34 CFR 106.30: the definitions that decide scope.
Section 106.30 is the least exciting part of the regulation and the most useful. Nearly every dispositive respondent argument is a definitional one.
Three categories, and no more.
For Title IX purposes, sexual harassment means quid pro quo conduct by an employee; unwelcome conduct that a reasonable person would find so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies equal access to education; or sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking as defined in federal law. Conduct that is genuinely objectionable and falls outside all three is not Title IX sexual harassment - and where it falls outside, the rule requires dismissal of the Title IX complaint.
Report against formal complaint.
A formal complaint is a document filed by a complainant or signed by the Title IX coordinator alleging sexual harassment and requesting investigation. A report is information reaching the institution. The distinction matters because the grievance process attaches to a formal complaint, and asking in writing who signed one is a legitimate and frequently revealing question.
The supportive-measures definition is a constraint.
Supportive measures are defined as non-disciplinary, non-punitive individualised services designed to restore or preserve equal access without unreasonably burdening the other party. Each element is usable: a measure that punishes in effect, that is applied as a blanket practice rather than individually, or that imposes a substantial burden on the respondent falls outside the definition. Quoting it back, with the burden quantified, is the strongest challenge available to an interim measure.
What the rule does not define.
Consent. The Department expressly declined to define it, which leaves the applicable definition to state law or institutional policy. In New York that means Education Law section 6441 and its affirmative consent standard. Elsewhere it means the campus policy. Either way, the first question in a consent case is which definition is actually being applied - and whether the investigator has applied it correctly.
Why you should call us.
If you are scrolling through search results trying to find someone to defend you, your search is over. You have found Spodek Law Group P.C. - and we are not your average defense firm. We know a thing or two about defending the accused in campus cases - and in the criminal courts that run alongside them. Over 50 years of combined experience, some of the toughest cases in the country, and we have come out on top. We have seen it all, and we empathise with you. We understand how frightening this is, and we have a legal team who can fight and win.
Unlike other attorneys who care about their reputation with the administrators and the prosecutors, our only goal is getting you the best outcome. We owe loyalty to only you. Our lawyers listen to you, your fears, and your goals. We care about your story, and that is where the work begins - by understanding and listening to you.
On billing, we are transparent about our fees, and there are no surprises. Choosing a lawyer is a big deal and cost is a real issue, so we are committed to being your champion irrespective of your ability to pay. Our firm has a simple belief: lawyers should only take on clients whom they can truly help. Many firms are mills that take every case through the door. We do not.
Working with us starts with a risk-free consultation, in person or over the phone. You can ask us anything, for as long as it takes, and we encourage you to ask the tough questions. We are available 24/7, we practise coast to coast, and every client has direct access to a partner. Call 212 300 5196 - an attorney answers.
