Method of Resolution: Formal Process

If a formal complaint is filed and informal resolution is not appropriate or is not chosen, the Title IX Coordinator will initiate the formal investigation and the required live hearing. Both the complainant and respondent may be accompanied by an advisor of choice during all relevant meetings, interviews, and proceedings, including an attorney. If a party has no advisor at the live hearing, the University will provide an advisor without fee or charge to conduct cross-examination.

1. Midwestern University will not limit the choice or presence of the advisor for the complainant or respondent in any meeting or proceeding.
2. Midwestern University may establish restrictions regarding the extent to which the advisor may participate in these grievance procedures, outside of cross-examination during a live hearing, as long as the restrictions apply equally to the parties.

The burden of proof and the burden of gathering sufficient evidence to determine responsibility is on Midwestern University—not on the parties.

Midwestern University will provide to a party whose participation is invited or expected, written notice of the date, time, location, participants, and purpose of all meetings or proceedings with sufficient time for the party to prepare to participate.

Midwestern University will provide each party an equal opportunity to present witnesses, including fact and expert witnesses, and other inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.

Midwestern University will review evidence gathered during the investigation for relevance and will comply with the applicable protections for privileged information and treatment records; the University's relevance determinations will not diminish a party's right to inspect and review evidence directly related to the allegations, including evidence on which the University does not intend to rely.

Midwestern University will provide each party and the party's advisor, if any, an equal opportunity to inspect and review evidence directly related to the allegations, whether or not the University intends to rely on it, as follows:

1. Preliminary Evidence Review: Before completing the investigative report, the University will send each party and the party's advisor, if any, the evidence directly related to the allegations, in electronic format or hard copy, including evidence the University does not intend to rely upon and both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. The parties will have at least 10 days to submit a written response, which the investigator will consider before completing the report. The same evidence will be available for reference at the hearing, including during cross-examination.
2. Final Report Review: The investigator will synthesize the evidence into a written investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence. This final report will be sent to each party and their advisor at least 10 days prior to the live hearing for their review and written response.

Questioning the Parties and Witnesses:

At the required live hearing, the decisionmaker will permit each party's advisor to ask the other party and witnesses all relevant questions and follow-up questions, including credibility questions, directly, orally, and in real time. The decisionmaker may also ask relevant questions, but may not substitute decisionmaker-only questioning for the cross-examination that must be permitted through each party's advisor. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b)(6)(i).

1. Each party's advisor, rather than the party personally, conducts cross-examination. If a party has no advisor present at the live hearing, the University will provide an advisor of its choice, without fee or charge, to conduct cross-examination on that party's behalf. The advisor may, but need not, be an attorney.

Procedures for the hearing officer or decisionmaker to evaluate questions:

Before a complainant, respondent, or witness answers a cross-examination or other question, the decisionmaker will determine whether the question is relevant and explain any exclusion as not relevant. Questions and evidence about the complainant's sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior are subject to the specific limitations stated above. The decisionmaker may impose equally applicable, reasonable rules for orderly questioning, including requesting clarification of unclear questions, without preventing the required relevant cross-examination.

Refusal to respond to questions and inferences based on refusal to respond to questions:

A party's or witness's refusal to answer questions does not categorically bar the decisionmaker from considering statements that person made during the investigation. The decisionmaker will evaluate the available evidence for relevance, credibility, reliability, and weight under consistent, impartial standards. No predetermined evidentiary weight will attach solely because a person did not answer a particular question. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b)(6)(i), as recodified effective September 29, 2026.

Procedures for a live hearing:

Midwestern University may conduct the live hearing with participants physically present in the same location or, at the University's discretion, with some or all parties, witnesses, and other participants appearing virtually using technology that enables simultaneous sight and sound. At either party's request, the University must provide a hearing with the parties in separate rooms using technology that allows the decisionmaker and parties to see and hear the person answering questions. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b)(6)(i).

Midwestern University will create an audio or audiovisual recording or transcript of any live hearing and make it available to the parties for inspection and review.

Written Determination Requirements:

Following the live hearing, the decision-maker will evaluate all relevant evidence to determine responsibility.

1. Apply the University's preponderance-of-the-evidence standard consistently to all formal Title IX sexual harassment complaints, including complaints involving faculty, employees, or students. Responsibility may be found only when the decisionmaker concludes that the relevant evidence establishes that a policy violation is more likely than not.
2. Provide the parties simultaneously with a written determination regarding responsibility that includes each of the following:
   1. Identification of the allegations potentially constituting sexual harassment as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 106.30;
   2. A description of the procedural steps taken from receipt of the formal complaint through the determination, including notices, interviews, site visits, methods used to gather evidence, and hearings held;
   3. Findings of fact supporting the determination;
   4. Conclusions regarding the application of the University's applicable code of conduct to the facts;
   5. A statement of the result and rationale for each allegation, including the determination regarding responsibility, any disciplinary sanctions imposed on the respondent, and whether remedies designed to restore or preserve equal access to the University's education program or activity will be provided to the complainant; and
   6. The University's procedures and permissible bases for either party to appeal. The Title IX Coordinator is responsible for the effective implementation of any remedies.

Sanctions will be administered under the applicable Student Judicial System or Human Resources procedures, consistent with the written Title IX responsibility determination and the authority of the designated institutional officer. The Title IX Coordinator will maintain the required grievance-process records. In matters involving an employee, Human Resources may receive relevant information necessary to implement authorized employment actions, subject to applicable privacy and records requirements. Academic Deans and Human Resources do not replace the independent Title IX decisionmaker or the University's duty to provide the written determination simultaneously to both parties.

The University will issue the required written responsibility determination simultaneously to the complainant and respondent, including any disciplinary sanctions determined at that stage and whether remedies will be provided. Subsequent administrative communications concerning implementation of sanctions may be issued by the appropriate Academic Dean or Human Resources officer but shall not delay, replace, or contradict the required simultaneous written determination.

The Vice President for Human Resources may separately notify an employee respondent regarding implementation of employment sanctions, consistent with the responsibility determination. Any separate implementation communication does not replace the simultaneous determination issued to both parties. Midwestern University will conclude investigations and hearings within reasonably prompt timeframes, subject to documented, good-cause extensions under these procedures.

The determination regarding responsibility becomes final either on the date that Midwestern University provides the parties with the written determination of the result of any appeal, or, if no party appeals, the date on which an appeal would no longer be considered timely.

Appeal Process:

Both complainant and respondent may appeal a determination of responsibility or dismissal of a formal complaint or allegation to the Provost within 10 business days after simultaneous issuance of the written determination or dismissal notice. An appeal must identify one or more permissible bases below and the reasons supporting the appeal. The appeal decisionmaker must be impartial and separate from the responsibility or dismissal decisionmaker, investigator, and Title IX Coordinator. The University will resolve appeals within the reasonably prompt timeframe stated above, subject to written notice of any good-cause extension.

1. Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter;
2. New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination regarding responsibility or dismissal was made and that could affect the outcome of the matter; and
3. The Title IX Coordinator, investigator(s), or decisionmaker(s) had a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or the individual complainant or respondent that affected the outcome of the matter.

The Provost, acting as the independent appellate decisionmaker, will review the relevant record and any written statements submitted by the parties and issue a written decision stating the result and rationale. Where appropriate, the Provost may affirm, modify, or remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with applicable procedures. If the Provost has a conflict or prohibited prior role, the University will appoint another qualified and impartial appeal decisionmaker.

If a party appeals a dismissal or determination whether sexual harassment occurred, Midwestern University will:

1. Notify the other party in writing when an appeal is filed and implement appeal procedures equally for both parties;
2. Implement appeal procedures equally for the parties;
3. Ensure that the appellate decisionmaker is not the same person as the decisionmaker who reached the responsibility determination or dismissal, any investigator, or the Title IX Coordinator;
4. Ensure that the decision-maker for the appeal has been trained pursuant to Title IX regulations;
5. Give both parties a reasonable and equal opportunity to submit a written statement in support of, or challenging, the outcome; and
6. Issue a written appeal decision describing the result and rationale and provide that decision simultaneously to both parties.

Any additional procedures or bases for appeal Midwestern University offers will be equally available to all parties.

The final decision rests with the Provost or a qualified, impartial alternate appellate decisionmaker when required. Copies of the written appeal decision will be provided simultaneously to the parties and maintained by the Title IX Coordinator; employment or academic sanctions will be implemented by the relevant institutional office consistent with the final decision.

Recordkeeping in Conduct Matters:

Records of Title IX proceedings and institutional responses will be maintained consistently with 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b)(10) and the University's applicable records-retention requirements, including the following:

1. All records related to disciplinary investigations/actions against students are managed by the Office of the Title IX Coordinator (Dean of Students).
2. The University will maintain for at least seven years records of each Title IX sexual harassment investigation, responsibility determination, hearing recording or transcript, disciplinary sanctions and remedies, appeals and results, informal resolutions and results, and all materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decisionmakers, and informal-resolution facilitators. The University may retain disciplinary records for a longer period under its records-retention policy. Required training materials will be publicly available on the University's website or otherwise made available as required by 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b)(10).
3.  A student may see any and all records related to their disciplinary investigation/action/appeal in accordance with the college regulations concerning inspection of records as spelled out in Guidelines for Access to and Disclosure of Educational Records Maintained by Midwestern University.
4. The University will provide parties notices of outcomes and access to records to the extent required by Title IX, FERPA, the Clery Act, and other applicable law. For each report or formal complaint of Title IX sexual harassment, the University will also maintain for at least seven years documentation of the actions taken, including supportive measures, and the basis for its conclusion that its response was not deliberately indifferent, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b)(10)(ii).