In compliance with Title IX of the Higher Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), the Campus SaVE Act, and other applicable laws, the University prohibits sexual harassment and other forms of sexual misconduct in all Johns Hopkins University affiliated programs. All CTY participants are expected to comply with the conduct expectations set forth in Sections II and III of the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy.


Reporting: Any individual who wishes to make a report or file a formal complaint of sexual misconduct may contact CTY Equity Compliance Investigator Jordyne Blaise, the Site Director, or any other employee at CTY. Complaints may also be filed via the University’s Online Reporting System.
 

Reports of sexual misconduct may be filed anonymously, meaning that individual files the report without providing their name or other identifying information.  

 

Individuals are encouraged, but not required, to report any potential criminal conduct to law enforcement authorities and can receive assistance from CTY/University employees if requested.  

 

Responsible employees: All CTY employees are considered “responsible employees” and must therefore immediately report any sexual misconduct of which they become aware to the CTY Equity Compliance Investigator Jordyne Blaise or the University’s Title IX Coordinator consistent with the requirements set forth in Section IV of the University's Sexual Misconduct Policy.

 

Responding to reports: Upon receiving a report of sexual misconduct, Jordyne Blaise, the Title IX coordinator, or designee will promptly contact the Complainant[1] to discuss the report, supportive resources, and potential interim supportive measures. Then, in consultation with other University administrators, it will be determined whether the alleged conduct could constitute Title IX Sexual Harassment and be adjudicated pursuant to the following procedures or another University process. The Complainant will be notified accordingly.

 

Interim measures and supports:  Regardless of which University process applies, supportive resources and interim supportive measures are available as set forth in Section VII of the University's Sexual Misconduct Policy. Interim supportive measures may include connection with an academic counselor or staff psychologist, No Contact Orders between the involved parties. The interim removal of an accused individual from all CTY programming pending the completion of the adjudication process can also be a supportive measure, if University administrators determine that an immediate threat to the physical health or safety of any student or other individual arising from the allegations of sexual misconduct justifies removal.

 

Formal complaint and notice: If it is determined that this adjudication process for Title IX Sexual Harassment applies, The University’s Assistant Vice Provost/Title IX Coordinator or designee will meet with the Complainant to explain the rights afforded under this process and next steps. In order to initiate an investigation pursuant to the following adjudication procedures, a “Formal Complaint” must be submitted by the Complainant or signed by the University’s Assistant Vice Provost/Title IX Coordinator alleging sexual misconduct against the respondent and requesting an investigation. Until and unless the Decision-Maker (or Appellate Officer) issues a final determination of responsibility, the respondent is presumed to be not responsible.


Investigation: Once a formal complaint is received, an investigation will be conducted and an investigation report prepared pursuant to the process set forth in  Appendix G, Section E of the University's Sexual Misconduct Policy.  


Determination: The completed investigation report will be forwarded to the individual(s) who will serve as the Decision-Maker in these matters. The Decision-Maker will make the final decision as to whether the conduct alleged in the complaint constitutes a violation of CTY policy by applying a “preponderance of the evidence standard.”


After receipt of the investigative report and prior to the Decision-Maker reaching a decision, each party shall be permitted to submit to the Decision-Maker relevant questions to be asked of the other party and/or any witnesses, including those challenging the credibility of the party or witness. The Decision- Maker will review the questions for relevancy (as defined in Section F of Appendix G of the Sexual Misconduct Policy) and then direct relevant questions to the parties and/or witnesses. In cases where the Decision-Maker excludes a question as not relevant, The Decision-Maker will explain this decision. Once the Decision-Maker has completed questioning of parties and witnesses, the Decision-Maker will draft a final, written determination consistent with the requirements set forth in Sections G of Appendix G of the Sexual Misconduct Policy.


Sanctions: In cases where the Decision-Maker determines that a policy violation occurred, the Decision-Maker will issue a sanction in accordance with Section H of Appendix G to the Sexual Misconduct Policy.


Retaliation: Retaliation against a person because that person made a complaint or report of sexual misconduct or participated in any way in the investigation or resolution of such a complaint or report, or who exercises their rights or responsibilities under University policy, procedures or the law is strictly prohibited and ground for disciplinary consequences.


Appeals: The Decision-Maker’s final, written determination may be appealed pursuant to the process set forth in Section I of Appendix G of the Sexual Misconduct Policy.  Information about appeals will be included in the final, written determination described above.  


The University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy shall govern any portion of the adjudication process not specifically referenced above.


[1] In cases where the parties involved in a sexual misconduct matter are minors, their parents will be notified. Both parties are permitted to have a supporter present (who can be a parent, lawyer, advocate or other individual) at all meetings throughout the sexual misconduct adjudication process.