Institutions need investigators who can deliver findings that hold up to internal scrutiny, appeals, and potential litigation. The firm provides experienced, independent Title IX investigation services to colleges and universities nationwide.
Independent investigators are not employees of the institution. That neutrality matters in three ways: it protects the integrity of the process for both parties, it insulates the institution from later challenges based on bias or conflict, and it produces findings the institution can defend at the appellate stage and beyond.
Every investigation is governed by the institution's specific policy and the applicable federal regulations. Within that framework, the firm prioritizes procedural compliance, even-handed treatment of both parties, and reports that explain the reasoning behind every credibility determination and factual finding. Reports are written to be read by parties who may disagree with the outcome, by appellate panels, and, if necessary, by courts.
The procedural framework that governs Title IX investigations sits at the intersection of federal regulation, constitutional due process at public institutions, and contract law at private ones. The landscape has been turbulent since 2024, which makes knowing the current operative framework essential.
The 2020 Title IX regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 106 took effect August 14, 2020, and imposed a comprehensive procedural framework on postsecondary institutions: written notice, a designated Title IX Coordinator, mandatory dismissal of allegations outside Title IX's scope, separation of the investigator and decisionmaker, a 10-day evidence review period, and a mandatory live hearing with cross-examination conducted by each party's advisor (34 C.F.R. Section 106.45(b)(6)(i)). The 2024 Title IX regulations, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474 (April 29, 2024), took effect August 1, 2024 and eliminated the mandatory live hearing for postsecondary institutions, permitting (but not requiring) live hearings under 34 C.F.R. Section 106.46(g) and allowing the investigator, decisionmaker, and Title IX Coordinator to be the same person.
The 2024 regulations had a short life. The Eastern District of Kentucky preliminarily enjoined the entire 2024 Final Rule in plaintiff states in Tennessee v. Cardona, 737 F.Supp.3d 510 (E.D. Ky. 2024), and parallel injunctions issued in Texas v. United States, 740 F.Supp.3d 537 (N.D. Tex. 2024). On January 9, 2025, the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a permanent ruling vacating the 2024 regulations nationwide in Tennessee v. Cardona, 762 F.Supp.3d 615 (E.D. Ky. 2025), holding that the regulations exceeded the Department of Education's statutory authority. The Department of Education has confirmed the 2024 regulations are not effective in any jurisdiction. As of May 2026, the 2020 Title IX regulations are once again the controlling regulatory framework, and institutions that adopted 2024-compliant procedures during the August 2024 to January 2025 window have had to revert.
At public institutions, the regulatory framework operates alongside constitutional procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, evaluated under the Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), balancing test. The Sixth Circuit in Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018), held that public universities must provide some form of cross-examination when the determination turns on the credibility of the accused, the accuser, or witnesses. The Sixth Circuit reaffirmed Baum in Doe v. Case Western Reserve University, 809 Fed.Appx. 276 (6th Cir. 2020), and district courts have applied it across credibility-driven proceedings (Lee v. University of New Mexico, 500 F.Supp.3d 1181 (D.N.M. 2020), applying Mathews balancing to a graduate student near completion). The Fifth Circuit's discussion in Walsh v. Hodge, 975 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2020), noted the circuit split: the First, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits require some form of cross-examination, while the Second, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits do not. Doe v. University of North Carolina System (4th Cir. 2025) held that university administrators were entitled to qualified immunity on procedural-due-process claims because, given the circuit split, the right to cross-examination was not clearly established.
At private institutions, the constitutional analysis does not apply: private universities are not state actors (Doe v. Oberlin College, 60 F.4th 345 (6th Cir. 2023)). Private-institution claims instead proceed on contractual theories, with courts asking whether the institution followed the procedures its own published policies promised. Some states, including Pennsylvania, recognize a "fundamental fairness" doctrine that imposes cross-examination-like requirements at private institutions as a matter of state law (Nkrumah v. University of Pittsburgh (W.D. Pa. 2022)). The practical upshot: under the 2020 regulatory framework now controlling, advisor-led cross-examination is required across the board in higher-education sex-based-harassment proceedings, regardless of whether the institution is public or private.
The 2020 regulations at 34 C.F.R. Section 106.45(b)(1)(vii) permit institutions to apply either preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence as the standard of proof, but require that the institution apply the same standard for all conduct violations carrying the same maximum sanction (Doe v. University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, 974 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2020)). Courts have generally upheld preponderance as constitutionally permissible. Other procedural requirements under the 2020 framework include written notice with sufficient details to permit a meaningful response, equal access to evidence (with a 10-day review period before any hearing per Gash v. Rosalind Franklin University, 117 F.4th 957 (7th Cir. 2024)), separation of the investigator and decisionmaker (Doe v. University of Southern Indiana, 43 F.4th 784 (7th Cir. 2022)), an advisor for each party (provided without charge if the party does not have one), a written determination explaining the basis for findings, and a right to appeal. Procedural irregularities at any of these stages are the most common ground for successful federal-court challenges to institutional determinations.
Procedural compliance is more than process for its own sake. It directly shapes the institution's exposure to private litigation under Title IX. Two doctrines, Gebser/Davis deliberate indifference and the Cummings Spending Clause limitation, govern that exposure and inform how a defensible investigation should be conducted and documented.
The Supreme Court's framework for institutional monetary liability under Title IX has two prongs: actual notice to an "appropriate person" with authority to take corrective action, and deliberate indifference to that notice. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), established the framework for teacher-on-student harassment. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999), extended it to student-on-student harassment where the harassment is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive and effectively bars the victim's access to an educational opportunity. The Sixth Circuit has applied Gebser and Davis rigorously: in Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees, 944 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2019), the court held that a plaintiff must allege further actionable sexual harassment after the institution had actual notice, and in Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State University, 48 F.4th 686 (6th Cir. 2022), the court addressed the statute of limitations and actual-notice questions in long-tail institutional liability cases.
For an institutional client, the deliberate-indifference framework means that procedural compliance is the institution's principal defense against monetary liability. An investigation that follows the institution's policies, the applicable federal regulations, and constitutional due process where required is by definition not a deliberately indifferent response to notice. Conversely, an institution that conducts a procedurally deficient investigation, ignores complainant testimony, or shortcuts cross-examination invites a private action that puts the institution on the defensive.
The Supreme Court in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (2022), held that emotional distress damages are not available against recipients of federal funds under Spending Clause anti-discrimination statutes, a category that includes Title IX. Cummings meaningfully constrains plaintiff recoveries against funded institutions: damages remain available for economic injury and tangible educational opportunity loss, but the categories of recoverable harm are narrower than under, for instance, Title VII. The practical effect for institutions is that the most consequential exposure comes from injunctive relief, compliance directives, OCR investigations, and reputational consequences rather than emotional-distress damages awards. That, in turn, means OCR-defensible procedural records are the most important institutional risk-management tool.
The combination of Gebser/Davis liability exposure, Cummings damages limits, and the recurring centrality of procedural irregularities in successful Title IX challenges makes a procedurally rigorous, defensible investigation the institution's most important risk-management asset. Reports that explain each credibility determination, document the procedural steps taken, and address each piece of relevant evidence on its merits are the records that withstand institutional appeals, OCR inquiries, and federal-court review. Independent investigation by an attorney with both plaintiff-side litigation experience and institutional advisory experience produces reports written to be defended in each of those forums.
Most investigations conclude within 60 to 90 days from formal complaint to draft report, though complex matters with many witnesses or substantial digital evidence can extend the timeline. The firm communicates expected milestones at the outset and maintains regular contact with the institution's Title IX coordinator.
Yes. Workplace investigations involving Title VII discrimination or harassment claims, particularly in higher-education settings where Title IX and Title VII overlap, are a regular part of the firm's work. The procedural standards differ but the underlying investigative approach is the same.
Yes, in jurisdictions and under policies that permit it. The firm has experience presiding over hearings, ruling on evidentiary objections, and issuing written decisions consistent with both institutional policy and federal regulations.
Independent investigations require independence from the parties, but coordination with the institution's Title IX coordinator, general counsel, and outside counsel is essential to ensure procedural compliance and timely communication. The scope of that coordination is defined at the outset of each engagement.
Discuss your situation with attorney Sean H. Sobel. No obligation, no cost to talk.
Schedule a Consultation ›