I. General Provisions
These procedures are applicable to all complaints pending or filed on or after August 25, 2025. These procedures generally apply to all allegations of potential violations of the University of Connecticut’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Related Interpersonal Violence (“Policy”), where the responding party is a University of Connecticut employee or third party. For allegations of sexual harassment, as defined in the Title IX regulations (34 C.F.R. §106), the University will follow the Title IX Sexual Harassment Grievance Procedures.
The University of Connecticut will treat complainants and respondents equitably throughout the process.
The University of Connecticut requires that any Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or decisionmaker not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent. The University may outsource the processing of some or all of these complaint procedures at its discretion.
Parties involved in the following grievance process may be accompanied by one advisor of their choice (which may be a union representative or attorney) to any meeting or proceeding. The University will not assign an advisor for the purpose of these proceedings. If a party chooses to have an advisor, the party should provide the investigator assigned to their matter with the advisor’s contact information for the purpose of scheduling. The advisor’s role may include acting as a support person for their party, assisting the party in navigating the process, and helping the party formulate questions for the hearing. The advisor may not participate in lieu of the party in any capacity.
An allegation that an individual or individuals violated the Policy does not constitute an assumption that the behaviors occurred as alleged or that a policy violation occurred. Determinations of responsibility are only made at the conclusion of the process described in these procedures.
The University may implement supportive measures, including no contact directives, consistent with the Policy. Supportive measures are available to both parties, non-punitive, and put in place to restore or preserve a person’s access to the University’s employment or education program or activity or provide support during these grievance procedures. Any party impacted by the supportive measure implementation or denial may appeal the decision by emailing equity@uconn.edu . The appeal should clearly state why the party believes the measure is deficient and may include a recommended alternative measure. The appeal will be reviewed by the University’s Title VI Coordinator, Title IX Coordinator, or their designee. Any impacted parties will be notified of the outcome in writing within ten (10) business days of receipt of the appeal.
The University will make appropriate arrangements to ensure that individuals with disabilities and individuals with limited English proficiency are provided auxiliary aids and services or language assistance services, respectively, if needed to participate in this complaint process. Such
arrangements may include, but are not limited to, providing qualified interpreters, or assuring a barrier-free location for the proceedings.
The University of Connecticut will take reasonable steps to protect the privacy of the parties and witnesses during its grievance procedures. These steps will not restrict the ability of the parties to obtain and present evidence, including by speaking to witnesses; consult with their family members, confidential resources, or advisors; or otherwise prepare for or participate in the grievance procedures. The parties cannot engage in retaliation, including against witnesses.
While this process is private, it is not confidential. The University may provide the notice of outcome or other information pertaining to matters addressed under these procedures to individuals or offices with a need to know the information.
If there is a determination that a violation of the Policy occurred, the University may impose appropriate disciplinary sanctions, up to, and including, separation from the institution. The University may also provide remedies to restore access to the University’s employment or education program or activity.
II. Timeline
The University is committed to the prompt and thorough resolution of complaints under the Policy. As such, the University aims to issue a discretionary dismissal under Section VI or determination under Section X within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complaint.
These procedures allow for reasonable extensions of timeframes on a case-by-case basis for good cause, which includes but is not limited to: investigations where additional time is necessary to ensure the integrity and completeness of the investigation; to comply with a request by law enforcement for temporary delay to gather evidence for a criminal investigation; to accommodate the availability of parties and/or witnesses; to account for University breaks or vacations; to account for complexities of a case, including the number of witnesses and volume of information provided by the parties; or for other legitimate reasons.
III. Standard of Evidence
All determinations will be based on the preponderance of evidence standard, meaning the evidence must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the incident occurred as alleged. Decisionmaker(s) must evaluate relevant and not otherwise impermissible evidence for its persuasiveness. If the decisionmaker(s) is not persuaded by the evidence that a violation of the Policy occurred, whatever the quantity of the evidence is, the decisionmaker(s) will not determine that a violation occurred.
IV. Review of Evidence
Relevant evidence is evidence that has some value or tendency to prove a matter of fact significant to the case. Relevant evidence may pertain to a party or witness’s credibility.
Parties will be provided with equitable opportunities to present evidence during the grievance process. Additionally, the University will take reasonable steps to obtain relevant evidence which may not be in the parties’ control. The decision-maker will objectively evaluate all evidence that is relevant and not otherwise impermissible, including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.[1] Credibility determinations will not be based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness.
The following types of evidence, and questions seeking that evidence, are impermissible (i.e., will not be accessed or considered by the University in connection with its investigation, except as may be
necessary to determine whether one of the exceptions listed below applies; will not be disclosed; and will not otherwise be used), regardless of whether they are relevant:
- Evidence that is protected under a privilege recognized by Federal or State law or evidence provided to a confidential employee, unless the person to whom the privilege or confidentiality is owed has voluntarily waived the privilege or confidentiality;
- A party’s or witness’s records that are made or maintained by a physician, psychologist, or other recognized professional or paraprofessional in connection with the provision of treatment to the party or witness, unless the University obtains that party’s or witness’s voluntary, written consent for use in its grievance procedures; and
- Evidence that relates to the complainant’s sexual interests or prior sexual conduct, unless evidence about the complainant’s prior sexual conduct is offered to prove that someone other than the respondent committed the alleged conduct or is evidence about specific incidents of the complainant’s prior sexual conduct with the respondent that is offered to prove consent to the alleged sex-based harassment. The fact of prior consensual sexual conduct between the complainant and respondent does not by itself demonstrate or imply the complainant’s consent to the alleged sex-based harassment or preclude determination that sex-based harassment occurred.
V. Initial Review
An initial report (oral or written) will be evaluated to determine whether the alleged conduct is within the scope of the Policy. Where the alleged conduct does not fall under the Policy but may constitute behaviors prohibited by other University policies, the matter will be referred to the appropriate authority.
VI. Discretionary Dismissal
The University of Connecticut may dismiss a complaint if:
- The respondent cannot be identified despite reasonable steps to do so;
- The respondent is not participating in the University of Connecticut’s education program or activity and is not employed by the University of Connecticut;
- The complainant voluntarily withdraws or abandons their complaint, and without the complainant’s participation, the available information does not indicate a potential violation of the Policy; or
- The conduct alleged in the complaint, even if proven, would not constitute a violation of the Policy.
A discretionary dismissal may occur at any point in the grievance proceeding prior to the final determination, including before initiating the formal fact gathering. Before issuing a discretionary dismissal, the University will make reasonable efforts to clarify the allegations and may gather information from additional sources in making its determination regarding the complaint. Any impacted parties will receive notification of dismissal in writing and may request review of a discretionary dismissal, consistent with section XI of these procedures.
VII. Informal Resolution
Where appropriate and available, the University may offer the parties the option to engage in an informal resolution. There is no expectation that parties elect to participate in the informal resolution process. Further, both parties must agree to engage in the process prior to initiation. Parties may decide to withdraw from the informal resolution process at any time prior to a final resolution, and based on the facts and circumstances, the matter may return to the grievance process described by these procedures. An informal resolution is binding on the parties and is considered a final resolution to the matter
VIII. Investigation (Fact Gathering)
Where the alleged conduct is within the scope of the Policy, the impacted party is seeking an investigation, and the report is not otherwise dismissible, the University will initiate an investigation.[2] The timing and method of launching the investigation process is at the discretion of the University. Upon initiating an investigation, the University will provide written notice to the parties with sufficient time for the parties to prepare a response before any initial interview.
After providing notice, the University will conduct an adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation into the complaint. The burden is on the investigator – not the parties- to conduct an investigation that gathers sufficient evidence to determine whether a policy violation occurred. As such, the investigator maintains full authority to determine whether certain evidence or witnesses are necessary to conduct a thorough investigation.
The investigator will provide to a party whose participation is invited or expected, written notice of the date, time, location, participants, and purpose of all meetings or proceedings with sufficient time for the party to prepare to participate. Parties will receive equitable opportunity to present information, both inculpatory and exculpatory, and recommend fact witnesses. On a case-by-case basis, parties may be allowed to present expert witnesses equally.
At the conclusion of the fact gathering, parties will receive at least ten (10) business days to review[3] all relevant and not otherwise impermissible evidence. During the same period, parties will be given the opportunity to: (1) submit a written response to the evidence for consideration by the decision-maker(s); (2) submit questions, in writing, to the decision-maker(s), which the decision-maker(s) will review for relevancy prior to the hearing. The decision-maker will explain to the submitting party any decisions to exclude questions based on relevance, impermissibility, lack of clarity, or harassment of another party. Parties will be given a reasonable opportunity to clarify or revise the excluded question(s) prior to the hearing.
The unauthorized disclosure of information and evidence obtained solely through these grievance procedures is prohibited. The University will take reasonable steps to prevent and address any disclosures.
IX. Hearing
At the conclusion of the fact gathering, the matter may proceed to an administrative hearing where the decision-maker(s) (the investigator, the University’s Title VI Coordinator, Title IX Coordinator, or trained designee) will ask all relevant questions, including their own questions and questions submitted by the parties if any. If no questions were submitted by the parties, the matter will be concluded without a hearing and will proceed to the determination.
The parties, the decision-maker(s), and where applicable the parties’ advisors, will be invited. Further, witnesses may be invited to participate in the hearing if the decision-maker(s) and/or the parties have relevant questions for the witness(es). The hearing will be recorded for review purposes and will be available to parties, if necessary, to facilitate a request for review.
No party or advisor will be permitted to directly question any party or witness. After the initial round of questions, the decision-maker(s) will suspend the hearing for at least fifteen (15) minutes for the parties to consider and submit any follow-up questions in writing to the decision-maker(s). The decision-maker(s) will reconvene the hearing and ask all relevant follow-up questions to the appropriate parties.
At the decision-maker(s)’ discretion, any party present at the hearing may be removed from the proceedings for engaging in disruptive or harmful behavior.[4]
The decision-maker(s) may consider a party’s level of participation in the hearing process in their determination, but a finding that a party engaged in prohibited conduct under the Policy may not be solely based on a party’s refusal to participate in the hearing or answer specific questions.
Following the hearing, the decision-maker(s) will objectively consider all relevant evidence obtained during the fact finding and at the hearing, consistent with sections I, III, and IV of these procedures to determine what occurred and whether what occurred constitutes a violation of the Policy.
X. Determination
The decision-maker(s) will issue a written notice of outcome to the parties simultaneously. The determination will be shared with the Office of the President and/or the Executive Vice President of UConn Health, and any other individual or office that may need to know the information.
The determination regarding responsibility becomes final either on the date that the written determination of the result of any request for review is issued, or, if no party requests review, the date on which the request for review would no longer be considered timely as defined in section XI of this policy.
As applicable, the University’s Title VI Coordinator, the Title IX Coordinator, or designee will coordinate with appropriate management concerning the implementation of remedies, the imposition of any disciplinary sanctions, and take further appropriate action to ensure that violations of the Policy do not continue or recur.
XI. Written Response and Request for Review
At the conclusion of the grievance process, outlined above, any party may submit a written response to the outcome to equity@uconn.edu. The written response does not constitute a request for review but will be added to and maintained in the complaint files.
Parties may also request a review of the discretionary dismissal or findings. Requests for review must be received at equity@uconn.edu no later than 5:00 PM (EST) on the tenth (10) business day from the issuance of the written notice of dismissal or outcome. A request for an extension of time beyond ten (10) business days may be granted at the discretion of the University’s Title VI Coordinator, Title IX Coordinator or designee.
The grounds for review are limited to: (1) Procedural irregularity that would change the outcome; (2) New evidence that would change the outcome and that was not reasonably available when the determination or dismissal was made; and (3) The investigator, decisionmaker, and/or in matters involving sex-based discrimination, the Title IX Coordinator, had a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or the individual complainant or respondent that would change the outcome.
A party’s request for review must identify at least one of the three grounds for review and provide sufficient detail to understand the basis for the request. Mere disagreement with the outcome is not sufficient grounds for review.
Upon receipt of a request for review within the prescribed timelines, the Title VI Coordinator or the Title IX Coordinator or designee will refer the request and underlying documents to the Panel of Reviewers, which consists of trained faculty, staff, and members of the administration appointed by the University. The Panel of Reviewers will designate one or more members to review the request.
The reviewer(s) will first review the request to determine if at least one of the review grounds is identified. The reviewer(s) has the discretion to deny a request if none of the permissible grounds for review are identified. The reviewer(s) decision to deny a request for failure to identify any of these grounds is deemed final.
If any of the three permissible grounds for review is identified, the role of the reviewer(s) is to evaluate all available evidence and make a recommendation to the President and/or the Executive Vice President of UConn Health, which may include accepting or rejecting one or all of the items contained in the notice of outcome, or any other actions deemed necessary or appropriate in the discretion of the reviewer(s), within twenty (20) business days of the reviewer(s) receipt of the request for review. Extensions of time may be granted by the President and/or the Executive Vice President of UConn Health or their respective designee for good cause.
XII. Related Policies
Religious Accommodation Policy | University Policies (uconn.edu)
Non-Retaliation Policy | University Policies (uconn.edu) (effective October 22, 2021)
[1] Inculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to prove that the respondent engaged in the alleged behavior, while exculpatory evidence is evidence that is favorable to the respondent.
[2] In the absence of a participating complainant, the University may institutionally initiate an investigation after consideration of the specific facts and circumstances consistent with federal and state law.
[3] To protect the privacy of everyone involved, parties will not be allowed to retain evidence or investigative materials.
[4] Throughout the process, students are subject to the Student Code and employees are subject to the Code of Conduct.