Proven Solutions for Safer Schools and Workplaces

But, most schools don’t allow expert witnesses in campus and school hearings, right? Well, perhaps that used to be the case, but the new 2020 Title IX regulations are a game-changer on this. They specifically contemplate the parties in sexual misconduct hearings offering expert testimony, and further provide that a recipient cannot limit access to and introduction of evidence by a party as long as it is relevant. We’re relevant. TNG’s sexual misconduct experts have deep knowledge and experience with understanding and applying policy. Whether you are a complainant or a respondent, think of how powerful it could be to have a TNG expert talk about the incident in question in a way that frames and narrows the issues for the hearing decision-makers, or even gives an opinion as to whether policy was violated or not. This could be very persuasive to the ultimate decision-maker. After all, it’s likely that we trained them, they watched us in training videos, or received their training from materials we wrote. Why shouldn’t parties be able to use expert perspectives to help them prove or disprove the charges in question?

TNG experts are respectful of the boundaries of the process, and the professionals who work within them. We know that our opinions don’t control the outcome, but we also know that many professionals in the field respect our perspectives and find them compelling.

Case Study

Recently, a student who graduated was subject to post-graduation charges of sexual misconduct. TNG expert witness Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., was engaged by the family of the student to provide hearing testimony, which he did for 30 minutes. Sokolow explained to the panel via speakerphone that he did not believe that Title IX was applicable to the case, despite the fact that the college had charged the respondent under a Title IX policy. Sokolow explained that the alleged misconduct occurred in a private apartment, off-campus, between two students, and that while the college may take jurisdiction over such allegations, to take them under a policy specific to Title IX was a misapplication of the nexus of control requirement established by the Supreme Court.

Sokolow further offered expert policy analysis, opining that the college’s conduct code was clear that it did not have jurisdiction post-graduation. While some policies do retain jurisdiction for misconduct that occurs before graduation but is reported after graduation, this code did not do so. Sokolow explained therefore that the college was in his opinion acting outside its code in exercising jurisdiction, that it lacked jurisdiction over the respondent as an alumni, and that there was not a single sanction in the policy that could be imposed on him, as a non-student. Sokolow urged the decision-makers to dismiss the allegations and act within the scope of their policies and procedures.

Contact TNG today to learn more about engaging one of our experts as YOUR expert.