Purpose of the Bill

The bill aims to update and refine policies related to higher education in Minnesota, specifically focusing on handling sexual misconduct claims and related grievance procedures at postsecondary institutions.

Main Provisions

• Postsecondary institutions are required to offer a fair, timely, and thorough investigation into reports of sexual misconduct.
• They must take effective action to stop misconduct, prevent it from happening again, and address its effects.
• Institutions must provide academic and residential support to both reporting and responding parties, which can include changes in exam dates, class schedules, or campus housing.
• Both parties involved have the right to present and review evidence and to question the credibility of the other party through a live hearing or by a decision-maker.
• Institutions must appoint neutral decision-makers who are different from the investigators to assess the cases.
• Formal hearings must be conducted without allowing direct cross-examination between the parties involved; instead, an advisor or adjudicator must handle this process.
• Information regarding the personal character or sexual history of the reporting party is restricted unless relevant to the case under specific conditions.
• The standard of proof in these grievance processes should be based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Significant Changes

• The bill introduces new compliance measures for postsecondary institutions, ensuring both parties in misconduct cases receive adequate support and fair treatment.
• It mandates that outcomes of these processes are shared concurrently with both parties and provides guidelines for timing the release of decisions to ensure access to support services.
• The bill establishes policies against retaliation, specifying what constitutes retaliation and the potential actions to protect students and employees from it.

Relevant Terms

sexual misconduct, grievance procedures, postsecondary institutions, impartial investigation, supportive measures, decision-makers, cross-examination, preponderance of evidence, retaliation, Title IX