Oral arguments held before the Court of Appeal for the case OR Title IX


The pleadings took place Thursday afternoon for a trial who alleges Ohio University ignored the sexual assault of a minor by OU police officer Robert Parsons and it is currently being determined whether Title IX applies to non-university students at events university-related.

The post office does not name people who report harassment or sexual assault unless they give permission. Title IX states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation, denied benefits, or discriminated against in any educational or educational program. of an activity benefiting from federal financial assistance ”, according to the US Department of Education.

Dan Cannon, representing the survivor, argued that the Supreme Court had not included language specifying that persons protected under Title IX must be students. Title IX applies to anyone attending a college event, Cannon said, and argued that as an academic entity, all that is done is academic service.

“University is the educational program or activity,” he said. “If my client is raped on campus, then she has been denied the benefit of an educational program or activity. “

Essentially, Cannon said the Title IX language applies to everyone on campus, regardless of their student status. However, they still need to meet other criteria that reasonably claim Title IX protection, such as making a plausible plea that there was knowledge of someone who could take action based on a student’s complaints, actual knowledge of a substantial risk that the university ignored and that the university ignored.

Cannon argued that due to OU’s involvement, Title IX applies because the university as a whole is an educational program. Either way, he said, the survivor was attending a college-sponsored career day at her high school, the product of a relationship between the high school and the OU.

May Mailman, the university’s representative, argued that just because two OU police officers were present at career day does not mean it was a university-sponsored event.

Although Mailman admitted that Parsons’ actions were criminal, she said OU acted swiftly to fire him and did not meet the standard of willful indifference, which would mean the university’s response would amount to a refusal by comply with Title IX. The university knew about this and investigated Parsons’ actions in 2000, giving him a warning at that time. This led to his relatively quick dismissal after a second investigation in 2005, Mailman said. Rather than the university practicing willful indifference, she said, the university has taken direct action against Parsons.

Mailman also argued that although there was an alleged partnership between the Survivor’s High School and the OU, the Survivor did not participate in specifically related programs, such as double credit opportunities, and that the mere attendance at the career day event does not meet the standard to be protected under Title IX.

OU declined to comment on the pending matter.


[email protected]

Source link


Comments are closed.