...

1. Seattle Pacific University (the “University”) is committed to maintaining an environment that is free from Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment. In addition, the University also prohibits Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking (together referred to in this grievance procedure as “VAWA Offenses”). 
2. This grievance procedure provides an opportunity for University employees, University students, and persons who apply to be employees or students at the University (“University Applicants”) to seek appropriate action in response to Discrimination , and Discriminatory Harassment , or VAWA Offenses committed by University employees, or Discrimination resulting from University policies, practices, or systems. The procedure is intended to provide a prompt, fair, and impartial process from the initial report to the final result. It is also intended to help the University identify and eliminate misconduct, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.
3. Although this grievance procedure is centered on unlawful Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment, the University may take any action it deems appropriate to address workplace-related conduct that is inappropriate, unprofessional, or otherwise in violation of University policy, regardless of whether the conduct meets the definition of Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment.  

...

1. This procedure applies to alleged incidents of Discrimination, and Discriminatory Harassment , or VAWA Offenses where the Respondent is an employee of the University; provided, however, that if a formal complaint alleging Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment, or a VAWA Offense would be within the scope of the University’s allegations fell under the jurisdiction of the Title IX Sexual Harassment Grievance Process (TSHGPand Related Conduct Policy (TIX+ Policy), then the TSHGP will be used to address the formal complaint and not this Discrimination and Harassment Grievance Procedure. Concerns TIX+ Policy will be implicated. Concerns about possible Discrimination, and Discriminatory Harassment , or VAWA Offenses where the Respondent is a student will be addressed using the TSHGP or the applicable policy in the Undergraduate Student Handbook or Graduate Student Handbook. This procedure can also be used to evaluate complaints of Discrimination that are allegedly attributable to SPU policies, practices, or systems, but are not tied to a single Respondent. In such cases, this procedure will be interpreted, modified, and applied as determined by the Process Facilitator in a manner intended to fulfill the objectives of this procedure, and such interpretations and modifications will be explained to the Complainant.
2. Any person may make a report about a concern that a University employee has engaged in Discrimination , and Discriminatory Harassment, or a VAWA Offense. However, only University Applicantsapplicants, University students, and University employees may initiate a formal process complaint under this grievance procedure. The University will investigate other reports as it deems appropriate, and may choose to use this grievance procedure for complaints filed by other individuals at the University's sole discretion, but is not required to follow processes described in this grievance procedure for any of the following types of complaints:
   
   1. A complaint by an individual who is not a University applicant, University student, or University employee;
   2. A complaint by an individual on behalf of another person;
   3. A complaint against a person who used to be but is no longer a University employee; or
   4. A complaint against a visitor, guest, vendor, or other person on campus who is not a University employee.
3. For purposes of this policy, a student employee will be treated as a student and not an employee, unless the Process Facilitator determines that there are compelling reasons for different treatment.
4. Off-campus conduct and electronic communications (including, without limitation, emails, website posts, and social media messages) may be considered when evaluating whether Discrimination , and Discriminatory Harassment , or a VAWA Offense has occurred, and SPU reserves the right to apply this Procedure when off-campus conduct or electronic communications impact SPU personnel or operations.
5. A formal complaint under this procedure must allege one or more specific factual incidents.  This policy This procedure is not intended to prohibit or limit the free exchange of ideas presented or debated in a respectful manner. 
6. Conduct can constitute Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment, or a VAWA Offense regardless of whether it occurs among people of the same or different genders.

Definitions

For purposes of this grievance procedure, the capitalized terms listed below have the meanings identified below:

1. Discrimination: The term “Discrimination” means unlawfully excluding a person from participation in, denying a person the benefits of, or otherwise subjecting a person to unlawful discrimination under any University education program or activity (including academic services, employment opportunities, and academic opportunities), in each case on the basis of one or more protected categories listed in the University’s Nondiscrimination Policy.
2. Discriminatory Harassment: The term “Discriminatory Harassment” means any unwelcome conduct that relates to one or more of the protected categories in the University’s Nondiscrimination Policy where (i) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or (ii) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work or academic environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) do not constitute Discriminatory Harassment. Discriminatory Harassment has both a subjective and an objective component, meaning that the Complainant subjectively found the conduct to be offensive or unwelcome, and a reasonable person in the same position as the Complainant would also (objectively) find the conduct to be offensive or unwelcome.
3. Sexual HarassmentComplainant: The term “Sexual Harassment” means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1) submission to the conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment or academic environment, (2) submission to or rejection of the conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment or academic decisions affecting the individual, or (3) the conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. Whether the conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or academic environment depends in part on the severity, persistence, and pervasiveness of the conduct.
   1. Examples of Sexual Harassment are:
      1. Making acceptance of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature a condition (expressed or implied) of the employee's continued employment or the student's academic matriculation, or
      2. Making submission to or rejection of that conduct the basis for employment decisions affecting the employee, or for academic, employment, or financial decisions affecting the student, or
      3. Stating or implying that a particular employee's advances in employment, or a particular student's grades, academic awards, financial aid, scholarships, or other assistance, evaluations, or recognition received from the University, have resulted from the granting of sexual favors or the establishment or continuance of a sexual relationship, or
      4. Creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working, academic, or living environment by that conduct or comments.
      5. Depending on the circumstances the following conduct may also constitute Sexual Harassment:
         1. Repeated, one-sided, romantic attention in the form of requests for dates, love letters, telephone calls, emails, or gifts, or 
         2. Graphic verbal or written comments (including emails or other electronic documents or social media posts) about an individual’s sex life or body, or
         3. Unwelcome physical contact such as pats, hugs, brushes, touches, shoulder rubs, or impeding or blocking movements.
4. VAWA Offenses: The term “VAWA Offenses” means Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, and Stalking.  
   

   1. Dating Violence: The term "Dating Violence" is violence committed by a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim. Dating Violence includes, but is not limited to, acts that constitute dating violence for purposes of Clery Act crime statistics (see the section title "Definitions of Reportable Crimes" in the University's Annual Security and Fire Safety Report).

   2. Domestic Violence: The term "Domestic Violence" means violence committed within a domestic relationship (e.g., between current or former spouses, or between cohabitants). Domestic Violence includes, but is not limited to, acts that constitute domestic violence under Washington state criminal law or for purposes of Clery Act crime statistics (see section titled "Definitions of Reportable Crimes" in the University's Annual Security and Fire Safety Report).

   3. Stalking: The term "Stalking" means engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to (a) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others, or (b) suffer substantial emotional distress. Stalking behavior can include: (i) persistent, unwanted communications to the victim by phone, email, and/or other social media; (ii) repeatedly sending the victim unwanted gifts; (iii) following or waiting for the victim at home, school, work, or elsewhere; and (iv) direct or indirect threat(s) by the stalker to harm herself or himself, the victim, or the victim’s friends and family, or to damage the victim’s property. Stalking includes, but is not limited to, acts that constitute stalking under Washington state law or for purposes of Clery Act (see the section titled "Definitions of Reportable Crimes" in the University's Annual Security and Fire Safety Report).
   4. Sexual Assault: The term "Sexual Assault" means an actual or attempted sexual contact with another person without that person's Consent. Sexual Assault includes, but is not limited to:
      1. Sexual intercourse without Consent;
      2. Intentional and unwelcome touching of a person's intimate parts (defined as genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast), or coercing, forcing, or attempting to coerce or force someone to touch another person’s intimate parts;
      3. Acts that constitute rape, rape of a child, or indecent liberties under Washington State law
      4. Acts that constitute sexual assault for the purposes of Clery Act crime statistics (see the section titled "Definitions of Reportable Crimes" in the University's Annual Security and Fire Safety Report); and
      5. Non-stranger rape (also known as "acquaintance rape," i.e., rape by a person known to the victim), statutory rape, or any other kind of rape.
5. Consent: The term "Consent" means freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in sexual activity, expressed by clear, unambiguous words or actions. It is the responsibility of the initiator of the sexual activity to ensure that she or he has the other person’s Consent to engage in sexual activity. Consent must be present throughout the sexual activity by all parties involved. At any time, a participant can communicate that she or he no longer Consents to continuing the activity. Consent may never be obtained through the use of force, coercion, or intimidation or if the victim is mentally or physically disabled or incapacitated, including through the use of drugs or alcohol. Individuals cannot assume Consent because of the existence of a previous dating or sexual relationship. The use of alcohol or drugs does not diminish a person’s responsibility to obtain Consent for sexual activity. (This definition of Consent is not meant to condone use of alcohol, use of drugs, or sexual activity that is in violation of other applicable University policies, but is included in order to define other terms in this procedure).
6. Complainant: The term "Complainant" means an individual who is alleged to be the victim of Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment or a VAWA Offense. Respondent: The term "Respondent" means an individual who is alleged to be responsible for Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment, or a VAWA Offense.

7. Respondent: means an individual who is alleged to be responsible for Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment, or a VAWA Offense.

8. Process Facilitator:  The “Process Facilitator” is a University official who is charged with overseeing and facilitating this grievance procedure. The Process Facilitator is assigned according to the allegations described in a report or Formal Complaint and the status of the Respondent.

   1. The Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator or designee will oversee allegations of Discriminatory Harassment and Discrimination that are based on sex or disability, as well as any allegation of a VAWA Offense.

   2. The Assistant Vice President for Human Resources or designee will oversee allegations of Discriminatory Harassment and Discrimination that are based on any protected characteristic other than sex or disability.

   3. The Process Facilitator may delegate certain of his or her responsibilities under this procedure to other University officials if the Process Facilitator determines that it is reasonable and consistent with the purposes of this procedure. The Process Facilitator has the authority to interpret any ambiguity in this procedure.

   4. If a Complainant makes allegations that would result in both the Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator and the AVP of Human Resources being the Process Facilitator, then the Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator (or designee) will be the Process Facilitator. The Process Facilitator may delegate certain of his or her responsibilities under this procedure to other University officials if the Process Facilitator determines that it is reasonable and consistent with the purposes of this procedure. The Process Facilitator has the authority to interpret any ambiguity in this procedure.

9. Decision Maker: The "Decision Maker" is the University official who is charged with determining whether it is more likely than not that the Respondent committed Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment, or a VAWA Offense as alleged in the Formal Complaint.

   1. If the Respondent is a faculty member, then the Decision Maker will be the Provost (or the Provost’s designee).

   2. If the Respondent is an employee that is not a faculty member, an Area Vice President, or the President, then the Decision Maker will be the Area Vice President that supervises the Respondent's area (or the Area Vice President’s designee). 

   3. If the Respondent is an Area Vice President, then the Decision Maker will be the President (or the President’s designee), and no appeal will be available to either party.

   4. If the Respondent is the President, then the Decision Maker will be the Chair of the Board of Trustees (or the Chair’s designee), and no appeal will be available to either party.

10. Area Vice President: The term “Area Vice President” means a vice president of the University with supervisory authority for a particular area. For purposes of this policy: (i) a vice provost will be considered an Area Vice President; and (ii) the Provost will be considered an Area Vice President for faculty members and other employees not supervised by any other Area Vice President.

11. Appeal Reviewer:  The "Appeal Reviewer" will be the President (or the President’s designee).

12. Business Day: The term “Business Day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or University holiday. For this purpose, “University holiday” means those holidays scheduled on the University’s master calendar when the University’s administrative offices are closed for business.

Timing

1. Complaints alleging Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment, or VAWA Offenses may be made at any time. However, the ability of the University to investigate and gather evidence may be constrained if a complaint is made a long time after an alleged incident.  Also, if a complaint is made more than three years after an alleged incident, the University reserves the right not to follow all of steps in this procedure if the Process Facilitator believes a different response would be more appropriate. Other time periods prescribed in this policy may be lengthened in a particular case by the Process Facilitator if they determine that there is adequate cause for allowing additional time and that an extension will not have a material negative effect on the purposes of this procedure; however, a request for an extension from a party that is received after the applicable deadline has passed generally will not be granted.
2. While the length of time necessary to address a complaint will vary depending on the circumstances, in general, the University will attempt to issue a decision within 75 Business Days of receiving a formal written complaint.   The Process Facilitator may permit temporary delays of grievance processes or the limited extension of time frames for good cause and with written notice to the Complainant and the Respondent (as applicable) for the delay or extension and the reasons for the action. 
3. If a particular stage of a procedure in this policy is required to be completed within a prescribed number of days, then the day that includes the event that starts the time period will not be counted, but the last day of the time period will be counted. Any action required by the end of any time period must be completed by 5 pm on the last day of the period.

Principles and Protections

1. Employment: Neither the existence of this procedure, nor filing a complaint or being named as a Respondent in a complaint, is a guarantee of ongoing employment. The University reserves the right to take any permitted employment action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to placing an employee on leave.
2. Safety: The University reserves the right to respond with whatever measures it deems appropriate to prevent misconduct and preserve the safety and well-being of its students, faculty, staff, and visitors.
3. Confidentiality:
   1. University officials will seek to protect (as reasonably possible in the circumstances) the privacy of Complainants and Respondents. However, the University cannot guarantee the anonymity of an individual making a report or a filing a formal complaint. The University may share information provided by a Complainant, Respondent, or others to comply with legal requirements, promote the safety of students and employees, carry out this procedure, or address operational or administrative needs of the University. The University will take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond consistent with any request for confidentiality by a Complainant, including when implementing any VAWA interim or supportive measures. If a Complainant requests that the University not take action due to confidentiality or similar concerns, the University will consider whether it should grant the request in light of the circumstances and other applicable policies, objectives, and obligations. 
   2. All persons who are involved in an alternative resolution process or formal complaint process under this procedure should respect the sensitive nature of the proceeding and follow any confidentiality instructions issued by the Process Facilitator or Decision Maker. This includes but is not limited to all Complainants, Respondents, witnesses, and investigators.
4. Retaliation:
   1. The University strictly prohibits retaliation against any person who files a complaint in good faith or otherwise participates in this procedure. This includes retaliation against anyone who makes a report or files a complaint about a violation of the University’s Nondiscrimination Policy or about a VAWA Offense; who expresses an intent to make a report or complaint; or who testifies as a witness or otherwise provides information as part of an investigation or proceeding. Retaliation can be any type of adverse or negative action taken toward a person who has filed a complaint or otherwise participated in an investigation or proceeding (however, an adverse action is not retaliatory if it was taken for some other justifiable reason). Examples of retaliation include intimidation, coercion, harassment, threats, acts of violence, acts intended to embarrass another person, unjustified demotion or reduction in pay, unjustified denial of a promotion, unjustified termination of employment, or any other action that is likely to dissuade a reasonable person from making a complaint in the future. Any employee who commits retaliation may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Any person who believes he or she has been retaliated against should contact one of the Response Team. The Process Facilitator, in their discretion, will either (a) arrange for an investigation into the alleged retaliation, after which the applicable Decision Maker will make a determination applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, or (b) coordinate with the Dean of Students for Community Life to have the alleged retaliation addressed through the Student Accountability Process (if the person accused of retaliation is a student).
5. No False Statements: The University recognizes that false statements can have serious effects. If, at the conclusion of an investigation, it is determined that a Complainant, Respondent, or witness knowingly gave false or misleading information, it may be recommended that the individual be subjected to disciplinary action which may include, but is not limited to, written warning, demotion, transfer, suspension, dismissal, expulsion, or termination. A determination regarding responsibility, alone, is not a sufficient basis on which to conclude that any party made a materially false statement. A formal complaint by a party is not required for the University to charge an individual with making a materially false statement. Charging an individual with a violation of University policy for knowingly making a false or misleading statement in the course of this proceeding does not constitute retaliation.
6. Legal Counsel: If a party engages legal counsel, the legal counsel may not participate in the University’s internal proceedings, except that legal counsel may serve as advisors for complaints alleging VAWA Offenses as described in this procedure. This procedure does not interfere with the right of an individual to seek legal counsel or representation at such party’s own expense. 
7. Interim and Supportive Measures: The Process Facilitator will discuss with the Complainant and the Respondent at an early stage options regarding interim and supportive measures. 
8. Conflict of Interest:
   1. The Process Overseer should determine if a Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer has a conflict of interest, in which case the Process Overseer may identify a different person to fulfill the assigned role. Conflicts of interest for this purpose are limited to situations where the Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer is the Respondent or is directly related (by blood, adoption, or marriage) to one of the parties, or where there are other circumstances present that make it likely that the Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer cannot be objective in the process (for example, where the Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer has an outside business or financial arrangement with one of the parties). Prior adverse decisions made by a Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer against one of the parties does not constitute a conflict of interest. 
   2. If the Process Facilitator believes a designee or investigator has a conflict of interest, the Process Facilitator will instruct the Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer (as applicable) to select another individual.
   3. If the Process Facilitator’s Area Vice President believes that the Process Facilitator has a conflict of interest, then such Area Vice President will designate a different Process Facilitator for the proceeding. 
9. Special Provisions for VAWA Offenses:
10. If a VAWA Offense is alleged, Complainants and Respondents may each have an advisor of their choosing as they go through the formal complaint process. The advisor's role is to provide support and to give advice. An advisor may accompany the party at the proceedings. This policy does not limit the choice of advisor or their presence for the Complainant or Respondent in any meeting or institutional proceedings. However, during a proceeding the advisor may only speak to the party he or she advises and may not interrupt or interfere with the process. If an advisor does not follow the restrictions in this paragraph, the advisor may be required to leave the proceeding (in which case the applicable party may select a different advisor). The restrictions on advisors apply equally to both parties.
If the University provides accommodations or protective measures for the Complainant, the University will seek to keep those accommodations and measures confidential to the extent reasonably possible and to the extent that confidentiality would not impair the ability of the institution to provide the accommodations or measures."Complainant" means an individual who is alleged to be the victim of Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment.
11. Respondent: The term "Respondent" means an individual who is alleged to be responsible for Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment.
12. Process Facilitator:  The “Process Facilitator” is a University official who is charged with overseeing and facilitating this grievance procedure. The Process Facilitator is assigned according to the allegations described in a report or Formal Complaint and the status of the Respondent.

    1. The Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator or designee will oversee allegations of Discriminatory Harassment and Discrimination that are based on sex or disability.

    2. The Assistant Vice President for Human Resources or designee will oversee allegations of Discriminatory Harassment and Discrimination that are based on any protected characteristic other than sex or disability.

    3. The Process Facilitator may delegate certain of his or her responsibilities under this procedure to other University officials if the Process Facilitator determines that it is reasonable and consistent with the purposes of this procedure. The Process Facilitator has the authority to interpret any ambiguity in this procedure.

    4. If a Complainant makes allegations that would result in both the Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator and the AVP of Human Resources being the Process Facilitator, then the Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator (or designee) will be the Process Facilitator. The Process Facilitator may delegate certain of his or her responsibilities under this procedure to other University officials if the Process Facilitator determines that it is reasonable and consistent with the purposes of this procedure. The Process Facilitator has the authority to interpret any ambiguity in this procedure.

13. Decision Maker: The "Decision Maker" is the University official who is charged with determining whether it is more likely than not that the Respondent committed Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment as alleged in the Formal Complaint.

    1. If the Respondent is a faculty member, then the Decision Maker will be the Provost (or the Provost’s designee).

    2. If the Respondent is an employee that is not a faculty member, an Area Vice President, or the President, then the Decision Maker will be the Area Vice President that supervises the Respondent's area (or the Area Vice President’s designee). 

    3. If the Respondent is an Area Vice President, then the Decision Maker will be the President (or the President’s designee), and no appeal will be available to either party.

    4. If the Respondent is the President, then the Decision Maker will be the Chair of the Board of Trustees (or the Chair’s designee), and no appeal will be available to either party.

14. Area Vice President: The term “Area Vice President” means a vice president of the University with supervisory authority for a particular area. For purposes of this policy: (i) a vice provost will be considered an Area Vice President; and (ii) the Provost will be considered an Area Vice President for faculty members and other employees not supervised by any other Area Vice President.

15. Appeal Reviewer:  The "Appeal Reviewer" will be the President (or the President’s designee).

16. Business Day: The term “Business Day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or University holiday. For this purpose, “University holiday” means those holidays scheduled on the University’s master calendar when the University’s administrative offices are closed for business.

Timing

1. Complaints alleging Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment may be made at any time. However, the ability of the University to investigate and gather evidence may be constrained if a complaint is made a long time after an alleged incident.  Also, if a complaint is made more than three years after an alleged incident, the University reserves the right not to follow all of steps in this procedure if the Process Facilitator believes a different response would be more appropriate. Other time periods prescribed in this policy may be lengthened in a particular case by the Process Facilitator if they determine that there is adequate cause for allowing additional time and that an extension will not have a material negative effect on the purposes of this procedure; however, a request for an extension from a party that is received after the applicable deadline has passed generally will not be granted.
2. While the length of time necessary to address a complaint will vary depending on the circumstances, in general, the University will attempt to issue a decision within 75 Business Days of receiving a formal written complaint.   The Process Facilitator may permit temporary delays of grievance processes or the limited extension of time frames for good cause and with written notice to the Complainant and the Respondent (as applicable) for the delay or extension and the reasons for the action. 
3. If a particular stage of a procedure in this policy is required to be completed within a prescribed number of days, then the day that includes the event that starts the time period will not be counted, but the last day of the time period will be counted. Any action required by the end of any time period must be completed by 5 pm on the last day of the period.

Principles and Protections

1. Employment: Neither the existence of this procedure, nor filing a complaint or being named as a Respondent in a complaint, is a guarantee of ongoing employment. The University reserves the right to take any permitted employment action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to placing an employee on leave.
2. Safety: The University reserves the right to respond with whatever measures it deems appropriate to prevent misconduct and preserve the safety and well-being of its students, faculty, staff, and visitors.
3. Confidentiality:
   1. University officials will seek to protect (as reasonably possible in the circumstances) the privacy of Complainants and Respondents. However, the University cannot guarantee the anonymity of an individual making a report or a filing a formal complaint. The University may share information provided by a Complainant, Respondent, or others to comply with legal requirements, promote the safety of students and employees, carry out this procedure, or address operational or administrative needs of the University. The University will take all reasonable steps to investigate and respond consistent with any request for confidentiality by a Complainant, including when implementing any interim or supportive measures. If a Complainant requests that the University not take action due to confidentiality or similar concerns, the University will consider whether it should grant the request in light of the circumstances and other applicable policies, objectives, and obligations. 
   2. All persons who are involved in an alternative resolution process or formal complaint process under this procedure should respect the sensitive nature of the proceeding and follow any confidentiality instructions issued by the Process Facilitator or Decision Maker. This includes but is not limited to all Complainants, Respondents, witnesses, and investigators.
4. Retaliation:
   1. The University strictly prohibits retaliation against any person who files a complaint in good faith or otherwise participates in this procedure. This includes retaliation against anyone who makes a report or files a complaint about a violation of the University’s Nondiscrimination Policy; who expresses an intent to make a report or complaint; or who testifies as a witness or otherwise provides information as part of an investigation or proceeding. Retaliation can be any type of adverse or negative action taken toward a person who has filed a complaint or otherwise participated in an investigation or proceeding (however, an adverse action is not retaliatory if it was taken for some other justifiable reason). Examples of retaliation include intimidation, coercion, harassment, threats, acts of violence, acts intended to embarrass another person, unjustified demotion or reduction in pay, unjustified denial of a promotion, unjustified termination of employment, or any other action that is likely to dissuade a reasonable person from making a complaint in the future. Any employee who commits retaliation may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Any person who believes he or she has been retaliated against should contact one of the Response Team. The Process Facilitator, in their discretion, will either (a) arrange for an investigation into the alleged retaliation, after which the applicable Decision Maker will make a determination applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, or (b) coordinate with the Dean of Students for Community Life to have the alleged retaliation addressed through the Student Accountability Process (if the person accused of retaliation is a student).
5. No False Statements: The University recognizes that false statements can have serious effects. If, at the conclusion of an investigation, it is determined that a Complainant, Respondent, or witness knowingly gave false or misleading information, it may be recommended that the individual be subjected to disciplinary action which may include, but is not limited to, written warning, demotion, transfer, suspension, dismissal, expulsion, or termination. A determination regarding responsibility, alone, is not a sufficient basis on which to conclude that any party made a materially false statement. A formal complaint by a party is not required for the University to charge an individual with making a materially false statement. Charging an individual with a violation of University policy for knowingly making a false or misleading statement in the course of this proceeding does not constitute retaliation.
6. Legal Counsel: If a party engages legal counsel, the legal counsel may not participate in the University’s internal proceedings. This procedure does not interfere with the right of an individual to seek legal counsel or representation at such party’s own expense. 
7. Interim and Supportive Measures: The Process Facilitator will discuss with the Complainant and the Respondent at an early stage options regarding interim and supportive measures. 
8. Conflict of Interest:
   1. The Process Overseer should determine if a Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer has a conflict of interest, in which case the Process Overseer may identify a different person to fulfill the assigned role. Conflicts of interest for this purpose are limited to situations where the Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer is the Respondent or is directly related (by blood, adoption, or marriage) to one of the parties, or where there are other circumstances present that make it likely that the Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer cannot be objective in the process (for example, where the Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer has an outside business or financial arrangement with one of the parties). Prior adverse decisions made by a Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer against one of the parties does not constitute a conflict of interest. 
   2. If the Process Facilitator believes a designee or investigator has a conflict of interest, the Process Facilitator will instruct the Decision Maker or Appeal Reviewer (as applicable) to select another individual.
   3. If the Process Facilitator’s Area Vice President believes that the Process Facilitator has a conflict of interest, then such Area Vice President will designate a different Process Facilitator for the proceeding. 
9. Gathering Information:  The burden is on the University to gather information necessary in order to make a determination under this procedure.

...

1. Concerns of Discrimination , or Discriminatory Harassment or VAWA Offense may be submitted to members of the Response Team or appropriate Process Facilitator in person, by phone, email or through the online Report a Concern form. Upon initial evaluation of the report submitted, members of the Response Team or Process Facilitator will reach out to the affected individual(s) to discuss any applicable policies and procedures, confidentiality and its limitations, and available resources and support. If necessary, the Response Team may refer the affected individual(s) to the office most capable of responding to the issue. If more information is needed, the affected individual may be contacted with an invitation to schedule an intake interview. 

...

1. During an intake, the interviewer will gather enough facts to determine whether the allegation, if true, would support a finding that Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment, or a VAWA Offense Harassment has been committed.  If so, the Complainant may be offered supportive measures, and options for resolution, including how to file a Formal Complaint.
2. The interviewer will gather sufficient facts to determine whether the allegation would prompt an evaluation of the University’s reporting obligations (e.g., Clery Act, Washington state Mandatory Reporter laws, NSF notification requirements) and, if so, the necessary information will be forwarded to the appropriate reporting official.
3. When proceeding under this Discrimination and Harassment Grievance Procedure, the appropriate Process Facilitator will be assigned to oversee and coordinate compliance with the procedural protections outlined above.

...

1. Allegations may be dismissed during the evaluation stage or after the filing of a Formal Complaint. As appropriate, in the evaluation stage, the Process Facilitator will assist the Complainant in understanding the information required to file a Formal Complaint and proceed to investigation. This will include explaining the investigation procedures and the rights of the parties. When an allegation is dismissed during the evaluation stage, the The Process Facilitator will issue a letter to the Complainant within 10 Business Days, explaining the reason for the decision. When a complaint allegation is dismissed after a Formal Complaint has been filed, the Process Facilitator will issue a letter to the Complainant and Respondent within 10 Business Days explaining the reason for the decisioncoordinate appropriate assistance to Complainants who are persons with disabilities, individuals of limited English proficiency, or persons whose communication skills are otherwise limited.
2. The Process Facilitator will dismiss an allegation, or, if appropriate, the Formal Complaint in its entirety, when one or more of for the following applyreasons:
   1. The allegation, on its face or as clarified, fails to state Discrimination , or Discriminatory Harassment, or a VAWA Offense.
   2. The allegation, on its face or as clarified, lacks sufficient factual detail (e.g., who, what, where, when, how) , or is so speculative, conclusory or incoherent that for the Process Facilitator cannot to infer that Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment , or a VAWA Offense may have occurred or may be occurring.
   3. Before dismissing an allegationThe Process Facilitator cannot reasonably conclude that the Respondent committed Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment based on the facts/information provided by the Complainant or publicly available information.
   4. The Process Facilitator determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the allegation. Where appropriate, the Process Facilitator will contact refer the Complainant in writing to: (i) explain the information necessary for SPU to initiate an investigation of the allegation; (ii) request that the information be received within 14 calendar days of the date of the written request; and (iii) advise the Complainant that the allegation will be dismissed if the information is not received by that date. The Process Facilitator will dismiss the allegation if the requested information is not received within 14 calendar days of the date of the written request unless the complainant has requested additional time to provide the information.
   5. The Process Facilitator cannot reasonably conclude that the Respondent committed Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment, or a VAWA Offense based on the facts/information provided by the Complainant or publicly available information.
   6. The Process Facilitator determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the allegation.
   7. A Complainant notifies the Process Facilitator in writing that the Complainant would like to withdraw the Formal Complaint or any allegations therein.
   8. The Respondent is no longer employed by the University.
   9. Specific circumstances prevent the University from gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination as to the Formal Complaint or allegations therein.
   A dismissal under this procedure does not preclude action under another University policy or procedure. A Formal Complaint that is dismissed may be referred to a separate grievance procedure for further investigation or action. In such a case, the Process Facilitator may transfer all communications and information gathered to any other Process Facilitator who will be handling the referred Formal Complaint
   1. allegations to the office who can best address the issue.
   2. The Process Facilitator determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the entity alleged to have discriminated (i.e., the Respondent is no longer an employee of the University).
   3. A Complainant notifies the Process Facilitator in writing that the Complainant would like to withdraw the Formal Complaint or any allegations therein.
   4. Specific circumstances prevent the University from gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination as to the Formal Complaint or allegations therein.
3. A dismissal under this procedure does not preclude action under another University policy or procedure. A Formal Complaint that is dismissed may be referred to a separate grievance procedure for further investigation or action. In such a case, the Process Facilitator may transfer all communications and information gathered to any other Process Facilitator who will be handling the referred Formal Complaint.
4. Before dismissing an allegation(s) the Process Facilitator will contact the Complainant to provide appropriate assistance by explaining by phone, letter, or e-mail the information necessary for the Process Facilitator to initiate an investigation of the allegation(s), ask the Complainant to provide this information to the Process Facilitator within 20 calendar days of the date of the request, and advise the Complainant that the Process Facilitator will dismiss the allegation(s) if the information is not received by that date. The Process Facilitator will dismiss the allegation(s) if the requested information is not received within 20 calendar days of the date of the request.
   When the Process Facilitator dismisses an allegation(s), they will issue a dismissal letter to the Complainant explaining the reason(s) for the dismissal.

Formal Process

Filing a Formal Complaint

...

1. The Process Facilitator may appoint one or more investigators to assist with the investigating the Complaint. An investigator may be a University employee, or a third party engaged by the University to investigate the Complaint. Investigations may include personal interviews, research, and review of relevant evidence. The investigation will be impartial and as thorough as appropriate under the circumstances, as determined by the investigator based on factors such as the nature and seriousness of the allegations, availability of witnesses and other evidence, schedules, and available resources. The university retains the right to record investigative interviews.
2. Both the Complainant and the Respondent are entitled to an equal opportunity to present relevant witnesses and other evidence, to have others present during any institutional disciplinary proceeding (in the case of a VAWA Offense), and to receive periodic status updates. The results of any polygraph or similar test will not be allowed as evidence from either party in the formal complaint process.
3. If the Complainant or Respondent believes that someone should be interviewed as part of the investigation, then the Complainant or Respondent should provide the Process Facilitator and the appointed Investigator the name and contact information for that individual. However, the Investigator may determine it is not necessary to interview all persons identified by the Complainant or Respondent.
4. Each person interviewed shall have the opportunity to review the summary notes prepared by the investigator for the interview
5. The investigators shall prepare a written report of the facts, which includes:
   1. A list of witnesses interviewed.
   2. A list of witnesses suggested by the Complainant or Respondent whom the investigator declined to interview.
   3. list of individuals the investigator requested to interview but who declined to be interviewed.
   4. Summaries of relevant portions of witness interviews.
   5. Specific fact-finding for each element of each allegation.
6. At the discretion of the Decision Maker, the Complainant and Respondent may be provided with a copy of the report or other written materials prepared by investigators and given an opportunity to respond.

...

1. After receiving the, the Decision Maker will make a determination as to whether the facts gathered would support a finding that university policy was violated by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., whether a finding is more likely than not). The Decision Maker will consider each act of alleged misconduct and will also look at the totality of the conduct when making a decision..
2. If the Respondent is a faculty member, and the Decision Maker is considering dismissal of the faculty member for cause, then the process by which the Decision Maker makes a determination regarding the complaint will include the procedure described in Section 11.6.4 of the Faculty Employment Handbook.
3. The Decision Maker may adopt some, all, or none of any recommended findings from any appointed investigators. The Decision Maker may also require additional investigation before reaching a determination. 
4. The Decision Maker may, at their sole discretion, ask to meet with the Complainant and Respondent prior to making a determination, so long as each party is given the same opportunity (if any) to meet with the Decision Maker and the meetings are held separately.
5. In cases of alleged sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, or VAWA Offenses, the Title IX Coordinator will be consulted and will be promptly notified of the decision.
6. When appropriate, corrective action will be taken up to and including termination of employment. The goal of sanctions in a Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment complaint proceeding is to end the Discrimination or Harassment (as applicable), prevent its recurrence, and remedy the harm, and sanctions should be crafted with the aim of achieving those goals.  The type and degree of any corrective action will depend on the circumstances of each situation. Conduct history may be considered. Failure to fulfill the terms of corrective action may result in additional and more severe corrective action, including termination of employment. The types of corrective action that may be implemented include, but are not limited to:
   1. a warning
   2. a written reprimand
   3. disciplinary probation
   4. unpaid leave
   5. attending counseling
   6. paying restitution or fines
   7. performing community service
   8. being excluded from areas on campus
   9. being restrained from contact with specific individuals or organizations
   10. participation in an educational activity
   11. reduction in pay
   12. loss or deferral of opportunity for promotion or increase in pay; and/or
   13. termination of employment.

...

1. Parties to a formal complaint under this procedure may be able to voluntarily pursue an Alternative Resolution to address the situation.An Alternative Resolution can this procedure may be able to voluntarily pursue an Alternative Resolution to address the situation. Alternative resolution is a voluntary and remedies-based resolution option.
2. Potential remedies may include the implementation or continuation of supportive measures, targeted or broad-based educational programming or training, supported direct conversation or interaction with the Respondent, and/or indirect action by the Title IX Coordinator. An Alternative Resolution may also include mediation, negotiation, or other approaches necessary to reach a mutual agreement. Such an agreement might include a no-contact directive, an agreement that any work-related conversations will occur only in the presence of a neutral party, changing work schedules, or any other agreement that provides relief to the Complainant.Depending on the form of Alternative Resolution, agreements may involve disciplinary action against a Respondent. Disciplinary action will only be imposed against a Respondent where there is a sufficient factual foundation and both the Complainant and the Respondent have agreed to forego the Formal Resolution procedures set forth in this Policy and accept an agreed upon sanction. 
3. A Complainant can seek an Alternative Resolution by notifying the Process Facilitator of their interest. The Process Facilitator, in consultation with the Decision Maker, will determine if an Alternative Resolution process is appropriate for the situation, and will determine the appropriate structure and timeline for that process. In deciding as to whether the Alternative Resolution is appropriate, the Process Facilitator will consider factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
   1. The outcome of an individualized safety and risk analysis of the Respondent relating to sexual misconduct, physical violence, failure to comply with a No Contact Directive (NCD) or a Civil No Contact Order (CNCO), and/or other relevant conduct.
   2. The nature of the alleged conduct, whether allegations involve multiple victims and/or a pattern of conduct, or other evidence-informed factors indicative of increased risk to campus safety.
4. At any point during the Alternative Resolution process, up until the signing of an Alternative Resolution Agreement, the parties, the Process Facilitator, or the Decision Maker may terminate the Alternative Resolution process. In that case, the Formal Complaint will revert to the Formal Investigation and Adjudication process.