate decision-maker hearing the appeal may extend this deadline if warranted by the circumstances.

[23] In matters where the HRO’s Determination is being appealed, the adjudicating HRO will also ordinarily provide to the applicable appellate officer a written response to the appealing Party’s appeal request.

[24] In matters where an appeal is not applicable, the sanction(s) and/or other actions(s) will go into effect immediately.