Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Sweeping Changes Proposed for Federal Title IX Legislation

Client Alert
June 24, 2022

June 23, 2022, marked the 50th anniversary of Title IX — the federal civil rights legislation enacted to protect students from sex-based discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. The anniversary was further marked by an announcement from the Biden administration of its intent to overhaul the landmark law, in part, by reinstating certain provisions removed, or otherwise modified, by the former administration.

In conjunction with the Department of Education, President Biden announced the proposed amendments to Title IX would have the impact of advancing “educational equity and opportunity”[1] for students across the country including, without limitation, those in the LGBTQIA+ community.  Specifically, the revised regulations are anticipated to clarify Title IX’s text to extend protections to students on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics and, moreover, extend protection to both students and employees who are pregnant and/or have pregnancy-related condition(s).

The proposed amendments would also require schools to respond promptly to all complaints of sex discrimination with a fair and reliable process that includes trained, unbiased Title IX coordinators, investigators, and decisionmakers to evaluate the evidence. Notably, the proposals would effectively remove the requirement that schools wait for a formal complaint prior to acting — thereby allowing schools to investigate and sanction sexual misconduct complaints more promptly. The proposals also allow informal resolution of an incident without the submission of a formal complaint (a formal complaint is a prerequisite under the current regulations).

Moreover, following investigation, decisionmakers may soon be subject to a revised, heightened threshold for standard of proof based on the evidence — the clear and convincing evidence standard, meaning that the evidence presented must be “highly” and substantially more probable to be true rather than untrue — depending on what standard the school uses in other comparable proceedings.

In addition to the above, the proposed regulations are generally intended to strengthen protections from retaliation for those who exercise Title IX rights, require schools to engage in and/or offer supportive measures to parties involved in Title IX actions, and improve the adaptability of the Title IX framework to be applied fully and fairly in all educational environments.

The proposed regulations also revert the definition of sexual harassment back to “unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by denying or limiting a person’s ability to participate in a school’s education program or activity. This would impose significant changes to the current rule, which only prohibits unwelcome sex-based misconduct if it is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.”

Practically speaking, the proposed regulations no longer require live hearings for Title IX investigations. This is a significant change from the August 2020 regulations, which directed higher education institutions to conduct live hearings with cross-examination following the investigation. Under the August 2020 regulations, a decisionmaker was prohibited from considering any statements of parties or witnesses that were not subject to cross-examination, and therefore not tested for credibility. Ultimately, the proposed regulations, by way of eliminating the live hearing requirement, could allow decisionmakers to consider more comprehensive evidence.

To the extent a live hearing is held, the proposed regulations also require higher education institutions to allow students who participate in the live hearing to do so remotely, if they so choose.

The proposed amendments will undergo a period of public comment for the next 60 days. The Education Department will then address each point in writing before the regulations can be finalized.

[1] See U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, “The U.S. Department of Education Releases Proposed Changes to Title IX Regulations, Invites Public Comment,” published June 23, 2022.

For additional information about the revised regulations, or how they may impact your institution, please reach out to one of Brennan, Manna & Diamond’s trained Title IX investigators and advisors, Monica Andress at mbandress@bmdllc.com, Krista Warren at kdwarren@bmdllc.com, Bryan Meek at bmeek@bmdllc.com, or Matt Duncan at mrduncan@bmdllc.com.

Monica Andresskrista warrenCivil RightsTitle IXLegislationBrennan Manna Diamond
Client Alert

New York, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Delaware Become the latest States to Adopt Full Practice Authority for Nurse Practitioners

May 19, 2022While the COVID-19 pandemic certainly created many obstacles and hardships, it also created many opportunities to try doing things differently. This can be seen in the instant rise of remote work opportunities, telehealth visits, and virtual meetings. Many States took the challenges of the pandemic and turned them into an opportunity to adjust the regulations governing licensed professionals, including for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs).Client Alert, Blog Post

Explosive Growth in Pot of Gold Opportunity for Bank (and Other) Cannabis Lenders Driving Erosion of the Barriers

May 13, 2022Our original article on bank lending to the cannabis industry anticipated that the convergence of interest between banks and the cannabis industry would draw more and larger banks to the industry. Banks were awash in liquidity with limited deployment options, while bankable cannabis businesses had rapidly growing needs for more and lower cost credit. Since then, the pot of gold opportunity for banks to lend into the cannabis industry has grown exponentially due to a combination of market constraints on equity causing a dramatic shift to debt and the ever-increasing capital needs of one of the country’s fastest growing industries. At the same time, hurdles to entry of new banks are being systematically cleared as the yellow brick road to the cannabis industry’s access to the financial markets is being paved, brick by brick, by the progressively increasing number and size of banks that are now entering the market.Client Alert

2021 EEOC Charge Statistics: Retaliation & Impact of Remote Work

May 11, 2022The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its detailed information on workplace discrimination charges it received in 2021. Unsurprisingly, for the second year in a row, the total number of charges decreased as COVID-19 either shut down workplaces or disconnected employees from each other. In 2021, the agency received a total of approximately 61,000 workplace discrimination charges - the fewest in 25 years by a wide margin. For reference, the agency received over 67,000 charges in 2020, and averaged almost 90,000 charges per year over the previous 10 years.Client Alert

Ohio’s Managed Care Overhaul Delayed – New Implementation Timeline

May 4, 2022At the direction of Governor Mike DeWine, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) launched the Medicaid Managed Care Procurement process in 2019. ODM’s stated vision for the procurement was to focus on people and not just the business of managed care. This is the first structural change to Ohio’s managed care system since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) approval of Ohio’s Medicaid program in 2005. Initially, all of the new managed care programs were supposed to be implemented starting on July 1, 2022. However, ODM Director Maureen Corcoran recently confirmed that this date will be pushed back for several managed care-related programs.Client Alert

Laboratory Specimen Collection Arrangements with Contract Hospitals - OIG Advisory Opinion 22-09

May 3, 2022On April 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published an Advisory Opinion[1] in which it evaluated a proposed arrangement where a network of clinical laboratories (the “Requestor”) would compensate hospitals (each a “Contract Hospital”) for specimen collection, processing, and handling services (“Collection Services”) for laboratory tests furnished by the Requestor (the “Proposed Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present. This is due to both the possibility that the proposed per-patient-encounter fee would be used to induce or reward referrals to Requestor and the associated risk of improperly steering patients to Requestor.
Older posts
Newer posts