Federal Guidelines and DOE Policies Governing Title IX

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., is a landmark federal statute that prohibits sex‑based discrimination in any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. At Saland Law, led by former prosecutor Jeremy Saland, we provide comprehensive representation for both respondents and complainants nationwide. Our firm is headquartered in New York City but handles Title IX matters across the country, helping clients navigate the procedural complexities and high stakes involved in allegations ranging from sexual assault to dating violence and issues with affirmative consent.

This webpage outlines the current federal framework governing Title IX, including statutory provisions, Department of Education (DOE) regulations and policies, definitions of critical terms such as sexual contact and affirmative consent, relevant Supreme Court rulings, procedural standards, and considerations for both complainants and respondents. We strive to offer clarity in a landscape that is constantly evolving and shaped by complex legal developments, federal agency enforcement, and high-profile litigation.

Title IX Statute: 20 U.S.C. § 1681

Under the plain language of Title IX, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” 

This fundamental prohibition covers more than just overt discrimination. It extends to any form of sex‑based harassment, including sexual violence, domestic or dating violence, stalking, and other forms of conduct that create a hostile environment.

Title IX applies broadly to institutions that receive federal funds, public and private K‑12 schools, colleges, universities, and other programs. Some limited exceptions exist: private elementary and secondary schools, religious institutions when compliance would conflict with religious tenets, and membership activities within fraternities, sororities, and youth organizations are exempt in specific ways.

Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

The focus of Title IX enforcement is the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). OCR is responsible for issuing guidance, investigating complaints, and ensuring institutions adopt policies and systems that comply with federal mandates.

OCR guidance emphasizes that schools must not only respond to incidents of sexual harassment and violence but also proactively prevent them. This involves appointing a Title IX Coordinator, ensuring training for staff, offering interim measures, and administering fair grievance processes. Institutions must clearly define their policies concerning sexual contact, affirmative consent, and standards for determining responsibility.

OCR also monitors how schools handle issues like pregnancy and related conditions, gender identity, and sexual orientation, aligning Title IX’s protections to emerging understandings of sex-based discrimination.

Evolution of Regulations: 2020, 2024, and Legal Shifts

The 2020 Final Rule (Trump Administration)

Effective August 2020, the DOE issued a comprehensive regulation defining Title IX obligations more narrowly. It specified three categories of sexual harassment:

1. Quid pro quo harassment by employees,
2. Sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking, as defined by the Clery Act and VAWA, and
3. Conduct that is unwelcome, objectively offensive, pervasive and severe, effectively denying access to the institution’s programs.

These regulations instituted procedural safeguards such as live hearings, cross‑examinations via an advisor, and rigorous notice requirements. Critics argued that these protections favored respondents and could deter reporting.

The 2024 Rule and Judicial Challenges

In April 2024, the Biden Administration introduced new Title IX regulations expanding definitions of prohibited conduct. This included sex‑based harassment on grounds of sex stereotypes, gender identity, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics. The standard shifted to require conduct to be objective offensive and either so severe or pervasive that it effectively limited participation in activities.

Crucially, the new rule governed incidents occurring on or after August 1, 2024. However, in early 2025, federal courts vacated these regulations (notably in Tennessee v. Cardona), restoring the authority of the 2020 Rule. The DOE subsequently directed institutions to return to the 2020 framework as of January 31, 2025.

This chain of events illustrates significant tension between federal executive rulemaking and judicial interpretation surrounding Title IX.

Key Definitions and Standards

Affirmative Consent and Sexual Contact

Affirmative consent commonly means “yes means yes” a voluntary, informed, and unambiguous agreement to engage in sexual activity. Without such consent, any sexual contact may constitute sexual assault or harassment under Title IX rules. While the statute does not expressly define affirmative consent, many institutions incorporate it into policies consistent with federal guidance.

Sexual contact refers to any physical act of a sexual nature—ranging from unwanted touching to intercourse. When such contact is non‑consensual, it meets the threshold for sexual violence, which is covered under Title IX as an act of discrimination.

Hostile Environment

Under both the 2020 and what was attempted by the 2024 Rule, a “hostile environment” arises when unwelcome sexual or sex-based conduct is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies equal access to educational opportunities. The 2024 standard relaxed the requirement to “so severe or pervasive” rather than “and,” while courts have reverted to the stricter 2020 language.

Supreme Court Interpretations

Key judicial decisions shape the contours of Title IX enforcement:

• Gebser v. Lago Vista (1998): Imposed a requirement that a school official with authority must have actual knowledge of harassment and demonstrate deliberate indifference before the institution can be held liable.
• Davis v. Monroe County (1999): Extended liability to student-on-student harassment under the same standard of deliberate indifference.
• Franklin v. Gwinnett County (1992): Affirmed that a student may seek monetary damages under Title IX.

These cases underscore that proving school liability under Title IX hinges on actual knowledge and inaction in the face of discrimination.

DOE Policy Requirements for Schools

Federal regulations require education providers to implement robust policies and procedures:

Every school must designate a Title IX Coordinator to oversee compliance and investigations into complaints. Institutions are also required to publish up-to-date non-discrimination policies, TRAIN staff and faculty annually, and offer accessible grievance procedures. Policies must cover definitions of sexual assault, dating violence, affirmative consent, retaliation protections, pregnancy accommodations, and gender identity protections.

When complaints occur, institutions must respond promptly and equitably providing interim measures, conducting impartial investigations, offering both parties notice and the opportunity to respond, and ensuring a fair decision-making process. These procedural elements are crucial in Title IX compliance.

Impact on Respondents and Complainants

For Complainants

Survivors of sexual assault, dating violence, or unwanted sexual contact should know they are entitled to file a Title IX complaint. Schools must provide supportive measures such as academic adjustments, no-contact orders, mental health support, and access to advocates. Complainants also receive procedural protections, such as notice of allegations, access to evidence, and the right to participate in hearings with an advisor or advocate.

For Respondents

Individuals accused of Title IX misconduct are also granted rights to ensure fundamental fairness. Under the 2020 rules, respondents have:

• Access to evidence,
• The ability to have an advisor,
• Participation in hearings,
• Right to question witnesses via advisor,
• Protection from defamatory public statements.

At Saland Law, we understand the stress and consequences that come with being a respondent. We work to ensure investigations are thorough and proceedings respect due process. Whether you’re a complainant seeking accountability or a respondent protecting your rights, our firm offers impartial, knowledgeable guidance through every procedural phase.

National Reach from a New York City Headquarters

Although Saland Law is rooted in New York City, Title IX regulations are federal and apply uniformly nationwide. We possess a sophisticated understanding of:

• Federal statutory law (Title IX),
• DOE regulatory frameworks,
• Supreme Court jurisprudence,
• Evolving agency guidance,
• Institutional responsibilities across diverse states and regions.

Whether your Title IX matter arises in California, Texas, Florida, New York or anywhere else, our firm brings the same depth of expertise and tailored representation. From filing or defending against Title IX complaints to advising on policy compliance, training programs, or litigation risk, we are committed to securing just outcomes.