|
Some commenters argued that this provision operates from a premise of wrong equivalency since the respondent is not concerned in the process on the basis of their intercourse but relatively on the basis of their Start Printed Page 30239 alleged actions whereas the complainant alleges to have experienced Title IX sexual harassment (discrimination on the basis of sexual intercourse). Whether a receiver considers placing a pupil-personnel respondent on administrative depart as component of a non-intentionally indifferent response beneath § 106.44(a) is a determination that the Department will examine dependent on whether or not such a response is evidently Start Printed Page 30237 unreasonable in light-weight of the identified situations. For case in point, if a college student-employee respondent is effective at a college cafeteria in which the complainant ordinarily eats, a recipient may perhaps determine that putting the pupil-employee respondent on administrative leave with spend, throughout the pendency of a grievance procedure that complies with § 106.45, will not unreasonably burden the university student-personnel respondent, or the recipient may perhaps ascertain that re-assigning the student-employee respondent to a unique position during pendency of a § 106.45 grievance procedure, will not unreasonably load the college student-employee respondent. We decline to make § 106.44(d) use to college student-workforce or to change this provision to specify that administrative go away is "from the person's employment." Consistent with § 106.6(f), where by an employee is not a college student, we do not preclude a recipient-employer from placing a non-college student worker on administrative depart throughout the pendency of a grievance procedure that complies with § 106.45. These remaining regulations do not prohibit a receiver from putting a student-employee respondent on administrative leave if executing so does not violate other regulatory provisions. |
|