"ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION" IS A GENERAL TERM used to describe the various processes by which the University resolves a formal complaint, after a finding of responsibility has been made. Administrative resolution processes may be governed by the Community Standards, Faculty Handbook, collective bargaining agreement, or Employee Staff Handbook, as applicable, depending on the circumstances of the alleged behavior and the classification of the respondent as a student, faculty employee, or staff employee. An administrative resolution officer (“ARO”) is a general term to describe trained and qualified individuals who have a role in these processes. For cases involving allegations against faculty or staff employees, nothing in this subsection provides additional recourse beyond the processes outlined in the Faculty Handbook, the collective bargaining agreements, or Employee Staff Handbook.
At the conclusion of an investigation, parties are informed of the name and contact information for any ARO to whom the case is being referred. The Executive Director for Equity & Compliance ("EDEC") may also, at their own discretion, provide the ARO with non-binding recommendations or other information to assist with the administrative resolution.
Administrative Resolution Format Based on Respondent Classification
Each administrative resolution format is referenced briefly here, but parties should also consult with the respective source of authority for additional information and details. Allegations involving student worker respondents or other respondents who hold dual classifications will be routed to the most appropriate administrative resolution format depending on the individual context of the alleged misconduct, at the discretion of the EDEC.
Information about appeal processes, when applicable, is included in each of each resolution formats below.
General Considerations During the Administrative Resolution Phase
Regardless of whether the respondent is a student, faculty, or staff member, the following principles apply:
- An investigative finding of responsibility may not be modified at the administrative resolution phase.
- The purpose of administrative resolution is to identify an appropriate and proportional responsive intervention(s) upon a finding of responsibility, that is reasonably designed to stop the substantiated misconduct, prevent its reoccurrence, and remedy its effects.
- Any evidence that the Administrative Resolution Officer ("ARO") believes is relevant and credible may be considered, including respondent’s prior conduct/employment history and any evidence indicating a pattern of misconduct. Previous disciplinary action of any kind involving the respondent may be considered in determining the appropriate assigned outcome.
- The University is committed to ensuring equity for both parties throughout the administrative resolution process.
- AROs may consult with the investigator, Executive Director for Equity & Compliance, and/or other Office for Equity & Compliance staff anytime as needed.
Remedies and Responsive Interventions
Following the conclusion of an administrative resolution process that has resulted in a finding of responsibility by the respondent, the EDEC may also provide remedies to and in consultation with the complainant, designed to restore or preserve the complainant’s equal access to the University’s education program or activity.
Remedies may range from supportive measures to any other responsive action requested by the complainant and deemed appropriate by the University to repair harm caused by substantiated misconduct, and need not avoid burdening a respondent. The University will maintain the privacy of any remedies, provided privacy does not impair the University’s ability to implement the remedies.
Following the conclusion of a preliminary review or administrative resolution process, and independent of any findings and/or sanctions (if applicable), the OEC may also recommend or mandate other non-disciplinary responsive interventions to enhance the safety and inclusivity of the University community. Such responsive interventions may apply to the parties or other individuals specifically and/or the campus community broadly. Examples of responsive interventions may include, but are not limited to:
- Implementation or extension of non-disciplinary, mutually applicable contact limitations (No Contact Directives) between the parties
- Mandated individual, group, or community training or education
- Administration of climate surveys and/or policy reviews
- Review and/or revision of other University policies and procedures
The University will maintain the privacy of any responsive interventions, provided privacy does not impair the University’s ability to implement the interventions.
All individuals and other involved organizations and/or departments are expected to comply fully with any sanctions, remedies, and/or other responsive interventions within the timeframe specified. The implementation and monitoring of such outcomes are primarily the responsibility of the ARO who assigned them; however, assistance and coordination is provided by the OEC to ensure overall University compliance.
Failure to comply with sanctions/remedies/responsive interventions, whether by refusal, neglect, or any other reason, may result in additional disciplinary action, which may result in additional or increased sanctions, remedies, or other responsive interventions, up to and including suspension, expulsion, and/or termination from the University, and which may be noted in an individual’s disciplinary or employment record.
A suspension will only be lifted when compliance with all sanctions is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the EDEC or designee, and may warrant informing complainants who have a continuing educational interest at Loyola of the respondent’s status change as needed.