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

Will Federal Legislation Open Cannabis Acquisition Floodgate?

February 18, 2021Are potential buyers quietly lobbying at federal and state levels to kick open the door to launch a new round of strategic acquisitions? Will presently pending federal legislation, the SAFE and MORE Acts, providing safe harbor for banks and re- or de-scheduling marijuana, be sufficient to mobilize into action major non-cannabis companies that previously shunned the cannabis industry due to the unknown implications of owning businesses whose activities are illegal under federal law?Client Alert

The Future of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

February 3, 2021Over the last year we all have had to adjust to the new normal ushered in by the coronavirus pandemic. Schools and daycares closed, businesses transitioned from in-office work to work from home, bars and restaurants have closed their doors...all to slow the spread and try to prevent this pandemic from spiraling out of control. The start of the pandemic was utter pandemonium. Working parents trying to balance both caring for their now at-home children and their livelihood. Businesses trying to decide how to implement leave policies with limited information. Employees determining if they could financially afford to take time off. We were all flying by the seat of our pants trying to adjust to our new normal.Client Alert

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Medical Statute of Limitations

February 1, 2021The Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in late December that clarifies and finalizes the Ohio law regarding the period of time in which patients can assert claims for medical malpractice. The Court was examining the interplay between three different statutes being the statute of limitations, the statute of repose, and the savings statute.Client Alert

Ohio Hospitals and Healthcare Clinics: It’s Time to Revisit Your Billing and Collection Practices

February 1, 2021According to a recent Cuyahoga County case, certain healthcare entities may not be protected from liability when engaging in unfair or deceptive billing acts. This decision is consistent with the growing trend across the country to encourage price transparency and eliminate unfair surprise billing practices by health care organizations. Now is the time for hospitals and other health care organizations to revisit their billing and collection policies and procedures to confirm that they are legally defensible and consistent with best practices.Client Alert

HIPAA Business Associate Agreements: Why These Contracts Matter

January 27, 2021No one loves drafting, reading or negotiating HIPAA Business Associate Agreements (BAAs). Yet many of us need to do so, and some of us do so daily. They are often boring, dense and technical, but BAAs are important from both a legal and a business perspective, and they deserve our attention. Failure to enter a BAA when one is required can constitute a HIPAA violation that results in substantial liability, as demonstrated by certain recent Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) settlements.1 A business associate who makes a disclosure that is not authorized by the applicable BAA or required by law can be subject to civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties. Further, parties are often presented with BAAs that contain onerous one-sided indemnification and other provisions that can be devasting to an organization in the event of a HIPAA breach. The significance of a BAA is often not fully understood by the parties until something goes wrong (e.g., a HIPAA security incident or breach, an Office of Civil Rights (OCR) audit or a fracture in the relationship between the parties) and, at that point, there is limited opportunity to mitigate legal and business risk. Ideally, attention should be given at the commencement of the business associate relationship, when the parties are able, to thoughtfully addressing regulatory requirements, planning and preparing for potential adverse events and appropriately allocating risk among the parties. As with most healthcare regulatory compliance initiatives, a proactive approach with respect to BAAs is preferable. This article provides a broad overview of certain BAA requirements and some practical negotiating tips for the parties involved.
Older posts
Newer posts