On July 10, 2026, the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) reminding all federally funded educational institutions of their obligations to protect students from sexual misconduct by adults in positions of authority. The DCL targets the practice commonly known as “passing the trash,” which occurs when an accused employee quietly departs the school in ways that shield the individual from accountability and enables the potential for continued harm in a new school. Simultaneously when issuing the DCL, OCR announced a national K–12 enforcement initiative and disclosed that it has opened 20 directed investigations into school districts whose Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) submissions suggest inadequate responses to staff-on-student sexual misconduct.

Although the enforcement initiative is focused on K–12 school districts, the DCL reiterates legal obligations that apply to all recipients of federal financial assistance, including K–12 schools, colleges and universities. 

Legal Background

Title IX requires institutions to respond promptly and in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent once they have actual knowledge of sexual harassment in their programs or activities, including sexual harassment by teachers or other staff members that impacts students.

The 2020 Title IX regulations require grievance procedures that are timely, thorough, and responsive. The DCL reaffirms that a referral to law enforcement does not satisfy an institution’s independent Title IX obligations. Coordination with law enforcement is permissible, but the institution must conduct its own investigation and reach its own conclusion under Title IX when faced with a formal complaint of sexual harassment, including sexual assault, dating/domestic violence, or stalking, by an adult. A prosecutor’s decision to decline charges does not extinguish the institution’s duty to act.

For K–12 school districts, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act, requires states, school districts, and covered educational agencies to maintain laws, regulations, or policies prohibiting employees and agencies from assisting an employee in obtaining a new position when there is knowledge or probable cause to believe that the individual engaged in sexual misconduct involving a student. The DCL notes that as of 2022, 35 states lacked laws banning suppression of misconduct information in separation agreements and 40 states lacked laws prohibiting expungement of such information from personnel files.

Implications for K–12 Schools and Districts

For K–12 institutions, the DCL arrives with immediate enforcement consequences and is a must-read. Key takeaways include:

• CRDC data accuracy. The 20 directed investigations were selected based on CRDC submissions that appear to undercount staff-on-student misconduct. OCR has warned that school districts who report zero incidents despite contrary evidence (such as a newsworthy staff arrest or civil lawsuits) may face directed investigations. Districts should verify that their CRDC submissions are reconcilable with internal Title IX case records.

• Collective bargaining agreements. OCR recently opened an investigation into the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) based on a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision that, in OCR’s reading, requires reassignment rather than removal from student-facing roles for employees credibly accused of serious misconduct. Districts should examine their CBAs for similar provisions and assess whether those provisions limit the ability of the school district to respond effectively under Title IX.

• Separation practices. Districts should review their practices for negotiating employee departures in misconduct cases, including any commitments regarding references or personnel records that could constitute assistance in obtaining new employment in violation of ESEA.

Implications for Colleges and Universities

Although the enforcement initiative targets K–12 school districts, colleges and universities share the same Title IX obligations the DCL reiterates, and several of the DCL’s most significant enforcement signals may impact higher education. 

Collective Bargaining Agreements. Colleges and universities with CBAs covering tenured and tenure-track faculty, graduate student employees, and classified staff should review those agreements in light of the DCL. Those CBAs often include procedural protections for employees accused of misconduct: notice requirements, hearing rights, and progressive discipline timelines. When such provisions delay, condition, or limit the institution’s ability to respond promptly to a report of sexual misconduct under Title IX, they may attract OCR scrutiny. Federal law preempts conflicting CBA terms, and the DCL makes clear that OCR will read those CBA provisions closely. Institutions should identify any provisions related to the investigation of sexual misconduct or the interim placement of accused employees, evaluate whether those provisions are consistent with their Title IX obligations, and plan to address any problematic language in the next bargaining cycle. 

Separation Practices. Quiet departures arranged in connection with allegations of serious employee misconduct have not been uncommon in higher education. Whether the arrangement takes the form of a negotiated resignation with a neutral reference, a severance agreement with nondisclosure terms, or an informal commitment not to contest reemployment, the DCL reflects a clear view that such practices may be improper when there is knowledge or probable cause of employee misconduct directed at a student. Institutions should review their standard templates for separation agreements and assess their reference and personnel file practices in misconduct cases.

Concurrent Law Enforcement Proceedings. Colleges and universities frequently face situations in which campus or local law enforcement is investigating conduct that also implicates Title IX. The DCL reaffirms that, in these circumstances, the institution must proceed with its own investigation and cannot delegate its Title IX responsibilities to the criminal process. While most institutions already know this and comply with this provision of Title IX, institutions should establish protocols for managing concurrent proceedings and remember that a prosecutor’s declination to charge is not a finding that Title IX misconduct did not occur.

Clery Act Reporting. The CRDC data concerns underlying the K–12 enforcement initiative have a direct analog in Clery Act reporting. Institutions should confirm that their Clery compliance programs accurately capture incidents and that Annual Security Report data are consistent with internal Title IX records. 

Retaliation. The DCL confirms that employees and students who report sexual misconduct are protected from retaliation under Title IX. In higher education, academic hierarchy and departmental culture can create informal pressure on employees who raise concerns about a colleague’s conduct or the adequacy of the institution’s response. Department chairs, deans, and administrators should understand that retaliatory conduct need not be formal or overt to give rise to federal liability. 

Conclusion

The July 10, 2026, Dear Colleague Letter is a clear signal that OCR views protection of students from adult sexual misconduct as a core enforcement priority. For K–12 school districts, it arrives alongside concrete enforcement action in the form of OCR-directed investigations. For colleges and universities, it reiterates longstanding obligations and identifies specific institutional practices—in collective bargaining, separation arrangements, concurrent proceedings, and retaliation—that are within OCR’s focus. Institutions at every level would benefit from a proactive review of existing Title IX policies and practices rather than waiting for a complaint or investigation to prompt action.

Hunton’s higher education team regularly advises colleges and universities on compliance with Title IX and related state education laws, conducts training on Title IX and civil rights laws, and serve as investigators and hearing officers in Title IX proceedings. If you have questions regarding this development or its implications for your institution, please contact your Hunton higher education lawyer.