Title IX Hearing Process

Roles Under This Process

Role	Definition
Impacted Party	The person who allegedly experienced the conduct.
Complainant	The role of the impacted party when a Formal Complaint is initiated.
Reporting Party	The person who reported the conduct; may or may not be the same person as the Impacted Party.
Respondent	The person against whom a Formal Complaint is brought.

Jurisdictional Requirements

For the conduct alleged in the Formal Complaint to be subject to this Process, the following requirements must be met:

1. Title IX Definition Requirement

Alleged conduct that will be addressed under this Process must fall under the definition of Title IX Sexual Harassment and/or Title IX Sexual Misconduct under the Policy. If the conduct does not fall within one of those definitions, it will not be adjudicated under this Process. If the alleged conduct falls under another definition included in the Policy, the matter may still be adjudicated through the Complaint Resolution Process, as determined by the Director.

2. Timing Requirement

Alleged conduct that will be addressed under this Process must have occurred after August 14, 2020. If the conduct occurred prior to August 14, 2020, it will be dismissed from this Process. If the alleged conduct still falls under the Policy, the matter may still be adjudicated through the Complaint Resolution Process, as determined by the Director. For more information about the process for determining which process applies to the alleged conduct, please see the Complaint Resolution Process.

3. Location, Program/Activity, and Participation Requirements

Alleged conduct that will be addressed under this Process must also meet three additional jurisdictional requirements. If the alleged conduct does not meet all three jurisdictional requirements discussed below, it will not be adjudicated under this Process. However, if the alleged conduct falls under another section of the Policy, the matter may be adjudicated through the Complaint Resolution Process as determined by the Director. For more information about the determination of which process applies to the alleged conduct, please see the Complaint Resolution Process.

a. In the United States

Alleged conduct that will be addressed under this Process must have happened against a Smith community member (student, staff, faculty) while in the United States. If the conduct happened outside of the U.S., it does not meet this jurisdictional requirement and will not be adjudicated under this Process.3

b. College Program or Activity

Alleged conduct that will be addressed under this Process must have occurred in a Smith College program or activity. This means the alleged conduct occurred in a location, event, or circumstance in which Smith exercised substantial control over both the Respondent and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred, or in any building owned or controlled by a student organization that is officially recognized by Smith, or in any building owned or controlled by a student organization that is officially recognized by Smith. Examples of a Smith location, program or activity include, but are not limited to, inside a Smith residence hall or at an off-campus trip managed and sponsored by the College. If the conduct happened outside of a College program or activity (i.e. off-campus or in a non-Smith program or activity), it does not meet these jurisdictional requirements and will not be adjudicated under this Process. The determination regarding whether the conduct occurred in a Smith College program or activity will be made during the Process Determination under the Complaint Resolution Process.

c. Complainant Participating or Attempting to Participate

At the time that the Formal Complaint was filed, the Complainant must be participating in or attempting to participate in an educational program or activity of Smith College. A student who has been admitted, but is not yet attending Smith, is still considered to be attempting to participate in a College educational program or activity. A person who is actively employed by the College is participating in an activity of Smith. If the Complainant is not participating or attempting to participate in a College educational program or activity, their allegation does not meet this jurisdictional requirement and will not be adjudicated under this Process. The determination regarding whether the Complainant was participating or attempting to participate in an Smith College program or activity will be made during the Process Determination under the Complaint Resolution Process.

---

³If the alleged conduct happened outside the United States but still falls under the Policy, the matter may still be adjudicated through the Formal Resolution Process, under the Complaint Resolution Process, as determined by the Director.
⁴If the alleged conduct happened outside a College program or activity, but still falls under the Policy, the matter may be adjudicated through the Formal Resolution Process, under the Complaint Resolution Process, as determined by the Director.
⁵Alleged conduct reported by a Complainant found not to be participating/attempting to participate, but that falls under the Policy, may still be adjudicated through the Formal Resolution Process, under the Complaint Resolution Process, as determined by the Director.

For the purposes of this Process, the definitions of all prohibited conduct—including discrimination, harassment, sexual misconduct, sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, sexual exploitation, retaliation, consent, incapacitation, and force—are set forth in the Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Misconduct. Those definitions apply to this Process as written and should be referenced directly.

Sub-Section A: Pre-Hearing Considerations

1. Scheduling

This Process involves a live Hearing for the resolution of a Formal Complaint. After the Investigative Procedure has closed under the Complaint Resolution Process and a determination has been made that the alleged conduct in the Formal Complaint meets the requirements for this Process, preparations for the Hearing will begin.

Once a matter is deemed eligible for this Process, the Hearing will be scheduled in a reasonably prompt timeframe. If the Process is started near or after the end of an academic semester or the Hearing cannot be completed prior to the end of the academic year, the Hearing will be held as soon as practical. This will typically be immediately after the end of the term, during a break or over the summer, depending on the availability of the parties, witnesses, and College officials. If the Respondent is scheduled to graduate prior to the resolution of a Formal Complaint under this Process, a hold may be placed on their graduation until the complaint is fully resolved (including any appeal).

2. Hearing Coordinator

The Office of Civil Rights & Community Support (CRCS) will act as the coordinator for the Hearing under the Process. CRCS will be responsible for scheduling the Hearing, providing notifications to parties and witnesses, supporting the Hearing Chair, distributing any information from the Investigative Procedure, recording the Hearing, and any other administrative tasks necessary for the implementation of this Process. The Director, as the Title IX Coordinator, will attend all meetings, conferences and hearings in this Process.

3. Decision-Makers

The decision of whether the Respondent is Responsible or Not Responsible for violating the Policy based on the conduct alleged in the Notice of Formal Complaint, and as amended, if applicable, will be made by the Decision-Makers. The Decision-Makers will consist of three individuals who have been trained on the Process, issues of discrimination, harassment and sexual misconduct, how to conduct a hearing, issues of relevance, impartiality and any technology that will be used during the Hearing. The Decision-Makers may be College employees (staff or faculty), someone from outside of the College, or a combination thereof. The Decision-Makers will be selected at the sole discretion of the Director. The names of the Decision-Makers will be communicated to the Complainant and Respondent prior to the Pre-Hearing Conference. If either the Complainant or Respondent believes there is a possible conflict of interest with any of the Decision-Makers, it must be communicated to the Director within three (3) business days after notice of the names of Decision-Makers. The Director then has the discretion to assign a different member to that panel. Once three (3) business days have passed since the Complainant/Respondent was notified of the names of the Decision-Makers, the panel will become final, and there will be no further opportunity to raise potential conflicts of interest with the Decision-Makers. One Decision-Maker will be named as the Hearing Chair, at the sole discretion of the Director. Throughout this Process, the Decision-Makers and/or the Chair will have the ability to consult with the Director as necessary.

The Decision-Makers will be given access to the Final Investigative Report and the supporting materials for consideration when making their finding. The Panel will not be given access to the gathered information from the Investigative Procedure that was not used in the Final Investigative Report. The Decision-Makers will also not be given access to the interview transcripts, if available, except that excerpts may be shared as needed to answer any questions the Decision-Makers may submit to the Director. If a party feels that something in the gathered information or interview transcripts was improperly excluded from the Final Investigative Report and should be considered at the Hearing, they will need to present that information to the Hearing Chair for a review as to relevance during the Pre-Hearing Conference (as discussed below).

4. Notice of Title IX Hearing

After the Investigative Procedure has closed under the Complaint Resolution Process and a determination has been made that this Process applies to the Formal Complaint, the parties will receive a Notice of TItle IX Hearing from the Director. This Notice will be provided at least ten (10) business days prior to the proposed date for the Hearing. The Notice will propose a date for the Pre-Hearing Conference and Hearing. With the Notice, the parties will again be given access to the Final Investigative Report, supporting documentation, and the gathered information, all of which was previously shared with the parties in the Investigative Procedure, under the Complaint Resolution Process. Upon written request from the Complainant/Respondent, these materials can also be shared with their respective support person/advisor.

5. Support Person/Advisor

a. Party Right to a Support Person/Advisor

To fully participate in the Hearing, the Respondent and Complainant must each have one support person/advisor. During the Hearing, only through their support person/advisor, the parties have the right to submit questions to another party or to witnesses regarding information relevant to the resolution of the Formal Complaint, as determined by the Hearing Chair. A party cannot question another party or witness directly during the Hearing.

If a party does not have a support person/advisor, the College will provide the party with a support person/advisor, of the College’s choice, at no expense to the party. The College-provided support person/advisor may be an employee (staff or faculty) who is trained to act in this capacity or may be someone from outside of the College. The Director, at their sole discretion, will make the decision regarding who the College-assigned support person/advisor will be. The expectation is that any support person/advisor will be reasonably available for all meetings, the Pre-Hearing Conference and the Hearing, and will not cause a delay in the Process based on their lack of availability.

At least two (2) business days prior to any meeting in the Process, the Pre-Hearing Conference or the Hearing, a Complainant/Respondent must provide the Director with the identity and contact information (e-mail and telephone) of the support person/advisor who will be accompanying them to that meeting. A party is not required to use the same support person/advisor at any stage in the Complaint Resolution Process or in this Process so long as they provide the Director with timely notice of the change.

b. Role of Support Person/Advisor

A support person/advisor does not make any presentations, or advocate for or otherwise represent the party during the Process. The support person/advisor’s primary role in the Process is only to provide support to the Party. The support person/advisor only actively participates in the Hearing when they are asking questions, on behalf of the party, to the other party and witnesses. The role of the support person/advisor is to read the questions submitted by the party in the hearing. The support person/advisor can only ask questions of the other party or witnesses subject to the Hearing Rules/Rules of Decorum (as discussed below). If at any point a support person/advisor becomes disruptive or is otherwise unable to abide by the requirements of the support person/advisor role or the Hearing Rules/Rules of Decorum, they will be asked to leave the hearing.

An advisor is subject to the same privacy and non-retaliation expectations applicable to others and must acknowledge these expectations before participating in the Process. Unreasonable requests for the rescheduling of interviews or meetings or extensions on information review will not be granted for any advisors. Advisors are not permitted to attend a meeting or proceeding without the party they advise being present unless they have received prior approval of the Director. CRCS staff and Investigators may delay or terminate meetings, remove advisors, and/or proceed with the investigation if an advisor is disruptive or otherwise refuses to comply with the requirements of this Process.

6. Accommodations

A Party or witness (student or employee) who has a disability that may require an accommodation in this Process should work with the appropriate office to determine what reasonable accommodations may be available. Students should work with the Accessibility Resource Center (“ARC”) (arc@smith.edu; 413-585-2071) to request an accommodation for the Process. Please note that any accommodations in this Process must be determined separately from any existing academic or housing disability accommodations. Employees (staff and faculty) should work with Human Resources (“HR”). All approved disability accommodations must be communicated to the Director in writing at least two (2) business days in advance of any meetings or hearings where the accommodations will be needed. Only accommodations approved by ARC or HR will be implemented during the Process.

7. Findings of Relevance

The final decision regarding whether information is relevant to a Formal Complaint will be made by the Hearing Chair, at their discretion.

8. Pre-Hearing Conference

Prior to the Hearing, the Hearing Chair will schedule a time to meet with the Respondent and Complainant separately, with their respective support person/advisor, for a Pre-Hearing Conference. The Director will also attend the Pre-Hearing Conference, as the Hearing Coordinator, to answer any procedural questions that may arise. This conference may be conducted in person or virtually, at the discretion of the Chair.

During the Pre-Hearing Conference, the Chair will review the information that will be considered at the Hearing, which generally will be the information contained in the Final Investigative Report. The Chair will also review any submissions by the parties regarding any witnesses they would like to have appear at the Hearing. Any witnesses will be limited to only those individuals who were interviewed as part of the Investigative Procedure. If any party has an objection to the inclusion or exclusion of any witness at the Hearing, they should present that objection in writing at the Pre-Hearing Conference. These submissions will be addressed by the Chair during the Pre-Hearing Conference. Please note that a party cannot present new witnesses or information that was previously available for the first time at the Hearing (see below regarding New Information).

During the Pre-Hearing Conference, a party should share with the Chair any concerns they have about whether certain information is relevant or not relevant and any information they believe should be included or excluded from the Hearing. If a party believes that something in the gathered information⁶ was improperly excluded from the Final Investigative Report, they should present that information to the Chair at the Pre-Hearing Conference for a finding as to relevance. The Chair has the option to confer with the other Decision-Makers and the Director before making a decision as to relevance. The final decision regarding relevance will be made by the Chair, at their discretion. That decision can be made in the Pre-Hearing Conference or at the Hearing, at the discretion of the Chair.

If there is additional information a party wishes to include at the Hearing, beyond what has been included in the Final Investigative Report, the party must present that information to the Chair for consideration during the Pre-Hearing Conference. However, as discussed below, this information will be limited only to the information gathered during the Investigative Procedure (see New Information below). The Chair will make a finding as to whether the information raised by the party is relevant to the resolution of the Formal Complaint. The Chair has the discretion to confer with the other Decision-Makers and the Director, but the final decision regarding relevance will be made by the Chair, at their discretion. The Chair also has the discretion to delay the decision on relevance until the Hearing. During the Hearing, a party may ask the Chair to reconsider their finding of non-relevance from the Pre-Hearing Conference based on the information offered at the Hearing. Again, the final decision regarding relevance at the Hearing will be made by the Chair, at their discretion. The Chair will share their rationale for their finding of non-relevance during the Pre-Hearing Conference and/or at the Hearing.⁷

During the Pre-Hearing Conference, the parties will have the option to submit questions they would like their advisor to pose to a party or witness during the Hearing (See Questions by Party at the Hearing below). The Chair will then make a finding as to the relevance of any submitted questions and will approve questions in advance of the Hearing that a party will be allowed to ask. If a party chooses not to submit questions in advance of the Hearing or has additional questions that arise during the Hearing beyond those presented in the Pre-Hearing Conference, the Chair will make a finding on the relevance of each of those questions at the Hearing pursuant to the Process.

The Pre-Hearing Conference will also address: the schedule of witnesses; identification of any agreed-upon facts or evidence; discussion of the handling of any prior sexual history issues; and technology to be used in the Hearing.

Sub-Section B: Hearing Procedures

The Process involves a live hearing which includes a review of the Final Investigative Report and any supporting materials and questioning of the parties and witnesses. All relevant information presented in the Hearing will be considered by the Decision-Makers in determining if the Respondent is Responsible or Not Responsible for violating the Policy. The final determination regarding what is relevant to the resolution of the Formal Complaint will be made by the Hearing Chair, at their discretion. The Chair has the discretion to confer with the other Decision-Makers and the Director before making a final decision regarding relevance. Any questions regarding the Process during the Hearing will be addressed by the Hearing Chair or the Director, as the Title IX Coordinator.

1. Conducted Over Technology

The Hearing will be conducted over video conferencing technology (i.e. Zoom). Every participant in the Hearing is expected to participate with their camera on, from a private location, with no one else present who can hear or see the Hearing. The only exception is that a party may participate in the Hearing with their support person/advisor present in the same location. The Decision-Makers also will have the option to conduct the Hearing with all the panel members in the same location. Any witnesses participating in the Hearing can either appear on their own (in a private location with no one else able to hear or see the Hearing) or in the same location as the Decision-Makers. All participants in the Hearing must identify themselves on the recording and appear at the Hearing over video (barring any technical complications)⁸. The presence of anyone not authorized to participate in the Hearing or who has not identified themselves at the Hearing is expressly prohibited at all times and is in violation of College policy. If any of the hearing participants do not have access to a suitably private location, they must inform the Director at least two (2) business days in advance of the scheduled hearing, who will then make arrangements to provide access to a private location on-campus for the Hearing, as appropriate. The recording of the Hearing or any part of the Process by anyone, outside of the official recording by the CRCS, is expressly prohibited, as discussed below. A party has the option to request, in writing, that the Hearing be conducted in person. A Hearing may be conducted in person at the discretion of the Director and only if both parties agree to an in-person hearing.

2. New Information

The expectation is that all of the information relevant to the Formal Complaint, including all information that a party intends to present at the Hearing, was shared and considered in the Investigative Procedure under the Complaint Resolution Process. The parties will have been given ample opportunity to share all available information with the Investigator during the Investigative Procedure. The Hearing Chair has the discretion to exclude from the Hearing any information that was available, but not previously shared in the Investigative Procedure. The Hearing Chair also has the discretion to confer with the Investigator and/or the Director about the scope of the Investigative Procedure and whether the information was available during the Investigative Procedure. Under rare circumstances, and typically when it appears that the information may not have been available earlier, the Hearing Chair has the discretion, in consultation with the Director, to either allow the information at the Hearing or to delay the Hearing to re-open the Investigative Procedure so that the Investigator may fully review and consider the new information. If the Investigation is reopened, the Investigator has the option, at their discretion, to create a new Investigative Report and to again offer the parties the opportunity to review and comment on the new report as outlined in the Investigative Procedure.

3. Access to Report and Information from Investigative Procedure

At least ten (10) business days before the Hearing, the parties will again be given access to the Final Investigative Report, supporting documentation and the gathered information previously shared with the parties during the Investigative Procedure under the Complaint Resolution Process. The Final Investigative Report and supporting documentation will be shared with the Decision-Makers for review prior to the Hearing, except for the gathered information not included in the Report or otherwise deemed irrelevant during the Pre-Hearing Conference. Upon written request from a party to the Director, that information can also be shared with their support person/advisor.

4. Presence at Hearing

All parties and witnesses will be given notice of the Hearing and an opportunity to participate in the Hearing. All parties and witnesses in the Hearing should appear for questioning by both the Decision-Makers and/or the support person/advisor for one or both parties. If a party or witness does not appear at the Hearing or does not agree to be questioned by both the Decision-Makers and/or the support person/advisor of a party, the Hearing may still be held in their absence. Decision-Makers may still consider any statements given by a party or witness prior to the Hearing, who then does not participate in questioning at the Hearing, at their discretion. The Decision-Makers will draw no inferences from a party’s decision not to participate in the Hearing or questioning. If statements of a party who does not participate in questioning at the Hearing are the subject of the alleged conduct in the Formal Complaint (for example – verbal harassment), then those statements would still be included at the Hearing and will be fully considered by the Decision-Makers when making their finding.

5. Recording

The Hearing will be recorded, either as an audio or video recording (or both) at the discretion of the Director. CRCS will be responsible for recording the Hearing. Any audio or video recording of the Hearing by anyone other than CRCS (party, witness, support person/advisor, other individual) is expressly prohibited at all times during the Pre-Hearing Conference, the Hearing, and any other meetings under the Process, and are a violation of College policy. The Pre-Hearing Conference, the deliberations of the Decision-Makers, and any other meetings held under the Process will not be recorded. After the Hearing, CRCS will be responsible for maintaining the recording in accordance with the maintenance of records provisions of the Complaint Resolution Process. A party seeking access to the recording after the Hearing or a transcript of the Hearing (if created at CRCS’s discretion) should submit a written request to CRCS.

6. Questions by Decision-Makers

Prior to the Hearing, the Decision-Makers will have had the opportunity to review and consider the Final Investigative Report and Supporting Materials. Based on that information, the panel will have the first opportunity to question any party or witness regarding the information they deem relevant to the resolution of the Formal Complaint. All questions from the Decision-Makers will be asked only by the Hearing Chair.

7. Questions by a Party at the Hearing

The parties each have the right to question, through their support person/advisor, the other party(s) and any witnesses who appear at the Hearing. A party cannot question another party or witness directly. The questioning by the support person/advisor will be limited to those questions that are deemed relevant by the Chair to the issue of credibility and/or the facts at issue in the pending complaint, at their discretion. A party has the option to submit questions in advance at the Pre-Hearing Conference for a finding of relevance by the Chair. Any pre-approved questions may be asked by the support person/advisor for that party at the Hearing in compliance with the Hearing Rules/Rules of Decorum. If a party has questions that have not been pre-approved by the Chair or if a party has additional questions at the Hearing beyond those that have been pre-approved, a finding of relevance must be made for each of those questions by the Chair before the question may be asked at the Hearing.

For questions that have not been pre-approved by the Chair during the Pre-Hearing Conference, a party’s support person/advisor will indicate to the Chair that they have a question for a party or witness. The Chair will then have the option to remove the party or witness to be questioned from the Hearing at their discretion while the Chair considers the question’s relevance. If a party is removed from the Hearing while a question is being considered by the Chair, that party’s support person/advisor has the option to stay in the Hearing to hear the discussion regarding relevance, at the party’s discretion. The support person/advisor will then present the question they wish to ask to the Chair who will make a finding as to whether the proposed question is relevant to the Formal Complaint. Questions that are repetitive of information already presented to the Decision-Makers (in the Hearing or through the Final Investigative Report) or that are abusive or badgering of a party or witness will be deemed irrelevant. The Chair will note on the recording their rationale for their finding of non-relevance for any specific question.

If a question is deemed to be relevant by the Chair, the party or witness will be brought back into the Hearing, if applicable, and the support person/advisor can ask the approved question. This process will be repeated for each question that has not been pre-approved but that a party wishes to ask of a party or witness during the Hearing, though the Chair may exercise their discretion to consider multiple questions at a time, until a party has no further questions. The questioning process can be expedited by a party submitting questions to the Chair for pre-approval during the Pre-Hearing Conference or prior to the Hearing. Pre-approved questions can be asked by a party’s support person/advisor without disruption, subject to the Hearing Rules/Rules of Decorum (see below). At no time may a party’s support person/advisor ask a question that has been deemed irrelevant and/or that has not been approved by the Chair.

Questions and evidence about the Complainant's sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior are not relevant, unless such questions and evidence are offered to prove that someone other than the Respondent committed the conduct alleged by the Complainant, or if the questions and evidence concern specific incidents of the Complainant's prior sexual behavior with respect to the Respondent and are offered to prove consent.

8. Hearing Rules/Rules of Decorum

The Hearing is meant to be a forum for presenting relevant, factual information to the Decision-Makers that will be helpful in making a finding of whether the Respondent is Responsible or Not Responsible for violating the Policy. The Hearing is an administrative proceeding and is not meant to replicate a courtroom environment. As such, there is no room for what might be considered “courtroom theatrics” in the Hearing. The expectation is that all participants in the Hearing, including the parties and their support persons/advisors, will remain seated during the Hearing and will maintain a respectful and civilized tone towards all participants in the Process, including the Panel, Director, other parties, and witnesses. There is no place in the Hearing for argument, badgering, abusive language, raised voices, or disrespectful treatment of any Hearing participant. The parties will not make opening or closing statements or conduct direct examination of any parties or witnesses. The Chair will be responsible for letting a party, support person/advisor, or witness know when it is their turn to speak during the Hearing. The parties and their support persons/advisors are expected not to speak or comment during the Hearing unless they are told by the Chair that it is their turn to speak. Any participant, including parties and their support persons/advisors, who cannot comport themselves in a respectful manner and follow these Hearing Rules throughout the Hearing, as determined by the Chair and/or the Director, at their discretion, may be removed from the Hearing or their participation in the Hearing may be limited (i.e. controlling when they can un-mute). If a support person/advisor is removed from the Hearing for violating these terms, the Hearing may be suspended until the party in question can be provided with a new support person/advisor, at the discretion of the Director.

9. Decision-Making Panel’s Findings

After the Hearing has been concluded, the Decision-Makers will review the information submitted through the Complaint Resolution Process and the Hearing to make a finding as to whether the Respondent is Responsible or Not Responsible for violating the Policy. The decision of the panel will be made based on the preponderance of the evidence standard—that is, whether the facts presented in the Complaint Resolution Process and Hearing support a finding that it is more likely than not that the Policy was violated. The Decision-Makers will base their findings solely on the information presented in the Final Investigative Report and supporting materials and at the Hearing, pursuant to this Process. There is no presumption of responsibility for the Respondent. The finding of the Decision-Makers will be made by a majority, with each Panel member having an equal vote (including the Hearing Chair).

The Director, as the Title IX Coordinator, will consult with the Decision-Makers on questions about the Policy, the Complaint Resolution Process, this Process and/or the Hearing as the Decision-Makers consider the information to make their finding. However, the decision regarding whether the Policy was violated will be made only by the Decision-Makers.

While the Decision-Makers are solely responsible for making the finding, the Director will assist the Panel in drafting their findings. The Panel will issue their written findings on the Formal Complaint to the Director. The written findings by the panel will outline any factual determinations made, any applicable credibility assessments from the Hearing, and the rationale used to reach the finding.⁹

Sub-Section c: Notice of Outcome

1. Student Respondent

If a student Respondent is found Not Responsible by the Decision-Makers for violating the Policy, the parties will both be notified, in writing, by CRCS, of the outcome, the option to appeal, an explanation of when that outcome becomes final, and the findings from the Decision-Making Panel. The Notice of Outcome will be issued to the parties within seven (7) business days after the findings have been made by the Decision-Makers.

If a student Respondent is found Responsible for a violation of the Policy, the matter will be referred to the Dean of Students¹⁰ who will determine and assign the appropriate sanctions or remedies, in consultation with other offices as appropriate, based on the findings of the Decision-Makers. The determination regarding sanctions will include a consideration of the Respondent’s disciplinary history with the College as outlined in the Code of Student Conduct.

Sanctions for a Responsible finding may include, but are not limited to:

• loss of privileges,
• formal warning,
• disciplinary probation,
• removal from housing
• educational sanctions,
• suspension,
• removal from the College, or
• any other sanction noted in the Code of Student Conduct.

The Director and the Dean of Students will issue the written Notice of Outcome to both parties, which includes the findings from the Decision-Makers, the option to appeal, and an explanation of when that outcome becomes final. The Notice of Outcome letter to the Respondent will include any assigned sanctions. Due to privacy considerations, the Complainant may not be notified of the assigned sanctions, unless they relate to the Complainant (such as a No Contact Order as the sanction), at the discretion of the Director.

The Notice of Outcome will be issued to the parties within seven (7) business days of the Decision-Making Panel’s findings. Upon written request, the Director has the discretion to again give the Respondent/Complainant access to the Final Investigative Report, any supporting documentation, gathered information or information from the Hearing after the Notice of Outcome has been issued.

2. Employee Respondent

If an employee Respondent is found Not Responsible by the Decision-Makers for violating the Policy, the parties will both be notified, in writing, by CRCS of the outcome, the option to appeal, an explanation of when that outcome becomes final, and the findings from the Decision-Making Panel. The Notice of Outcome will be issued to the parties within seven (7) business days after the findings have been made by the Decision-Makers.

If an employee Respondent is found Responsible for a violation of the Policy, the Vice President of Human Resources or their designee and/or the Provost or their designee will decide the appropriate sanctions or remedies based on that finding. In reaching the sanction and/or remedy decision, the Vice President of Human Resources and the Provost may consult with the Director and/or the employee’s supervisor. The determination regarding sanctions will include consideration of the Respondent’s disciplinary history with the College. Sanctions for a Responsible finding may include, but are not limited to, warnings (verbal or written), corrective action steps, final warnings, reassignment, demotions, suspensions, and permanent separation. Training and other educational responses may also be issued in response to a finding of responsibility. The Respondent will be notified by the Director and the and the Vice President of Human Resources or their designee and/or the Provost or their designee, in writing, of the Notice of Outcome, which includes their findings, the assigned sanction, the option to appeal, and an explanation of when that outcome becomes final. Upon written request, after the Notice of Outcome has been issued, the Director may again give the Respondent access to the Investigative Report and exhibits and/or the interview transcripts, where applicable, at the Director’s discretion. The Complainant/Impacted Party will be notified by the Director of the findings, the option to appeal, and an explanation of when the outcome becomes final. Due to privacy considerations, the Complainant/Impacted Party will not be notified of the assigned sanctions unless they relate to the Complainant (such as a No Contact Order as the sanction).

For employees (faculty and staff), the College reserves the right to issue disciplinary action with respect to conduct that it deems inappropriate regardless of whether it rises to the level of a violation of the Policy or the law.

Sub-Section D: Appeals

Both the Complainant and Respondent (student, staff or faculty) are entitled to one appeal of the outcome to the Formal Complaint. An appeal must be submitted in writing to CRCS (titleixcoordinator@smith.edu) within five (5) business days of the receipt of the written outcome. The individual who files an appeal is known as the Appellant. The Appellant must submit an Appeal Form with their appeal which is available from CRCS. If an appeal is not received within five (5) business days, the outcome will be considered final, and the Process will be closed. The goal is to complete the Appeal within a reasonably prompt timeframe.

An appeal can only be submitted by the Complainant or Respondent in writing. Appeals submitted by third parties (e.g. friends, family, attorneys) will not be considered.

There are only three grounds on which an appeal can be filed – procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter, new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination regarding responsibility or dismissal was made, that could affect the outcome of the matter, or the Director, investigator(s), or decision-maker(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.¹¹ The appeal is not a new fact-finding process. Although a Complainant/Respondent may disagree with the finding or the sanction, that alone is not a basis for appeal. The written appeal must specifically state under which of the three grounds the appeal is being filed and how the requirements for that basis (noted below) are met. Appeals that do not comply with these requirements, including failing to state proper grounds for appeal or being untimely, will not be considered, as determined by the Director at their discretion. If an appeal will not be considered, and the five (5) business days to appeal have passed, the outcome is considered final, and this Process will be closed.

If the appeal is to be heard, the non-appealing Party will be given a copy of the relevant portions of the appeal and will have an opportunity to respond to the assertions made by the Appellant, in writing, within five (5) business days after receipt. The non-appealing Party may also request, in writing, access again to the Investigative Report, exhibits, and/or interview transcripts, where applicable, for purposes of responding to the appeal. Submissions after the five (5) business day period will not be considered, as determined by the Director.

Appeals that are timely and state proper grounds for appeal, as determined by the Director, will be decided by an Appeals Panel of one to three employees (staff or faculty) or someone from outside the College, who have been trained regarding the process, the resolution of issues of discrimination, harassment and sexual misconduct and how to decide appeals. The Appeals Panel will include different individuals from those who served as the Decision-Makers. The Appeals Panel will be chosen at the sole discretion of the Director, who will communicate the name(s) to the Appellant and the non-appealing Party (as applicable). If either Party believes there is a possible conflict of interest with the Appeal Panel, they must communicate that to the Director immediately, and no later than three (3) business days after notice of the name(s) of the Appeal Panel. The Director then has the discretion to assign a different member to the Appeals Panel. Once the appeal has been submitted to the Appeals Panel for consideration, there will be no further opportunity to raise potential conflicts of interest.

In reviewing an appeal, the Appeals Panel will be given access to the hearing recording or transcript, the Investigative Report and exhibits, and any interview transcripts or excerpts, where applicable, shared with the Decision-Makers, the written outcome, the appeal submission and any response, and the results of any additional investigation requested, as applicable. The Appeals Panel will make its finding based on its review of these documents. The Director will consult with the Appeals Panel on questions about the Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment & Sexual Misconduct, the Complaint Resolution Process, this Process, and/or the Appeal process as they consider the appeal. The Appeals Panel may also submit questions to or request information from the Investigator or the Parties if needed to make their determination on the appeal.

If the Appeals Panel grants the appeal for a matter involving a student Respondent, the matter will be referred to the Dean of Students who will decide whether to uphold or modify the final outcome of the complaint based on the findings of the Appeals Panel, and in consultation with the original Decision-Makers, as appropriate. The Director may consult with the Dean of Students and the original Decision-Makers as necessary throughout the appeal process. The Dean of Students will then issue a Notice of Outcome of Appeal with the Appeals Panel’s finding and the decision on whether to uphold or modify the outcome. If an appeal is denied, the Director and the Dean of Students will issue a Notice of Outcome of Appeal.

If the Appeals Panel grants the appeal for a matter involving an employee Respondent, the matter will be referred to the Vice President of Human Resources (or their designee) and/or the Provost (or their designee) who will decide whether to uphold or modify the final outcome of the complaint based on the findings of the Appeals Panel, and in consultation with the Decision-Making Panel, as appropriate. The Director may consult with the Vice President of Human Resources, the Provost, and/or the original Decision-Making Panel as necessary throughout the appeal process. The Director and the Vice President of Human Resources and/or the Provost will then issue a Notice of Outcome of Appeal with the Appeals Panel’s finding and the decision on whether to uphold or modify the outcome. If the Appeals Panel denies the appeal for an employee Appellant, the Director, the Vice President of Human Resources and/or the Provost will issue a Notice of Outcome of Appeal to the Parties with the Appeals Panel’s finding. Certain employees may have additional appeal rights outside the Complaint Resolution Process.

Sub-Section E: Other Considerations

1. Maintenance of Records

After the Parties have fully accessed this Process, a matter will be considered closed. At the close of this Process, CRCS will maintain its investigative files, including but not limited to, the Final Investigative Report and any exhibits, interview transcripts or summaries (as applicable), the final written outcome, hearing recordings or transcripts, any appeal submission and any response, any Informal Resolution Agreements, and any Notice of Outcome of Appeal, for purposes of Title IX compliance and consistent with College record retention policies for at least seven (7) years. Some of this information may also be kept in an individual’s student conduct records or employee personnel file as appropriate and in accordance with the record retention policies or practices of the applicable department. All other documentation regarding the complaint will be destroyed after the close of this Process, including investigator notes and any interview recordings that were transcribed, unless otherwise required by court order, subpoena, or other legal process requiring retention of the documentation.

2. Exceptional Circumstances

In exceptional circumstances the College may modify procedural aspects of this Process that are not required by Title IX or its implementing regulations. The College will not use this provision to alter any procedural requirement imposed by Title IX or its implementing regulations.

---

⁶See the Complaint Resolution Process for more information about what constitutes “gathered information.”
⁷If this decision is made at the Pre-Hearing Conference, the chair will document the relevance determination in writing. If this decision is made at the Hearing, the chair will verbally state the reason for relevance determination on the record.
⁸The Director and/or the Chair may reschedule a hearing as needed, as technical issues arise.
⁹This provision is consistent with VRLC v. Cardona, which allows consideration of prior statements even if parties or witnesses do not submit to cross-examination at the live hearing.
¹⁰A reference to the Dean of Students includes the Dean of Students or their designee.
¹¹If any of these individuals are alleged to have a conflict of interest or bias, they will be recused from the Appeals Process.

The following processes, codes of conduct, and institutional guidelines act as companion frameworks to this Policy. When applicable, procedures from these documents are integrated or run concurrently with this Policy:

• Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Misconduct: The governing Policy that defines prohibited conduct, protected categories, and the rights and responsibilities of community members.
• Complaint Resolution Process: Details the procedures and investigative steps utilized by the College to resolve complaints of discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct outside the Title IX framework.

Smith reserves the right to make changes to this Policy as necessary, and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. This Policy is maintained, reviewed, and revised by CRCS. The most up-to-date version of this Policy that is currently in effect at the College can be found on the CRCS website. If government regulations change in a way that impacts this Policy, this Policy will be construed to comply with government regulations in their most updated form, based on the effective date of the regulations in question.¹²

---

¹²This Process and the referenced Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Misconduct and the Complaint Resolution Process, are effective as of September 8, 2026. For conduct that may have occurred before that date, please contact CRCS for the applicable policy and processes.