Complaint W Exhibits

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 1 of 26 PAGEID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CASEY HELMICKI,
7166 Northwich Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45230
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI,
2600 Clifton Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
and
LARRY BORTNER,
in his official capacity
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
7148 Edwards One
and
JYL SHAFFER,
in her official capacity
Edwards I, Suite 3115
45 Corry Blvd
and
MOSTAFA EL DEMERY,
in his official capacity
7148 Edwards One
and
KATHLEEN KOENIG,
in her official capacity
7148 Edwards One
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No.
Judge
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF
Now comes Plaintiff, Casey Helmicki, and for her Verified Complaint against
Defendants University of Cincinnati, Dr. Larry Bortner, in his official capacity, Jyl Shaffer,
in her official capacity, Mostafa El Demery, in his official capacity and Dr. Kathleen Koenig,
in her official capacity, and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This is an action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and other
1.
federal laws, challenging unlawful sex discrimination at the University of Cincinnati (UC
or University). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have unlawfully segregated men and
women attending UC Physics Labs in the 2015-16 academic year, in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (Title IX).
2.
Plaintiff objects to the sex discrimination imposed by
Defendants as a violation of her rights to enjoy equal educational opportunities without

discrimination on the basis of sex. She seeks to ensure that she and all students at UC have
the equal opportunity to participate in the schools academic offerings without regard to their
sex, and to receive instruction based on their individual strengths and needs.
3.
UC has adopted and thoroughly ratified the discredited and refuted
principle of separate but equal in its policy of segregation in physics labs.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331
and 1343, because this action raises federal questions and seeks to redress the deprivation of
equal rights under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., specifically Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972; and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to
2
42 U.S.C. 1983. This action seeks to secure declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), to
secure preliminary injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. 2202 and to grant Plaintiffs prayer for
relief regarding costs, including reasonable attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988.
5.
Venue is proper in this district and division under 28 U.S.C. 1391
because the facts giving rise to this action occurred therein.

6.
Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201, 28 U.S.C. 2202 and
42 U.S.C. 1983. A declaration of the law is necessary and appropriate to determine the
parties respective rights and duties.
PARTIES
7.
At the time of the events giving rise to this action, Plaintiff, Casey
Helmicki (hereafter Plaintiff or Helmicki), was a second year student at the University of
Cincinnati, majoring in Neuroscience and Chemistry and a concentration in pre-med with
hopes to attend medical school. Plaintiff is now going into her third year as a student at the
University of Cincinnati and desires to take additional physics labs.
8.
Defendant UC is a recipient of federal funds under Title IX and a public
university created by the Ohio legislature. UC has a principal place of business at 2600
Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220. Under Ohio Revised Code 3361.01, the University
of Cincinnatis Board of Trustees is the governing body of the University of Cincinnati.
9.
Defendant Dr. Larry Bortner (Dr. Bortner) is a Physics Professor at the
University of Cincinnati who, upon information and belief, oversees all physics labs therein.
10. Defendant Jyl Shaffer (Ms. Shaffer) is the Title IX Coordinator at the
University of Cincinnati. Hereafter all UC, Dr. Bortner and Ms. Shaffer shall be referred to
collectively as Defendants.
11. Defendant Mostafa El Demery (Mr. El Demery) upon information and
belief is a Teaching Assistant (TA) in the Physics Department at the University of

3
Cincinnati.
12. Defendant Kathleen Koenig (Dr. Koenig), upon information and belief,
is an Associate Professor with a joint appointment between Science Education and the
Department of Physics at the University of Cincinnati.
13. After being placed on notice of the unconstitutionality and illegality of its
discriminatory practices during the academic year, UC has failed to take remedial action and
in fact doubled down, ratified and adopted the thoroughly rejected discriminatory practices as
the official policy of the University.
STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.)
14. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.,
prohibits schools receiving federal funding from excluding individuals from any educational
program or activity based on their sex.
15. Specifically, Title IX states, No person in the United States shall, on the
basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance... 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
16. 20 U.S.C. 1681(c) provides For purposes of this chapter an educational
institution means any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school, or any
institution of vocational, professional, or higher education, except that in the case of an
educational institution composed of more than one school, college, or department which are
administratively separate units, such term means each such school, college, or department.
17. The statute sets out various limited exceptions from this broad
nondiscrimination rule, permitting rules or policies creating single-sex educational programs

or activities in specific, limited contexts. No such exception applies to sex-segregated
4
classrooms in university or graduate programs and none of the noted exceptions is applicable
in the instant action.
18.
In 1975, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (the
predecessor of the United States Department of Education (DOE)) adopted regulations

interpreting Title IX. These regulations (the Regulations) are codified at 34 C.F.R. Part
106. The Regulations are enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the DOE.
19.
Section (a) of 34 C.F.R. 106.34 provides, Except as provided for in this
section or otherwise in this part, a recipient shall not provide or otherwise carry out any of its
education programs or activities separately on the basis of sex, or require or refuse
participation therein by any of its students on the basis of sex.
20.
Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 106.34(a), the discrete categories of exceptions
include the following: (1) Contact sports in physical education classes. (2) Ability grouping
in physical education classes. (3) Human sexuality classesin elementary and secondary
schools(4) Choruses...
21.
In 2006, the Department of Education issued regulations identifying
additional exceptions pursuant to which Title IX recipients may implement single-sex

classes. These regulations apply specifically to single-sex elementary and secondary classes
and Extracurricular Activities (Title IX 2006 Regulations). These regulations are codified
in 34 C.F.R. 106.34(b).
22.
Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 106.34(b), a recipient that operates a
nonvocational coeducational elementary or secondary school may provide nonvocational

single-sex classes or extracurricular activities when certain standards are applied to those
single-sex classes. These regulations, however, apply specifically to elementary or secondary
schools and, as part of the standards for the same, under Section(b)(ii) and (iii) the same must
be implemented in an evenhanded manner and student enrollment in a single-sex class or
5
extracurricular activity in those same schools must be completely voluntary.

23.
Specifically, the regulation, which applies to a coeducational elementary
or secondary school first details under Section(b)(i) that these single-sex classes must be
based upon the recipients important objective, that is, (A) To improve educational
achievement of its students, through a recipient's overall established policy to provide diverse
educational opportunities, provided that the single-sex nature of the class or extracurricular
activity is substantially related to achieving that objective; or (B) To meet the particular,
identified educational needs of its students, provided that the single-sex nature of the class or
extracurricular activity is substantially related to achieving that objective.
24.
None of the exceptions for single-sex classes or activities as outlined in 34
C.F.R. 106.34(a) or (b), which apply only to elementary and secondary schools in any
event, are applicable here.
25.
The Department of Education OCR has provided additional guidance as to
Questions and Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex Elementary and Secondary Classes and
Extracurricular Activities available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqstitle-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf (DOE Guidance). The DOE Guidance is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
26.
In addition, within that guidance the Department of Education has
provided Other Federal Legal Resources Related to Single-Sex Education and among the
materials referenced is its Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae it filed in Doe v.
Vermilion Parish Sch. Bd. No 10-30378 (5th Cir.)(filed June 4, 2010) and available at
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/14/vermillion_brief.pdf.
27.
None of the exceptions for single-sex classes or activities as outlined in the
DOE guidance are applicable here.

28.
In addition, 34 C.F.R. 106.31(a) of the Department of Educations Title

6
IX regulations also states, (a) General. Except as provided elsewhere in this part, no person
shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational
training, or other education program or activity operated by a recipient which receives
Federal financial assistance. 34 C.F.R. 106.31(a).
29.
Subsection (b) of this Section further states, in relevant part: Specific
prohibitions. Except as provided in this subpart, in providing any aid, benefit, or service to a
student, a recipient shall not, on the basis of sex:
(1) Treat one person differently from another in determining whether such
person satisfies any requirement or condition for the provision of such aid,
benefit, or service;
(2) Provide different aid, benefits, or services or provide aid, benefits, or
services in a different manner;
(3) Deny any person any such aid, benefit, or service;
(4) Subject any person to separate or different rules of behavior, sanctions, or
other treatment;
(5) Apply any rule concerning the domicile or residence of a student or
applicant, including eligibility for in-state fees and tuition;
(6) Aid or perpetuate discrimination against any person by providing
significant assistance to any agency, organization, or person which
discriminates on the basis of sex in providing any aid, benefit or service to
students or employees;
(7) Otherwise limit any person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege,
advantage, or opportunity. 34 C.F.R. 106.31(b).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
30.
The University of Cincinnati receives federal funding and is subject to
the requirements of Title IX.

31.
The University of Cincinnati is a public university with students
pursuing degrees and programs of study ranging from the undergraduate to graduate to
doctoral level education. It is located in Cincinnati, Ohio, and under the supervision of the
State of Ohio. The student body of the university comprises both males and females.
32.
In or around August 26, 2015, Helmicki was enrolled in a UC physics lab

7
overseen by Dr. Bortner and taught by his Teaching Assistant, Mr. Mustafa El-Demery (Mr.
El-Demery). On the first day of lab, Helmicki arrived and was told by Mr. El-Demery that
women shouldnt be working with men in science and was ordered to sit and work only
with the other female students. Helmicki was not given any choice in the matter, but was
simply informed that labs would be separated based upon sex.
33.
Helmicki was distraught by Mr. El-Demerys actions but returned to
class the following week confident that neither UC nor Dr. Bortner would permit the
discriminatory practices to continue.
34.
At the time of the next scheduled physics lab, Helmicki arrived prior to
the start. As she approached the classroom, Mr. El-Demery looked at her directly and closed
the laboratory door, consequently locking her out of the classroom. Helmicki was eventually
let into the classroom by a fellow student well after the start of class.
35.
Once let into the class by another student, Helmicki was singled out by
Mr. El-Demery, who blamed her for another female students use of their cell phone.
Specifically, Mr. El-Demery claimed that it was Helmickis fault that this other female
student had used her cell phone in class, because, according to Mr. El-Demery, Helmicki was
responsible for ensuring the other female student felt incorporated into the all-female group
of students.
36.
Frustrated and upset by being the victim of at least three overt acts of
sexual discrimination within just two class periods, Helmicki approached Dr. Bortner to
discuss the matter. Rather than condemning Mr. El-Demerys actions, however, Dr. Bortner
ratified them, stating that he agreed with the discriminatory practice, and claiming that it is
the policy of the UC Physics Department to segregate the sexes in the classroom.
37.
Certain that UC would not condone such clearly discriminatory policies,
Helmicki spoke to the head of the UC Physics Department, and was thereafter referred to
8
Associate Professor, Kathleen Koenig, who insisted that neither UC nor the Physics
Department had such policies. Professor Koenig agreed that Helmicki had been treated
unfairly by Mr. El-Demery and Dr. Bortner, and assured her steps would be taken to ensure
such discrimination would not occur again.
38.
Helmicki returned to Dr. Bortners class but the conduct of Dr. Bortner
and Mr. El-Demery remained unchanged. As a result, rather than suffer continued
discrimination and disparate treatment on the basis of her sex, Helmicki was ultimately
forced to make the difficult decision to transfer to another laboratory class partway through
her first semester of her second year of college. This caused a significant disruption to her
studies and class schedule, as well as stress and humiliation.
39.
Sometime thereafter, Helmicki learned that an official Title IX report had
been made in her name by UCs Title IX Coordinator, Ms. Jyl Shaffer. Although Ms. Shaffer
named Helmicki as Complainant, Helmicki was never contacted by UC regarding the filing
of the Report. Furthermore the report and attendant investigation had already been closed
by the time Helmicki learned of its existence.
40.
On or about November 16, 2015, Helmicki met with Ms. Shaffer in order
to determine why a Title IX report had been submitted in her name without her knowledge or
authorization and to determine how the discriminatory practices would be remedied. She was
informed that the matter had been completely resolved and that further, because Helmicki
was named as the Complainant, a record of the report would be included in her academic
record. This is despite the fact that Plaintiff did not file a report, and was never notified that a
report had been filed in her name.
41.
Helmicki, through continued communication with her former classmates,
has learned that disparate treatment of the sexes, including but not limited to the practice of
sexual segregation, continues to this day in the lab classes under the direction of Dr. Bortner.
9
42.
By letter dated February 11, 2016 (the Demand Letter), Plaintiff
contacted Defendants, by and through counsel, advising them that sex-segregation is

unlawful. Plaintiff demanded that Defendants institute certain procedures and remedies to
ensure that the discriminatory actions cease or Plaintiff would be forced to consider litigation.
The Demand Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
43.
Lori Ross, Associate General Counsel for UC, replied to the Demand
Letter in a letter dated April 15, 2016 (the Reply Letter) that, Additionally, it was through
the proactive efforts of the Title IX office that a report was even created the reporter being
the Coordinator herself. She looked into the matter and advised the professor of a better
method in grouping his students. The professor has taken her advice and changed his method
of grouping students. (2) The Reply Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
44.
Further, Ms. Ross states, The University on its own provided the
professor with guidance on how better to run his courses. The professor has implemented that
guidance. To the extent Ms. Helmicki is hearing reports, that students are still grouped
according to sex, the reports are either inaccurate, or perhaps by way of voluntary selfgrouping by the students. (3)
45.
Ms. Ross endorsed and institutionalized the unlawful discriminatory
policy and practice of the University in stating, The University policies appear to have
worked in this instance. (6)
46.
Finally, Ms. Ross concludes the matter by stating, Once the University
became aware of the situation, corrective guidance was issued. The Professor has abided by
this guidance. (6).
47.
UCs own investigation confirmed the existence of the discriminatory
48.
In an email on September 2, 2015 in reply from Larry Bortner to
practices.
10
Kathleen Koenig, head of the Department of Physics, Dr. Bortner stated,

I talked with a student in that class [redacted], who was offended and wanted to
[redacted]. She related what went on in the class and how she was affected. I
explained the reasoning behind having all-female groups was better. I did not
make excuses but offered the explanation that it may be the result of
[redacted][redacted] needs to learn that tone is very important. (emphasis added.)
A copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
49.
Following the incident with Helmicki, in an email between Ms. Shaffer
and Dr. Bortner on September 9, 2015, Dr. Bortner confirmed his methods, stating
Physicists are predominantly male. To change this, we try to make the educational
environment open to females. Studies have shown that females do better in small
lab groups (three or four) that contain more females than males than more males
than females. I train instructors who teach the labs and have told them to rearrange
groups if there is one female with three males; if at all possible have all-female
groups. (2). (emphasis added.)
A copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
50.
In this same email, Dr. Bortner referred to the incidents involving
Helmicki, stating:
I just talked with a female student last week [redacted] was perhaps hamhanded in rearranging groups [redacted] perception was that the all-female
groups were treated harsher than the all-male groups. My question was how
I would modify my training so that this would not be an issue? (3).
51.
Unbelievably, on September 11, 2015, the Title IX Coordinator for the
University the person charged with preventing this type of discrimination - Ms. Shaffer
responded to Dr. Bortner,
The fact that you are being so intentional in how students learn is fantastic.
I definitely want to keep your work out of the realm of even the perception
of discriminatory. Im going to have one of my graduate student workers
review the Dept. Of Educations guidance on same-sex classes/programs.
When we talked I immediately though t of that guidance because it speaks
how to document, implement, and provide reasonable alternatives to
exactly what youre working on. (1).
A copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
52.
In a later email, that same day, Ms. Shaffer wrote,

11
Thank you for the information, Larry. I appreciate it! [redacted] student is
looking over the last guidance the DOE gave schools on single sex learning
opportunities and implementing those types of strategies. (1).
She then reiterated
From what you have told me there is nothing inherently inequitable about
the method youre using to improve learning experiences. What we want to
do is help make sure its being implemented in a way that does not create
even the appearance of inequity or discrimination. (2).
A copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
53.
Ms. Shaffer then sent an email to this student referring to Dr. Bortner and
stating,
He and I talked about our office reviewing DOE guidance related to this. The
DOE wrote an FAQ on single sex education. Its explicitly focused on elementary
and secondary schools, but I think it could be useful in helping implement his
idea in a way that offers an alternative if someone doesnt want to be segregated
by sex. He also has TAs doing this, which could also open the door to a good
intention/bad impact implementation because of inexperience.
54.
Ms. Shaffer then stated in the same email,
Im specifically concerned that if they are creating the lab groups based on sex,
there should be some transparency and an opt-out/alternative.
She then encloses a link to the student referring her to the DOE Guidance on the
Title IX 2006 Regulations, referenced herein, Questions and Answers on Title IX
and Single-Sex Elementary and Secondary Classes and Extracurricular
Activities referenced herein and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
A copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
55.
In addition, in notes from a meeting on November 16, 2015, Ms. Shaffer
referred to her meeting with Helmicki and stated

I explained to her that weve guided Dr. Bortner and the Department that
they should not force a student into a single-sex format without offering
reasonable alternative and explaining what they are implementing in
advance. (4).
A copy of these notes are attached hereto as Exhibit I.
56.
Finally, in her directive to Dr. Bortner, Ms. Shaffer wrote an email on
September 27, 2015, stating,

12
As for suggestions on how to ensure gender equity in your course while

implementing research-based methods to improve learning based on
gender, here are some thoughts:
1. If youre going to implement a research based method that involves
grouping people based on their sex, I would suggest that you do the
following:
a. It should be a voluntary option available to the students
b. They should know in advance that there is a sex-based option available
to them, including why it is a research-based practice
c. They should be given the option to opt out and maintain their
placement in your course (2-3).
A copy of this email is attached as Exhibit J.
57.
She went on to write,
The transparency on why youre having your lab groups separated in a certain
way, along with the option to not participate in that format, ensures that no
one is being discriminated against. Even though the methodology is shown in
research to benefit female students, not everyone learns best in that
environment, and not everyone would want that type of segregation if given
the option. (4).
58.
Then she advised,
You could provide the transparency by having [redacted] send out an e-mail in
advance of setting the groups to allow people to respond with whether or not
they want to participate in the sex-based grouping. It would be important for
the men in the class to also be aware, and be allowed to opt in or out, because
it could create a discriminatory environment for them to be grouped based on
their sex without their consent. (5).
59.
Finally, Ms. Shaffer wrote,
I hope this helps. We are happy to help with these type of opportunities. I
think its great youre looking at how to improve learning for your students!
(6).
60.
The guidance Ms. Shaffer provided to Dr. Bortner came directly from
guidance issued by the OCR and the Title IX 2006 regulations which govern single-sex
classes in elementary and secondary schools. It is inapplicable to colleges and universities,
and is inapposite to this matter.
61.
The University, by and through its agents, has provided legally incorrect
13
guidance to Dr. Bortner relative to his implementation of discriminatory practices in the

classroom setting.
62.
The University, by and through its Title IX Coordinator and Counsel, has
ratified, adopted and institutionalized discriminatory practices and policies in violation of

Title IX.
63.
In addition, the University by and through its Title IX Coordinator and
Counsel, has demonstrated a deliberate indifference to the discriminatory practices and

policies of Dr. Bortner, in violation of Title IX.
64.
These discriminatory practices and policies have been implemented and
are being implemented at the University.

65.
Defendants discriminatory actions in sex-segregating classes represents
the sort of sex stereotyping and discrimination that Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment
seek to prevent.
66.
Plaintiff as a current student of the University, with a major specifically
in the College at which Dr. Bortner is a professor, has suffered and is threatened with further
irreparable injury as a result of Defendants unconstitutional conduct and continued
implementation of discriminatory practices in violation of Title IX.
67.
In addition, Helmicki desires to take future physics labs without the
threat of gender discrimination as enshrined by the schools official policy and by the
practice and procedure of its physics department managers and employees.
68.
Defendants discriminatory policies and practices threaten harm to the
dignity and educational interests of Plaintiff.

69.
Defendants discriminatory policies and practices threaten to deprive
Plaintiff of unique educational opportunities on the basis of her sex.

70.
Plaintiff remains subject to Defendants unconstitutional discriminatory

14
sex-segregation practices as implemented by the University.

COUNT I
Violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681
(Gender Discrimination)
71.
Plaintiff asserts the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 70 above, as
though fully rewritten herein.

72.
Defendant University of Cincinnati is an educational institution that
receives federal government funding towards its educational programs, and is subject to Title
IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-1688, which provides for a
private cause of action for a violation thereof.
73.
At all material times, Mr. El-Demery and Dr. Bortners conduct
described herein was committed within the scope of their duties as faculty and staff members
at UC.
74.
Defendant has ratified and adopted Mr. El-Demery and Dr. Bortners
discriminatory practices, creating a hostile environment sufficiently severe and pervasive to

compromise the educational opportunities normally available to students.
75.
Title IX broadly prohibits sexual and/or gender discrimination in a wide
array of programs and activities undertaken by recipient educational institutions, including

those administered at UC.
76.
Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to gender discrimination on the basis
of her sex, in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).

77.
Defendant continues to endorse and enforce a policy of gender
discrimination against students on the basis of their sex, in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C.
1681(a).
15
78.
By sex-segregating the aforementioned laboratory classes at UC and
requiring and refusing student participation in classes on the basis of the students sex,
Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff and others similarly situated on the basis of
their sex, in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
79.
In ratifying sex-segregated access to laboratory classes, UC is aiding and
perpetuating discrimination on the basis of sex.

80.
UC has ratified and adopted the thoroughly rejected and discredited
separate but equal policies rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and its progeny, harkening back to the whollyrejected policies of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
81.
In implementing sex-segregated access to laboratory classes, UC has
unlawfully discriminated and continues to discriminate against Helmicki and other similarly
situated students in the enjoyment of any of their rights, privileges, advantages, and
opportunities.
82.
The sex-based classifications ratified and adopted by the University are
based on archaic assumptions, are facially discriminatory, and therefore the actions
resulting from an application of the same constitute intentional discrimination.
83.
Defendants have engaged and are continuing to engage in such conduct
intentionally, willfully, and in disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and/or with actual notice of
and deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.
84.
At all material times, Mr. El-Demery, Dr. Bortners, Ms. Ross and Ms.
Shaffers conduct described herein was committed within the scope of their duties as faculty
and staff members at UC.
85.
At all times relevant herein, the University had and continues to have
16
direct control over the actions of Mr. El-Demery, Dr. Bortner, Ms. Ross and Ms. Shaffer had
authority to take remedial action over their conduct.
86.
Such conduct was ratified, adopted and endorsed by the University
and/or treated with deliberate indifference, thus imposing direct liability upon the University
under Title IX.
87.
Such deliberate indifference to gender discrimination by Defendants
constitutes intentional discrimination under Title IX.

88.
As a proximate cause of Defendants violation of Title IX, Plaintiff has
been injured and is entitled to damages as a result of said violation.

89.
Plaintiff is entitled to her attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

COUNT II
(Disparate Treatment)
90.

91.
Defendant University of Cincinnati, as an educational institution that
receives federal government funding towards its educational programs, is subject to Title IX
of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-1688, pursuant to which arises a
private cause of action for a violation thereof.
92.
At all material times, Mr. El-Demerys, Dr. Bortners, Ms. Ross and
Ms. Shaffers conduct described herein was committed within the scope of their duties as
faculty and staff members at UC.
93.
direct control over the actions of Mr. El-Demery, Dr. Bortner, Ms. Ross and Ms. Shaffer had
17
authority to take remedial action over their conduct.

94.
Such conduct was ratified, adopted and endorsed by the University
and/or treated with deliberate indifference, thus imposing direct liability upon the University.
95.
Defendant UC is allowing Mr. El-Demery and Dr. Bortner and others to
discriminate against Helmicki on the basis of her sex, creating a hostile environment
sufficiently severe and pervasive to compromise the educational opportunities normally
available to students.
96.
Title IX broadly prohibits disparate treatment of the sexes in a wide
array of programs and activities undertaken by recipient educational institutions, including

those administered at UC.
97.
In sex-segregating the laboratory classes and refusing student
participation in classes on the basis of the students sex and/or implementing a continued
policy of sex-segregation, Defendant UC has subject Plaintiff and continues to treat others
similarly situated to disparate treatment in the provision of educational programs and
activities on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
98.
In providing sex-segregated access to laboratory classes, UC is limiting
Helmicki and other similarly situated students in the enjoyment of their rights, privileges,
advantages, and opportunities.
99.
Defendants have engaged and are continuing to engage in such conduct
intentionally, willfully, and in disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and others similarly situated
and/or with actual notice of and deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.
100.
Such deliberate indifference to disparate treatment by Defendant UC
constitutes intentional discrimination under Title IX.

101.
As a proximate cause of Defendants violation of Title IX, the Plaintiff

18
has been injured and is entitled to her damages as a result of said violation.
102.

COUNT III
(Denial of Educational Benefits)
103.

104.
Defendant University of Cincinnati, as an educational institution that
receives federal government funding towards its educational programs, is subject to Title IX
of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-1688, and there arises a private
cause of action for a violation thereof.
105.
At all material times, Mr. El-Demery, Dr. Bortners, Ms. Ross and Ms.
Shaffers conduct described herein was committed within the scope of their duties as faculty
and staff members at UC.
106.
direct control over the actions of Mr. El-Demery, Dr. Bortner, Ms. Ross and Ms. Shaffer and
had authority to take remedial action over their conduct.
107.
In addition, such conduct was ratified, adopted and endorsed by the
University and/or treated with deliberate indifference, thus imposing direct liability upon the
University.
108.
In so doing, UC has ratified and adopted the thoroughly rejected and
discredited separate but equal policies rejected by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and its progeny.
109.
Defendant UC allowed and is allowing Mr. El-Demery and Dr. Bortner

19
to deny Helmicki and others similarly situated educational benefits on the basis of her sex,
creating a hostile environment sufficiently severe and pervasive to compromise the
educational opportunities normally available to students.
110.
Title IX broadly prohibits the denial of educational benefits based upon
sex in a wide array of programs and activities undertaken by the educational institution,
including those administered at UC.
111.
By sex-segregating the aforementioned laboratory classes and requiring
and refusing student participation in classes on the basis of the students sex, Defendant UC
has denied Plaintiff and others similarly situated a benefit of its educational program on the
basis of her sex, in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
112.
Defendants engaged in such conduct intentionally, willfully, and in
disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and others similarly situated and/or with actual notice of
and deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.
113.
Such deliberate indifference to the denial of educational benefits by
Defendants constitutes intentional discrimination under Title IX.

114.
As a proximate cause of Defendants violation of Title IX, Plaintiff has
been injured and is entitled to her damages as a result of said violation.

115.
20
COUNT IV
42 USC 1983
(Equal Protection Guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment)
116.

117.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates
that no State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV.
118.
Defendants have acted under color of law in violating the Plaintiffs
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

119.
Defendant University of Cincinnati, along with its schools, is a public
institution under the control of the State of Ohio.

120.
Defendant University of Cincinnati is a recipient of public funds, as such
the University is prohibited under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution from
violating Plaintiffs rights to equal protection under the laws.
121.
Defendants actions have deprived Plaintiff of equal protection of the
law as guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution.
122.
Defendants have acted intentionally and with callous disregard for
Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights.

123.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violations of Plaintiffs
constitutional rights, Plaintiff has suffered severe and substantial damages. These damages
include attorneys fees, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional
anguish and distress, and other compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined.
21
124.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for her
125.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to her attorneys fees in
damages.
bringing this action.
126.
COUNT V
(Declaratory Judgment)
though fully rewritten herein

127.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C.
1681 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 106, prohibits discrimination,
disparate treatment and denial of educational benefits on the basis of sex in education
programs or activities operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance.
128.
Defendant UC is a recipient of Federal financial assistance and operates
educational programs and activities.

129.
Title IX bars gender discrimination, disparate treatment and denial of
educational programs or activities on the basis of sex.

130.
UC committed impermissible gender bias against the Plaintiff by
endorsing sex-segregated classes and failing to institute remedial measures to prevent the
continued discrimination, disparate treatment and denial of educational benefits.
131.
UC continues to endorse a policy of gender discrimination, disparate
treatment and denial of educational benefits to students on the basis of their sex, in violation
of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
132.
In implementing sex-segregated access to laboratory classes, UC is
aiding and perpetuating a policy of gender discrimination, disparate treatment and denial of
educational benefits to students on the basis of sex.
22
133.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to her attorneys fees
incurred in bringing this action.
134.
COUNT VI
(Injunctive Relief)

135.
Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief that restrains Defendants from
continuing to discriminate on the basis of sex in excluding from participation in or denying

the benefits of, or subjecting to discrimination under its education programs or activities.
136.
In particular, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief that restrains
Defendants from allowing and/or ratifying the continuation of sex-segregated classes in

violation of Title IX.
137.
Failure to grant the requested injunctive relief will cause irreparable
harm in the perpetuation of Defendants gender discrimination, disparate treatment and denial
of educational benefits against its present, prospective and future female students (including
Plaintiff).
138.
Such discrimination, disparate treatment and denial of educational
benefits will forever deny them an equal opportunity to participate in valuable educational
programs.
139.
There is no adequate remedy at law for this harm.
140.
The continuing, irreparable harm caused by Defendants discriminatory
actions far outweighs any possible harm that granting injunctive relief might cause
Defendants, because the requested injunctive relief is already mandated by federal law.
141.
Defendants will suffer no harm in being restrained from sex-segregating

23
classes at UC.
142.
Ending gender discrimination, disparate treatment, and denial of
educational benefits in education is in the public interest as demonstrated by Congress

enactment of Title IX in 1972. The injunctive relief Plaintiff requests will promote the public
interest in that it will assure equal opportunities and access for female students in educational
programs, end sex discrimination, disparate treatment, and denial of educational benefits and
promote compliance with federal law and stop the use of federal funds for discriminatory
purposes.
ATTORNEYS FEES
143.
Plaintiff has been required to retain the undersigned attorneys to
prosecute this action. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and expenses
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.
24
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Casey Helmicki, requests the following relief:
1) Temporarily restrain and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from segregating
any class or educational program by sex;
2) Permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents and employees, and all persons acting in concert
or participation with it, including any successors and assigns, from segregating any class or
educational program by sex;
3) Order Defendants to take all affirmative steps necessary to remedy the effects of the
discriminatory conduct described in this Complaint and to prevent similar future occurrences;
4) Declare that the actions of Defendants constitute discrimination on the basis of sex, in
violation of Plaintiffs rights under federal and state law;
5) Declare that the actions of Defendants constitute disparate treatment on the basis of sex, in
violation of Plaintiffs rights under federal and state law;
6) Declare that the actions of Defendants constitute the denial of educational benefits on the
basis of sex, in violation of Plaintiffs rights under federal and state law;
7) Order Defendants take all necessary steps to ensure Plaintiff and others similarly situated are
not subject to retaliation for reporting the offenses described herein and/or seeking relief
thereon, including but not limited to promulgating additional anti-retaliation policies and/or
guidelines if necessary;
8) Award Plaintiff monetary damages to fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiff for any
deprivation of her rights;
9) Award Plaintiff her expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988
and any other applicable provision of law; and
10) Award other equitable and monetary relief as the Court deems just and proper.
25
JS 44 (Rev. 0 /16)
Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 27
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Casey Helmicki
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
University of Cincinnati; Larry Borter (in his official capacity); Jyl

Shafer (in her official capacity); Mostafa El Demery (in his official
capacity); Kathleen Koenig (in her official capacity)
Hamilton
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
Hamilton
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (If Known)
Christopher P. Finney
Finney Law Firm, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Ste 225, Cinti, OH 45245; 513-943-6655
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
U.S. Government
Defendant
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
DEF
1
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
X 448 Education
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
X 890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
Remanded from
Appellate Court
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
7*64$fFUTFR 64$f 64$f
8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: 7JPMBUJPOPGQSPIJCJUJPOTPOHFOEFSEJTDSJNJOBUJPOCZGFEFSBMGVOEJOHSFDJQJFOUBTQSPWJEFE

JO5JUMF*9PGUIF&EVDBUJPO"NFOENFOUTPG 64$fFUTFR
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
DEMAND $
VII. REQUESTED IN
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
+VMZ
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
Questions and Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex Elementary and Secondary

Classes and Extracurricular Activities
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) has received
a number of questions about the legality, under the Departments regulations implementing
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), of single-sex elementary and secondary
classes and extracurricular activities offered by recipients of funding from the Department.1
Although Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education
programs and activities, regulations issued by the Department authorize schools to offer singlesex classes or extracurricular activities under certain circumstances.2 In order to ensure that
schools subject to Title IX comply with the Departments requirements if they choose to offer
single-sex classes and extracurricular activities, OCR provides the following responses to
questions that schools should consider when assessing their compliance with Title IX. Although
this document focuses on single-sex classes, some of the legal principles will also apply to
single-sex schools. In order to gain a complete understanding of these legal requirements and
recommendations, this document should be read in full.
Authorized by
/s/
Catherine E. Lhamon
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
December 1, 2014
The Department has determined that this document is a significant guidance document under the Office of
Management and Budgets Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007),
available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/fedreg/2007/012507_good_guidance.pdf. OCR issues
this and other policy guidance to provide recipients with information to assist them in meeting their obligations,
and to provide members of the public with information about their rights, under the civil rights laws and
implementing regulations that it enforces. OCRs legal authority is based on those laws and regulations. This
guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform
recipients about how OCR evaluates whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations. If you are
interested in commenting on this guidance, please send an e-mail with your comments to OCR@ed.gov, or write to
the following address: Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20202.
&YIJCJU"

Notice of Language Assistance
Notice of Language Assistance: If you have difficulty understanding English, you may, free of charge,
request language assistance services for this Department information by calling 1-800-USA-LEARN (1800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), or email us at: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
Aviso a personas con dominio limitado del idioma ingls: Si usted tiene alguna dificultad en
entender el idioma ingls, puede, sin costo alguno, solicitar asistencia lingstica con respecto a esta
informacin llamando al 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), o enve un
mensaje de correo electrnico a: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327)
(1-800-877-8339)Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
Thng bo dnh cho nhng ngi c kh nng Anh ng hn ch:
c
c
c c c c
c c c
cc
c c
c
c c
c
c c c
c
c
1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY:
1-800-877ce
Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
: ,
.
. , 1-800-USALEARN (1-800-872-5327) 1-800-877-8339
Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov .
Paunawa sa mga Taong Limitado ang Kaalaman sa English:
e
e
e
pagsasalin, mangyari lamang tumawag sa 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339),
o mag-email sa: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
:
1-800-USALEARN (1-800-872-
1-800-877Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notice of Language Assistance ............................................................................................... ii
Overview of Title IXs Application to Single-Sex Classes and Extracurricular Activities ............. 1
1. What types of schools are covered by the Departments Title IX regulations on
single-sex classes? ............................................................................................................... 1
2. Are there other legal considerations beyond the Title IX regulations discussed in
this guidance document that apply to single-sex classes? .................................................. 1
3. Does this document address single-sex schools? ................................................................ 2
4. May schools offer single-sex classes and extracurricular activities under the
Departments Title IX regulations? ...................................................................................... 3
5.
.................................... 3
6. Is a class that is open to all students but in which only members of one sex enroll
covered by the Title IX regulations described in this document? ....................................... 4
7. What criteria must be met to offer single-sex classes under the Departments Title
IX regulations? ..................................................................................................................... 4
Justification for Offering a Single-Sex Class ............................................................................ 5
8. Does a recipient need a justification for each single-sex class or activity it offers? ........... 5
9. When must a recipient establish its justification for a single-sex class? ............................. 5
10. In what ways can a school identify an important objective for offering a single-sex
class? .................................................................................................................................... 5
11.
e e ce
ec e
e
e
e-sex nature of a
class is substantially related to achieving an important objective? .................................... 8
12. May a recipient demonstrate a substantial relationship using a claim that a certain
strategy, other than single-sex, is more effective for most members of one sex?........... 11
iii
Evenhanded Offerings ......................................................................................................... 12

13. What is the evenhandedness requirement? ..................................................................... 12
14. How does the evenhandedness analysis apply if a recipient is asserting the diversity
objective? .......................................................................................................................... 12
15. How does the evenhandedness analysis apply if a recipient is asserting the needs
objective? .......................................................................................................................... 14
Voluntariness ...................................................................................................................... 15
16. Who decides whether a student enrolls in a single-sex class? .......................................... 15
17. May a recipient assign students to a single-sex class as long as it permits students
to opt out of the class? ...................................................................................................... 15
18.
ec e
e e e
e
e-sex class than it is to enroll in a
coeducational class? .......................................................................................................... 15
19. How does the breadth of class offerings affect voluntariness? ........................................ 16
20. What additional steps sh
ec e
e e
e
c ation in a
single-sex class is completely voluntary? .......................................................................... 16
Substantially Equal Coeducational Option............................................................................ 17
21. Must a recipient offer a substantially equal coeducational option for every singlesex class offered?............................................................................................................... 17
22. What factors will OCR consider in determining whether a coeducational class is
substantially equal to the single-sex class? ....................................................................... 18
Periodic Evaluations ............................................................................................................ 20
23. How often must a recipient conduct an evaluation of its single-sex programs? .............. 20
24. What is the purpose of these evaluations? ....................................................................... 20
25. Must the periodic evaluation address the way a single-sex class is taught? .................... 21
26. How should the evaluations be made available to the public?......................................... 23
27. How will OCR determine whether a periodic evaluation demonstrates that a singlesex class is still substantially related to the recipients important objective? .................. 23
iv
28. What is the role of the recipients Title IX coordinator in conducting these
evaluations? ....................................................................................................................... 24
Employment ........................................................................................................................ 25
29. May a recipient assign teachers to single-sex classes based on the sex of the
teacher? ............................................................................................................................. 25
Other Federal Protections for Students in Single-Sex Classes ................................................ 25
30. May a recipient exclude students with disabilities or English language learners from
a single-sex class so long as it permits them to participate in the substantially equal
coeducational class? .......................................................................................................... 25
31. How do the Title IX requirements on single-sex classes apply to transgender
students? ........................................................................................................................... 25
Additional Topics ................................................................................................................. 26
32. Which set of regulations governs a school within a schoolthe regulations
governing single-sex schools or the regulations governing single-sex classes?................ 26
33. How can I contact OCR to get additional information or to file a complaint? .................. 26
Overview of Title IXs Application to Single-Sex Classes and Extracurricular Activities*

1. What types of schools are covered by the Departments Title IX regulations on single-sex
classes?
Answer: Coeducational elementary and secondary schools and school districts that receive
Federal financial assistance from the Department must comply with the Departments Title
IX regulations in 34 C.F.R. 106.34(b) on single-sex classes if they intend to offer such
classes. (OCR often refers to these schools and school districts as recipients.) In practice,
the regulations regarding single-sex classes apply to every public school (including
traditional, charter, and magnet schools) because every public school is part of a local
education agency that receives financial assistance from the Department. The regulations
also apply to the few private coeducational schools that receive Federal financial assistance
from the Department3 and wish to offer single-sex classes.
2. Are there other legal considerations beyond the Title IX regulations discussed in this
guidance document that apply to single-sex classes?
Answer: Yes. While this document only addresses the requirements of the Departments
Title IX regulations, public school districts and schools that are currently offering or are
interested in offering single-sex classes must comply with the Constitution of the United
States and other applicable Federal laws. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex by public schools.4 In addition, Title
IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title IV) prohibits public school boards from denying
students the equal protection of the laws based on sex,5 and the Equal Educational
Opportunities Act (EEOA) prohibits some forms of student assignment to schools if the
assignment results in sex segregation.6
The Departments regulations clarified in this document apply to all single-sex classes and extracurricular
activities covered by 34 C.F.R. 106.34(b). For simplicity, OCR generally uses the term classes or classes and
activities to refer to classes and extracurricular activities.
A private school that is controlled by a religious organization is exempt from Title IX even when it receives Federal
financial assistance to the extent that the laws requirements conflict with the organizations religious tenets. 20
U.S.C. 1681(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. 106.12(a). For application of this provision to a specific institution, please contact
the appropriate OCR regional office. (See the response to Question 33 to determine which regional office serves
your location.)
Page 1 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex Classes
All of these legal requirements are enforced in different ways. OCR has authority to
investigate a potential Title IX violation in response to a complaint or proactively through a
compliance review and may refer a matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) if voluntary
compliance cannot be achieved.7 DOJ also has independent authority to enforce the Equal
Protection Clause, Title IV, and the EEOA. Additionally, an individual may bring a private
lawsuit against a school district or school for alleged violations of Title IX, the Equal
Protection Clause, or e
D
ee
e e e
c
Therefore, when public school districts and schools offer single-sex classes, they must
ensure that they comply with the Constitution and all applicable Federal laws, not just Title
IX. State and local rules cannot limit or override the requirements of Federal laws, including
Title IX and its regulations, but States and localities may have constitutions, laws, or
regulations that impose additional limitations regarding the offering of single-sex classes.8
OCR recommends that a school district or school consult with legal counsel prior to offering
single-sex classes.
3. Does this document address single-sex schools?
Answer: This document focuses on the Departments Title IX regulations pertaining to
single-sex classes in public elementary and secondary schools. There are separate Title IX
regulations in 34 C.F.R. 106.34(c) that govern public, nonvocational single-sex schools.
Generally, a school district may offer a single-sex nonvocational elementary or secondary
school under Title IX only if it offers a substantially equal single-sex or coeducational school
to students of the excluded sex.9 However, single-sex nonvocational private schools are not
governed by the Departments Title IX regulation requiring a substantially equal single-sex
or coeducational school. By contrast, vocational schools that receive Federal financial
assistance may never be limited to one sex.10 There are also Department Title IX regulations
that apply to admissions to single-sex nonvocational public and private colleges and
universities.11
As noted in the response to Question 2, public single-sex schools are subject to the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and other Federal statutes as well as Title
IX. T e De
e e
e
c
ee funds or other forms of Federal
financial assistance for the establishment or operation of a public single-sex school to
demonstrate the schools compliance with Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, and all other applicable laws and regulations. Failure to
demonstrate compliance with these requirements may lead to a rejection of the grant
application or disqualification from receipt of continuation funds or other financial
assistance.
4. May schools offer single-sex classes and extracurricular activities under the Departments
Title IX regulations?
Answer: Yes. The Departments Title IX regulations permit offering single-sex classes under
certain circumstances. The general rule under Title IX is that a recipient may not exclude,
separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently any person on the basis of sex in
its education programs or activitiesincluding classes and extracurricular activitiesunless
expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or the Departments implementing
regulations.12 The Departments Title IX regulations identify the following categories for
which a recipient may intentionally separate students by sex: 13
Contact sports in physical education classes;14
Classes or portions of classes in elementary and secondary schools that deal

primarily with human sexuality;15 and
Nonvocational classes and extracurricular activities within a coeducational,

nonvocational elementary or secondary school if certain criteria are met.16
5. What kinds of classes and activities does this document address?

Answer: This document focuses on the last exception noted in the response to Question 4
nonvocational classes and extracurricular activities in a coeducational, nonvocational
elementary or secondary school receiving Federal financial assistance. These include any
single-sex curricular activity (such as a class or a field trip) and any single-sex extracurricular
activity (such as a before-school or after-school activity, lunch, or recess). The requirements
regarding this exception apply to single-sex classes and activities whether they are provided
directly by a school district or school or through another entity.17
Vocational classes are not discussed further in this document because they may never be
offered on a single-sex basis.18 For purposes of this document, vocational classes are those
classes that have as their primary purpose the preparation of students to pursue a
ec c
e
e e cc
e
ue study in a technical field,
consistent with the definition of institution of vocational education in 34 C.F.R.
106.2(o).19
OCR does not address interscholastic, club, or intramural athletics in this document because
extracurricular athletics are governed by separate Title IX regulations.20
6. Is a class that is open to all students but in which only members of one sex enroll covered
by the Title IX regulations described in this document?
Answer: No. The regulations described in this document apply to a class that excludes
students of one sex from enrolling or otherwise participating in that class.
By contrast, a class is not subject to the regulations described in this document if it is open
to members of both sexes, even if students of only one sex, or a substantially
disproportionate number of students of one sex, enroll. If such disproportion exists in a
coeducational class, however, it may be an indication of inappropriate steering or other
discrimination in counseling or guidance. Title IX requires that, if such disproportion exists,
the school ensure that the disproportionate enrollment is not the result of discrimination
on the basis of sex, including in counseling or guidance of students or applicants for
admission.21
7. What criteria must be met to offer single-sex classes under the Departments Title IX
regulations?
Answer: The Departments Title IX regulations permit a nonvocational elementary or
secondary school to offer a nonvocational single-sex class if it has a two-part justification for
doing so that demonstrates that:
each single-sex class is based on the recipients important objective either to

o improve its students educational achievement through its overall
established policies to provide diverse educational opportunities (the
diversity objective), or
o to meet the particular, identified educational needs of its students (the
needs objective); and
the single-sex nature of the class is substantially related to achieving that

important objective.22
In addition to establishing a justification for offering a single-sex class, in order to comply

with the Departments Title IX regulations, the recipient must:
implement its objective in an evenhanded manner;
ensure that student enrollment in the single-sex class is completely voluntary;
provide a substantially equal coeducational class in the same subject; and
conduct periodic evaluations to determine whether the class complies with Title IX,
and if not, modify or discontinue the class to ensure compliance with Title IX.
Each of these elements is discussed below.

Justification for Offering a Single-Sex Class
8. Does a recipient need a justification for each single-sex class or activity it offers?
Answer: Yes. A specific, individual justification (demonstrating the recipients objective and
the substantial relationship between the objective and the single-sex nature of the class or
activity) is necessary for each single-sex class or activity. A recipient may not offer singlesex classes in multiple grades or subjects without separately justifying each class. At the
elementary school level, where a class typically covers many subjects, the recipient must
separately justify the use of single-sex classes for each subject. This requirement applies to
each single-sex curricular activity and each single-sex extracurricular activity offered by the
school.
9. When must a recipient establish its justification for a single-sex class?
Answer: A recipient must establish its justification prior to offering the single-sex class.23
Although OCR does not pre-approve class offerings or offer legal advisory opinions, OCR will
request documentation of the justification during a complaint investigation or compliance
review. OCR will review the justification to ensure that it was the actual reason that
motivated the offering of that single-sex class, rather than an after-the-fact explanation
prepared in response to the complaint or investigation.24 A recipient is not required to
prepare a written justification, but in the absence of a written justification, OCR will assume
that the recipient did not establish its justification prior to offering the single-sex class and
that any justification was established after the initiation of the complaint investigation or
compliance review, unless the recipient can prove otherwise. Therefore, it is strongly
recommended that the recipient articulate its justification in writing prior to offering the
single-sex class and preserve that documentation for at least as long as the recipient offers
the single-sex class in question and for a reasonable time after the class ends. This
documentation may also assist the recipient as it periodically evaluates its single-sex
offerings, as discussed in more detail in response to Questions 23 through 28.
10. In what ways can a school identify an important objective for offering a single-sex class?
Answer: To offer a single-sex class, a school district or school must first identify an
important objective that the particular single-sex class is intended to address. The Title IX
regulations on single-sex classes describe the following two important objectives, one of
which must be the basis for offering a single-sex class.
Diversity Objective: To improve educational achievement of its students, through a

recipients overall established policy to provide diverse educational opportunities,
provided that the single-sex nature of the class or extracurricular activity is substantially
related to achieving that objective.25
To meet this objective, a recipient must first identify the educational achievement it
ee to improve through the diverse educational opportunities it offers and the
proposed single-sex class.26 Recipients may not rely on the diversity objective if the only
type of nontraditional class offered is a single-sex class.27 Rather, the recipient must
offer a range of diverse educational opportunities beyond single-sex and coeducational
classes. Diverse offerings in a school might include, for example, a variety of electives, a
variety of curricula (such as a science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) focus or
International Baccalaureate classes), co-op or internship opportunities, or the option to
ec e
e c
o Example A*: The students at Options High School earn high grades and aboveaverage scores on State exams, but their enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP)
classes is low
c
e
c e ee
e
AP
classes in an effort to improve its students college preparedness. As part of its
college-preparedness effort, Options High School offers diverse educational
opportunities, including AP classes, a variety of electives, a STEM-focused
curriculum option, and a visual and performing arts-focused curriculum option.
Many students who are not enrolled in AP classes have expressed interest in
c e
e-sex setting. The high scho
e
esex AP classes to its class offerings in order to increase enrollment in AP classes
and thus improve college preparedness. Under these circumstances, attempting
to improve its students college preparedness through single-sex AP classes is an
appropriate use of the diversity objective.
This document provides guidance on a number of Title IX requirements applicable to single-sex classes, including
justification/important objective; substantial relationship; evenhandedness; voluntariness; a substantially equal
coeducational class; and periodic evaluations. Each example in this document is intended to illustrate the
principles discussed in the response in which the example appears. Each example also presumes compliance with
all the Title IX requirements discussed elsewhere in the document and should be read with that understanding.
Needs Objective: To meet the particular, identified educational needs of its students,
provided that the single-sex nature of the class or extracurricular activity is substantially
related to achieving that objective.28
e e e
ec e
meet the needs objective, the recipient must identify a
particular educational need in its student body, evidenced by limited or deficient
educational achievement, which is not being met by coeducational classes.29
o Example B: Underperforming Elementary School wants to address the fact that
its male third-grade students routinely score not proficient on the State
reading exam. Attempting to increase male students performance to proficient
on a State exam through the offering of a single-sex third-grade reading class is
an appropriate use of the needs objective.
The needs objective also encompasses certain social needs that students may have. The
Department recognizes that a schools educational mission may extend beyond strictly
academic objectives, and that classes and activities may provide social benefits that can
have a positive effect on students educational outcomes.30
o Example C: A high schools Title IX coordinator has received a number of reports
of dating violence among the schools students. All of the reports came from
female complainants and were about male aggressors. Many of the female
complainants have expressed a fear of interacting with male students. To
address the issue, the school offers an after-school, extracurricular program to
provide all students with information about dating violence, the cycle of abuse,
anger management, and effective methods for ending a violent relationship. The
school offers the program to students on a single-sex basis, with boys meeting
on one night and girls meeting a different night, as well as a coeducational
option.
Given the circumstances at this school, attempting to decrease the prevalence of
dating violence among students by offering a single-sex extracurricular activity is
an appropriate use of the needs objective.
Regardless of which objective it chooses, the recipient must meet the other Title IX
requirements discussed in this document, including showing that the single-sex nature of
the class is substantially related (see the responses to Questions 11 and 12) to meeting the
identified objective.
Administrative convenience will never justify the offering of single-sex classes.31
o Example D: Shortcut Elementary Schools fourth-grade class is half female and

half male. The fourth-grade students have lunch and recess from 10:30 a.m. to
11:30 a.m., with half an hour allotted for lunch and half an hour for recess. Half
of the students have lunch first, followed by recess. The other half of the
students go to recess first, followed by lunch.
e e e
eachers to
e e
e
e e
e
e
c ece
c
c
Elementary has divided the students by sex, with all fourth-grade girls in the first
group and all fourth-grade boys in the second group. This is not an appropriate
justification for operating single-sex lunch and recess.
11. What kind of evidence may a recipient use to show that the single-sex nature of a class is
substantially related to achieving an important objective?
Answer: The substantial relationship between the single-sex nature of the class and the
schools important objective must be directly supported by evidence (as described below)
gathered and evaluated prior to offering the single-sex class. Below are examples of types
of evidence that a recipient may use to demonstrate the required substantial relationship.
A recipient may use more than one type of evidence to determine whether a substantial
relationship exists. Regardless of the evidence used, the justification may not rely on
overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of either
sex, so, e e e e e ce c e
e
c
e
ee e
32
generalizations.
Comparator schools: The recipient may obtain data demonstrating a substantial relationship
through the use of comparator schools. To do this, the recipient must: (1) identify
comparator schools with a student population and school and class setting (e.g., grades
served, curricular offerings, geographic location, admissions requirements, educational
benefits, etc.) that are similar to the population and setting of the recipients school; and (2)
obtain data showing that the comparator schools achieved the recipients important
objective in the relevant subject or with respect to the relevant educational or social need
through the use of single-sex classes. When identifying comparator schools, the recipient
should consider factors that may distinguish two schools, such as socioeconomic differences
among the student population, differences in admissions policies and criteria, or resources
available through private funding.
If the recipient can identify appropriate comparator schools that have offered single-sex
classes in the same subjects and grades, the recipient should ensure that the comparator
schools success in each class is substantially related to the single-sex nature of the class
rather than other simultaneously used strategies (e.g., tutoring, extended class sessions,
ee e
c e c
e c If the comparator school used other strategies in
its single-sex class, the recipient

ee
e
e e
e
show a
substantial relationship between its important objective and the single-sex nature of the
class because it would be very difficult to determine whether any success in the comparator
school was due to the single-sex nature of the class or the other strategies that were used.
One way for the recipient school to demonstrate that the single-sex nature of the class
contributed to the students success is to try the other strategies used by the comparator
school in a coeducational setting at the recipients school prior to offering a single-sex class
and to compare the results relative to the important
ec e
e ec e ee
achieve.
o Example E: A majority of seventh-grade boys at Evidentiary Middle School have
scored not proficient on the State science exam for the past three years. The
school has identified a public school in a neighboring district, Comparator Middle
School, which has dramatically increased its seventh-grade boys scores on the
State science exam over the past five years. Comparator Middle School is
roughly the same size as Evidentiary Middle School, and both schools serve
students at the same grade level and of similar socioeconomic status.
e
e c
e
e e
e c
science program in hopes that Evidentiarys seventh-grade boys will achieve
similar success.
In achieving its gains, Comparator Middle School offered a single-sex science
class for seventh-grade boys. The State science exam scores of male students in
that class increased significantly. The all-boys science class used a newly
e e e c c
e
implemented a double-period science class,
offered after-school tutoring to all students in the class, and implemented a
mandatory robotics-themed Saturday school for the seventh-grade students in
those classes.
Evidentiary Middle School implemented these same sex-neutral strategies in its
coeducational seventh-grade science classes: it adopted the curriculum and
e
e
ce e c
e
e c e ce
eperiod class, offered after-school tutoring, and implemented the same
mandatory robotics-themed Saturday school. It offered these classes on a
coeducational basis for three years, but the science scores of its seventh-grade
boys remained stagnant. At that point, consistent with the needs objective,
Evidentiary decided to offer an all-boys seventh-grade science class in
conjunction with the sex-neutral strategies listed above.
Given these facts, OCR would find that Evidentiary Middle School had shown a
substantial relationship between its objective of increasing its seventh-grade
male students proficiency on the State science exam and the single-sex nature
of the boys science class it decided to offer.
o Example F: Most girls at Scientific High School do not enroll in AP Chemistry,
though their grades and scores on State science exams suggest that they would
be good candidates for the class. Boys at Scientific High School do enroll in AP
e
e
e
e e
e
e c
s widely
diverse class offerings. Consistent with the diversity objective, Scientific High
c
e improve the educational achievement of its students by
increasing female enrollment in AP Chemistry by further expanding its class
offerings to include an all-girls AP Chemistry class.
Scientific High School has identified two schools in nearby districts that have
implemented an all-girls AP Chemistry class. These schools are approximately
the same size as Scientific High School, and all three schools serve students at
the same grade level and of similar socioeconomic status. All three are
neighborhood schools with no specific admissions requirements, and all students
receive transportation to and from school through the applicable district.
Over the last three years, since the implementation of those classes, the
enrollment rate of female students in AP Chemistry has steadily increased at
both of the two comparator schools. Female enrollment in those schools
coeducational AP Chemistry classes has stayed roughly the same. The schools
did not change any other aspect of their AP Chemistry programs; the single-sex
classes are identical to their coeducational counterparts.
Given these facts, OCR would find that, through its overall policy to provide
diverse educational opportunities, Scientific High School had shown a substantial
relationship between the single-sex nature of the girls science class and its
important objective of improving the educational achievement of its students by
increasing female enrollment in AP Chemistry.
Research Evidence: Research evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of single-sex classes
in circumstances sufficiently similar to the schools circumstances may also satisfy the
substantial relationship requirement. A 2005 Department-commissioned survey found the
results of available research on the general use of single-sex education were equivocal.33
Nonetheless, to satisfy the substantial relationship requirement, OCR will accept a research
study that: 1) employs a rigorous research design for causal inference; 2) demonstrates the
effectiveness of the single-sex nature of the class with respect to the specific important
objective at issue (e.g., improving achievement in Algebra or reducing infractions requiring
discipline); and 3) includes a sample that overlaps with the proposed populations or settings
(e.g., ninth-grade girls in low-income communities) that the recipient is targeting. The
standards set forth in the Departments What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook34 provide an appropriate guide for assessing the strength of a study of
the effectiveness of the intervention (e.g., limiting a class to a single sex) in addressing the
schools important objective.
o Example G: Town Elementary School would e
e
-boys fourth-grade
class to reduce the discipline problems of the boys in that grade. Before it offers
this class, Town Elementary School finds a research study that meets the What
e
e Procedures and Standards and concludes that boys ages
five through ten in all-boys classrooms committed fewer infractions leading to
discipline than boys in coeducational control classes with identical rules and
procedures for discipline, curricula, educational strategies, teacher-student ratio,
and student population (e.g., eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch).35 The
population and settings of the single-sex and coeducational classes examined in
the study are almost identical to those of Town Elementary Schools fourthgrade classes. Absent facts distinguishing the research classes from Town
Elementary Schools classes, OCR would find this study is sufficient to show a
substantial relationship between the schools objective of reducing discipline and
the single-sex nature of the class.
12. May a recipient demonstrate a substantial relationship using a claim that a certain
strategy, other than single-sex, is more effective for most members of one sex?
Answer: Claims that a certain strategy (such as a teaching method or a specific learning
environment) is more effective for most members of one sex will not be sufficient, standing
alone, to show a substantial relationship between the single-sex nature of a class and the
important objective. This is because such a strategy may be equally effective regardless of
whether it is implemented in a single-sex or a coeducational setting. If the recipient wants
to use that strategy in a single-sex setting, the recipient still needs to show that students
will benefit from the fact that the class is single-sex. Therefore, even assuming a recipient
had evidence showing that a certain strategy was particularly effective for one sex, the
recipient would need further evidence showing that the exclusion of the other sex was
ece
e e
egy effective or, at the least, substantially more effective. (This
showing could be made through the use of comparator schools or research evidence,
described in the response to Question 11.)
o Example H: A majority of third-grade girls at Cold Elementary School are

underperforming on State c e ce e
e e
c
e
implement an all-girls thirdec
ee
ec
e e
e
ten degrees higher than the schools other classrooms, because the schools
principal has read an article suggesting that girls learn better in warmer
temperatures and boys learn better in colder temperatures. The article did not
cite to any studies comparing students in coeducational warm or cold classes
with students in single-sex warm or cold classes, but rather simply concluded
that all girls will learn better in a warm environment and that all boys will learn
better in a cold environment. Even if this research were reliable, it would not
prove that boys would learn better in a cold environment with no girls, or that
girls would learn better in a warm environment with no boys.
Thus, the school cannot show a substantial relationship between the single-sex
nature of the class and the anticipated increase in girls State science test scores.
If the school believes temperature affects educational outcomes, it can offer a
coeducational warm and a coeducational cool classroom and use criteria,
other than the students sex, to decide which students would attend each of
those coeducational classrooms, such as allowing students and parents to
choose the learning environment they believe best suits each student.
Evenhanded Offerings
13. What is the evenhandedness requirement?
Answer: A recipient must treat male and female students evenhandedly in implementing its
important objective.36 The evenhandedness requirement means that a recipient offering
single-sex classes must provide equal educational opportunities to students regardless of
their sex, with the end result that both sexes receive substantially equal classes.37
14. How does the evenhandedness analysis apply if a recipient is asserting the diversity
objective?
Answer: If the recipient asserts the diversity objective, and it has identified single-sex
classes for which it can demonstrate a substantial relationship to its important objective, it
must still ensure that the choice of diverse educational opportunities, including single-sex or
coeducational classes, is offered evenhandedly to male and female students. To do this, it
must conduct a thorough and impartial assessment of what single-sex classes to offer to
each sex, and then offer those classes evenhandedly to its students.38 Thus, under the
diversity objective, if a recipient is able to justify single-sex classes for both sexes, offering
single- e c e
e e
e
e ee e
e e e
e e
unless the recipient can show that it evenhandedly gauged the interest of both sexes and
the excluded sex was not interested in having the option to enroll in single-sex classes.
e e
e e
ee
e-sex classes in the schools core subjects, while the other
sex is only offered single-sex classes in the schools non-core subjects, OCR would not find
that the recipient is offering classes in an evenhanded manner.
o Example I:
ce
c
e
e
e-sex classes to increase
enrollment of both male and female students in its AP Physics, English, or
American History classes. Advanced High School has already determined that it
can meet the requisite regulatory requirements of the Departments Title IX
regulations for all of these classes, but because of staffing concerns, the school
can only offer single-sex classes in one subject. Advanced High School conducted
a survey to determine which subject male students would prefer; the male
students chose AP Physics. Because it could only devote one teacher to singlesex classes, Advanced High School did not survey its female students, but
decided instead to offer the female students a single-sex AP Physics class, as
well.
This would violate the evenhandedness requirement. Even though all students
are being offered identical single-sex classes, taught by the same teacher, the
assessment of which class to offer favored the male students.
This does not mean, however, that male and female students must always be offered
single-sex classes in the same subjects. To ensure evenhandedness, once it has completed
its justification for each single-sex class, a recipient may wish to collect pre-enrollment
information from parents* and students or survey parents and students about interest in
enrolling in single- e c e
e c
ec
e
e e c
ee
esex class in a certain subject, the recipient would not be required to provide them a singlesex class in that subject.
o Example J: Nearby Middle School is considering adding single-sex classes to the
diverse array of other classes it offers. Having documented its justification for
the addition of single-sex classes in Pre-Algebra, American History, English, and
Geometry, the school surveys all parents and students to determine whether
students
e ee e
of these classes on a single-sex basis.
Forty eighth-grade boys express interest in all-male Pre-Algebra and American
When this document refers to parents, the term encompasses both parents and legal guardians.
History classes, while only two girls request these classes on a single-sex basis.
Thirty-five eighth-grade girls request all-female English and Geometry classes,
while no boys request these classes on a single-sex basis. In this scenario,
Nearby Middle School may offer the all-male Pre-Algebra and American History
classes and all-female English and Geometry classes to its eighth-grade students
without violating the evenhandedness requirement.
15. How does the evenhandedness analysis apply if a recipient is asserting the needs
objective?
Answer: If the recipient asserts the needs objective, the evenhandedness analysis is
different from the analysis used under the diversity objective. Under the needs objective,
the recipient must first conduct an assessment to identify the educational needs of its
students, and then determine how to meet those needs on an evenhanded basis.39 If a
recipient has evidence demonstrating that a single-sex class in a particular subject would
meet the particular, identified educational needs of students of both sexes and that the
single-sex nature of the classes is substantially related to meeting the needs for both sexes,
then if the recipient offers a single-sex class in that subject, it must do so for both sexes. On
the other hand, if the evidence shows that the single-sex class in that subject would meet
the particular, identified needs of only one sex or that the single-sex nature of the class
would be substantially related to meeting the needs of only one sex, a recipient may not
offer the single-sex class to students of the other sex. That recipient would instead have to
determine, based on its assessment of the educational needs of both sexes, whether a
single-sex class in another subject should be offered to the excluded sex, in order to meet
the evenhandedness requirement.40
o Example K: Faraway High School intends to offer an all-boys AP English class
because the percentage of its male students passing the AP English exam is far
below the district average. The schools female students pass the AP English
exam at a rate higher than the district average. The reverse is true with respect
to AP Physics: the percentage of girls passing the AP Physics exam is far below
the district average, while the boys scores suggest no deficiency.
Under these circumstances, Faraway High School may provide an all-boys AP
English class without offering an all-girls AP English class because there is no
particular identified need for such an all-girls class. To meet the
evenhandedness requirement, however, in light of data showing its female
students deficiency on the AP Physics exam, the school must first research
whether an all-girls AP Physics class would be substantially related to increasing
female students proficiency on that exam. If so, then the school must offer the
female-only AP Physics class as well.
Voluntariness
16. Who decides whether a student enrolls in a single-sex class?
Answer: The Departments Title IX regulations require that student enrollment in a singlesex class or extracurricular activity be completely voluntary.41 To meet this requirement,
OCR strongly encourages recipients to obtain the affirmative consent from the parents to
enroll a student in a single-sex class.42 Nevertheless, OCR will defer to State law to
determine whether a student or the students parents will have ultimate decisionauthority regarding whether a student will be enrolled in a single-sex class. If State law is
silent, a recipient may use its educational judgment, based on the age and circumstances of
its students and its normal class assignment procedures. The affirmative consent of the
designated decisione
e e e
e
e
e
e ece e e e
assigning a student to a single-sex class.
17. May a recipient assign students to a single-sex class as long as it permits students to opt
out of the class?
Answer: No. Regardless of whether the authority rests with the student or the parent, the
decisione
e
o a single-sex class; the student may not simply be
assigned to a single-sex class by the school and then be permitted to opt out.43 If no
affirmative consent is received, the student must be enrolled in a coeducational class.44
OCR recommends that such affirmative consent come in the form of a written, signed
document.45
18. May a recipient make it easier to enroll in a single-sex class than it is to enroll in a
coeducational class?
Answer: No. A school cannot use a less stringent class enrollment procedure for its singlesex classes than it does for its coeducational classes. In order for the choice to be
completely voluntary, a school may not influence the choice to enroll in one class over the
other. In assessing whether a decision to enroll in a single-sex class was voluntary, OCR will
consider, among other things, whether the choice was influenced by extraneous factors.
For example, any authorization (e.g., a permission slip) or procedure (e.g., a pre-enrollment
meeting with a guidance counselor) that is required for enrolling in a coeducational class,
but not for enrolling in the single-sex counterpart would render involuntary the choice to
enroll in the single-sex class.
19. How does the breadth of class offerings affect voluntariness?

Answer: For the single-sex class to be voluntary, a recipient must offer a substantially equal
coeducational class in the same subject.46 (Factors for determining substantial equality are
discussed in the response to Question 22.) If a student is forced to choose between ta
a
single-sex class in a particular subject and
c
that subject, the choice to
e e
e-sex class is not voluntary.
e e
e
c
e
ec
is a single-sex class, a students selection of that single-sex class will not be considered
e
e
e-sex class in order to avoid a coeducational
option that is set at a remedial level, the single-sex class will also not be considered
voluntary. (Classes with such differences may also violate the requirement of offering a
substantially equal coeducational class, discussed in the responses to Questions 21 and 22.)
20. What additional steps should a recipient take to ensure that participation in a single-sex
class is completely voluntary?
Answer: Because an uninformed decision may, in many circumstances, not be completely
voluntary, OCR recommends that recipients provide pre-enrollment information about each
class to students and parents in sufficient time and in a manner that is accessible to those
with disabilities and with limited English proficiency so that the decisione c
e an
47
informed choice.
This pre-enrollment information should explain that the decisione
e
48
choosing between the coeducational and single-sex class; describe the similarities and
differences between the coeducational and single-sex classes; and provide a summary of
the recipients justification for offering the single-sex option. OCR recommends that preenrollment disclosures specify that parents and students have the option of reviewing the
recipients full justification (and any periodic evaluations, described in the responses to
Questions 23 through 28) upon request. In providing this pre-enrollment information,
recipients must ensure that the information is conveyed in a way that does not pressure
parents to enroll students in a single-sex class.
o Example L: Steering Elementary School is planning to implement single-sex fifthgrade reading and math classes for both boys and girls. To comply with the Title
IX regulatory requirements for establishing new single-sex classes, over the
e
e c
e
c e
e e
e
c
fifth-grade student that includes: the schools justification for its single-sex
classes; the data upon which the school relied in developing its justification; a
statement that substantially equal coeducational reading and math classes are
available; and a description of the differences between the single-sex and
coed c
c e
e c
c e e
c e
one for the
reading class and one for the math classallowing parents to opt in to each
single-sex class. The form states that if a parent does not return the form for a
given class, his or her child will be placed in a substantially equal coeducational
class.
ee e e c
e
c
ee
e e
c
c
all
of the parents who have not returned the consent forms to remind them of the
option to enroll their children in single- e c e
ee c
e e
e
advantage of the single-sex classes, and explains that if there is not enough
interest to sustain them, the school will not be able to provide the classes to
anyone. He explains that many people are interested in the single-sex classes,
and warns parents against being the individuals who hold up implementation
of the unique and beneficial opportunity.
Although the elementary schools practice of sending an impartial information
c e
e
e
long with an appropriate opt-in form, is a good one,
OCR would consider the principals later behavior to be inappropriate pressure
to enroll in a single-sex class. His warning inappropriately suggested that a
parent should consider factors outside of his or her childs educational wellbeing (including ensuring that other students have access to single-sex classes).
Any consent forms received after the principals phone calls would not be valid.
Substantially Equal Coeducational Option
21. Must a recipient offer a substantially equal coeducational option for every single-sex class
offered?
Answer: Yes. A recipient that offers a single-sex class must provide all other students,
including students of the excluded sex, with a substantially equal coeducational class in the
same subject.49 At least one substantially equal coeducational section must be offered in
each subject for which there is a single-sex class, and more than one section may be needed
because every student who requests a coeducational option must be enrolled in one. Once
e e e e ce
e
ee
c e c
c
e e a school may offer more
than one single-sex section in a given subject if enrollment in that subject warrants it.
o Example M: If a school offers each of its 50 eighth-grade boys the choice
between single-sex or coeducational Algebra classes, and 40 choose a single-sex
class and 10 choose a coeducational class, the school may offer two single-sex
sections and only one coeducational section of Algebra. This is permissible, so
long as every student who sought the coeducational option was enrolled in a
substantially equal coeducational class. (Additionally, the school may also be

required to provide a substantially equal single-sex class for its eighth-grade girls,
consistent with the evenhandedness requirement discussed in the responses to
Questions 13 through 15.)50
A school is not obligated to provide a single-sex class to any individual student, even if that
student opted into the single-sex class. The school must consider the number of students
interested in the option and the schools need to provide a substantially equal
coeducational class for all other students, including students of the excluded sex. Thus, in
the example above, if all of the eighth-grade boys opted into the single-sex Algebra class,
resulting in the substantially equal coeducational class enrolling only girls, the school could
not honor all of the requests for the single-sex boys class, because doing so would deny the
girls a substantially equal coeducational class.
22. What factors will OCR consider in determining whether a coeducational class is
substantially equal to the single-sex class?
Answer: OCR will consider all relevant factors, both individually and in the aggregate, in
determining whether a coeducational class is substantially equal to the single-sex class.51
Although the single-sex and coeducational classes do not need to be identical with respect
to each factor, they need to be substantially equal. This means that if one class is
significantly superior with respect to one factor, or slightly superior with respect to many
52
c
ec e e e
e
The Departments Title IX regulations
include a non-exhaustive list of factors, each of which is addressed individually below, that
OCR will consider while conducting a complaint investigation or compliance review. OCR
will consider all relevant factors in determining whether a coeducational class and a singlesex class are substantially equal.53 Whether information is relevant will depend on the
specific facts and circumstances of each case, because each single- e c
ee
c e e
a different objective and may be offered in a different way.
The admissions criteria and policies;

o Example N: College-Bound High School offers single-sex and coeducational
classes in AP Spanish. Both the coeducational and single-sex AP Spanish classes
were open only to students with a grade point average of 3.5 or higher and who
participate in a summer language program. On these facts, OCR would consider
the admissions criteria and policies to be substantially equal.
The educational benefits provided, including the quality, range, and content of
c c
e e ce
e
ructional
materials, and technology;
o Example O: Tech-Savvy Middle School offers single-sex and coeducational
biology classes. The coeducational classes follow a curriculum that uses
e
c e
e
c
e
e
c
D D ayer
in the classroom, to teach lessons. The single-sex classes incorporate individually
issued laptops, which allow for interactive, technology-based lessons, into the
curriculum. On these facts, OCR would not consider the educational benefits
provided to be substantially equal.
The qualifications of faculty and staff;

o Example P: Tenured Middle School ensures that an equal proportion of first- and
second-year teachers as compared to more experienced teachers are assigned to
its single-sex and coeducational Pre-Algebra classes. All of the Pre-Algebra
teachers
e
c
e
c
receive training on teaching the
schools Pre-Algebra curriculum. Prior to teaching the class, each teacher must
e
ec e
e e
c
e e c e n the relevant teaching
methods. On these facts, OCR would consider the qualifications of the faculty of
the classes to be substantially equal.
Geographic accessibility;54
o Example Q: Centrally Located High School offers one all-male and one all-female
chemistry class
e
e
e
c
c e c
basis, Centrally Located High School has entered into an agreement with Distant
High School, 15 miles away, which will accept Centrally Located High Schools
students. Because
c
e
c
e
e
e
30 minutes each way to travel to the class at Distant High School, resulting in an
hour of lost instruction time. On these facts, OCR would not consider the
geographic accessibility of the classes to be substantially equal.
The quality, accessibility, and availability of facilities and resources provided to the class;
o Example R: Updated High School offers both coeducational and single-sex
Chemistry classes. The coeducational Chemistry class is held in a chemistry lab
that was original to the building, constructed in 1970. Updated High School
added a new wing in 2010, which includes a new chemistry lab that offers stateof-the-art equipment and incorporates interactive technology. The single-sex
Chemistry classes are held in the new lab. On these facts, OCR would not
consider the facilities and resources of the classes to be substantially equal.
Intangible features, such as the reputation of faculty.

o Example S: Connected High School offers two single-sex journalism classes: one
for boys and one for girls. A journalist for a local newspaper teaches both of
these classes. The journalist is well connected in the local media community,
and in the past, she has assisted students with obtaining internships at local
media outlets. The school also offers a coeducational journalism class that is
taught by an individual with a degree in English
e e
e
the field or been involved in a school journalism program. On these facts, OCR
would not consider the reputation of the faculty (an intangible feature) of the
two classes to be substantially equal.
Periodic Evaluations
23. How often must a recipient conduct an evaluation of its single-sex programs?
Answer: The recipient must evaluate each of its single-sex classes, and the original
justification behind each single-sex class, at least every two years.55 A recipient may decide
to conduct evaluations more frequently (because its own findings have identified concerns
or for other reasons). If OCR investigates a recipient and identifies compliance problems,
OCR may require the recipient to conduct more frequent evaluations.56
24. What is the purpose of these evaluations?
Answer: The recipient must use these periodic evaluations to ensure that each single-sex
class it offers is based upon genuine justifications, does not rely on overly broad
generalizations about either sex, and continues to be substantially related to the
achievement of the important objective (see the responses to Questions 7 through 12).57
The periodic evaluations should also confirm that substantially equal single-sex classes are
offered if necessary to comply with the evenhandedness requirement (see the responses to
Questions 13 through 15), and that a substantially equal coeducational alternative to each
single-sex class is available (see the responses to Questions 21 and 22). The periodic
evaluations must assess evidence and data related to the recipients single-sex classes,
rather than relying on the comparator school or research evidence used at the justification
stage (see the response to Question 27).
25. Must the periodic evaluation address the way a single-sex class is taught?
Answer: e
ec e
e
e-sex classes may lead to the adoption of
classroom methods or strategies that revert to sex stereotypes, the Departments Title IX
regulations require that the recipient ensure that each single-sex class is operated in a
manner that does not rely on overly broad generalizations about the different talents,
capacities, or preferences of either sex.58 Thus, classroom methods or strategies should be
chosen on the basis of their effectiveness in teaching the individual students in the class,
without regard to the sex of those students. Of course, it may be difficult to ascertain why
certain methods or strategies were chosen, so the following information is intended to help
schools understand how OCR will conduct its analysis during a complaint investigation or
compliance review.
If identical classroom methods and strategiesincluding choices about classroom activities
and environmentare used in single-sex classes for boys and in single-sex classes for girls
(or in a single-sex class and a coeducational class), the evaluation of the way the classes are
taught is complete. This is because the use of the same methods and strategies for classes
for boys and classes for girls offers no reason to believe the decision to use those methods
and strategies was based on overly broad generalizations about either sex.
But if different classroom methods or strategies are used in single-sex classes for boys than
are used in single-sex classes for girls (or in a single-sex class in comparison with its
coeducational counterpart), then the recipient must evaluate whether the decision to adopt
these different methods or strategies was made in reliance on overly broad generalizations.
In some cases, the different methods or strategies used in single-sex classes may simply be
the result of the professional choices of an individual teacher without regard to the sex of
his or her students. If the recipient can show that the teacher would have selected identical
methods and strategies even if he or she were teaching a single-sex class of the opposite
sex or a coeducational class,
e c c e
e school did not use overly
broad generalizations about either sex. In determining whether the recipient has made this
showing, OCR will consider such factors as the methods and strategies historically used by
the teacher, and the timing of any changes in the teachers methods and strategies.
If, however, the methods or strategies were selected because of the sex of the students in
the class e
e ee
e
e e because methods and strategies that
are based on sex ignore the differences among students of the same sex. When a teaching
method or strategy is, in fact, selected on the basis of the sex of the students, its use must
be directly supported by evidence demonstrating that the particular method or strategy is
more effective for one sex than the other or is more effective when used in a single-sex
setting. (The response to Question 12 addresses the appropriate way to assess whether
strategies that are purported to be more effective for one sex may be used in a single-sex
setting.) It would not be enough to show that there is evidence about differences between
boys and girls that does not directly involve that particular teaching method or strategy.
For example, while there is, of course, evidence that biological differences between males
and females exist,59 evidence of general biological differences is not sufficient to allow
teachers to select different teaching methods or strategies for boys and girls.60
o Example T: Quiet Elementary School created single-sex fourth-grade classes for
both boys and girls. During the school year, the teachers of the single-sex classes
became aware of studies that show that girls are born with a significantly more
sensitive sense of hearing than boys, and that the differences grow larger as the
children grow older. Relying on those studies, the school decided that the boys
c
c
e e
e
e e
c
A periodic evaluation of the boys class would indicate reliance on overly broad
generalizations about the sexes with respect to teaching methods. Use of the
specific teaching method
would not comply with Title IX because
the teachers did not rely on evidence that directly
ed that particular teaching
method or strategy to improved educational achievement for boys. Instead,
they relied on a purported biological difference (that there are, on average,
biological differences in the hearing sensitivity of the sexes) to conclude that the
particular teaching method or strategy was appropriate. This general difference
between the sexes, even if true, does not by itself provide evidence that loud
e
e e ec e
e c
for one sex than the other or more
effective in a single-sex setting. The leap from the biological differences to the
use of a particular teaching method or strategy for students of one sex, without
the support of evidence regarding the educational effectiveness of the method
or strategy for one sex over the other, resulted in an overly broad generalization
e
e
Because of the overly
broad generalization, the school would have to discontinue its use of this
teaching method for the all-boys class.
The teaching method itself is permissible. A recipient is still free to incorporate
c e c
c
e-sex classes for both boys and
girls. But a recipient may not limit that method of instruction only to the singlesex class for boys on the basis of the overly broad generalization described
above.
26. How should the evaluations be made available to the public?

Answer: OCR recommends wide distribution of the evaluations, through the recipients
e e
e
e
e e initial justification, these evaluations could be useful to
parents who are deciding whether to enroll their children in single-sex classes and would
help ensure the choice is completely voluntary.
27. How will OCR determine whether a periodic evaluation demonstrates that a single-sex
class is still substantially related to the recipients important objective?
Answer: OCR will consider all relevant sources of evidence in determining whether the
single-sex nature of the class remains substantially related to the recipients important
objective. Whether evidence is relevant will depend on the specific facts and circumstances
of each case, because each single- e c
ee
c e e
ee
ec e
be offered in a different way. The evidence presented in a recipients periodic evaluation
must be related to the recipients single-sex classes, rather than the evidence relied upon in
the justification stage. Possible sources of evidence include, but are not limited to:
students grades; students scores on standardized statewide or districtwide exams;
discipline rates; attendance data; enrollment data; and educators observation and
evaluation of the effectiveness of each class.
Because the biennial evaluations must show that the single-sex nature of the class results in
achievement of, or progress toward, the recipients important objective, a comparison
between the students in the single-sex class and the substantially equal coeducational class
is appropriate.61 To best assess the effectiveness of each class, OCR recommends that
schools monitor the progress of the individual students in each class from year to year. This
will help ensure that any comparison between a single-sex class and a substantially equal
coeducational class controls for variations among students. Positive or negative changes
related to the recipients objective for all students in the single-sex class should be averaged
together; the same should be done for students in the coeducational class. The school can
then compare these averages to see how students in the single-sex class fared in
comparison to their peers in the substantially equal coeducational class. The same
procedure should be used to assess the single-sex class the following year. If, based on
these averages, a coeducational class outperforms a substantially equal single-sex class, it is
e
OCR would find that the single-sex class is not substantially related to the
recipients objective. Of course, the evidence will vary based on the schools objective. For
example, if the school implemented a single-sex class in an attempt to lower discipline
rates, discipline statistics should be analyzed.
o Example U: A middle school offers three substantially equal sections of tenthgrade American Literature: an all-girls class, an all-boys class, and a
coeducational class. The schools objective is to increase proficiency on the State
English exam. At the end of the first school year, to gather information for the
periodic evaluation required at the end of the second school year, each students
score on the state English exam is compared to his or her score on the previous
years exam. The school averages the change in scores of students in the all-girls
class, the all-boys class, and the coeducational class, respectively. The
proficiency rate of students in the coeducational class increased slightly. By
contrast, the proficiency rates of the students in the all-boys and all-girls classes
both increased significantly. The difference in average increases between the
single-sex classes and the coeducational class is statistically significant. The
averages are similar the following year. Under these circumstances, the
evidence in this periodic evaluation would suffice to show a continuing
substantial relationship between the single-sex nature of the classes and the
objective to increase students proficiency on the State English exam. Note,
however, that the school must continue to conduct biennial evaluations to show
that a substantial relationship between the single-sex nature of the classes and
the schools objective persists.
Every recipients ability to continue each single-sex class will depend on the recipients
circumstances, the particular objective articulated in the recipients justification, and
whether the comparative class data over time demonstrate a substantial relationship
between that objective and the single-sex nature of the class. A recipients evaluation
should analyze and explain all factors that influenced the achievement of, or failure to
achieve, the recipients objective.
28. What is the role of the recipients Title IX coordinator in conducting these evaluations?
Answer: Every recipient must designate an employee to coordinate its efforts to comply
with Title IX.62 The Title IX coordinator is responsible for overseeing the schools response
to Title IX reports and complaints and identifying and addressing any patterns or systemic
problems revealed by such reports and complaints. This means that the Title IX coordinator
e
wledge of the requirements of Title IX, of the schools own policies and
procedures on sex discrimination, and of all complaints raising Title IX issues throughout the
school
e
e c
c
e e c
e
correct any systemic compliance issues. This would include any complaints that single-sex
classes are being offered in violation of Title IX. Because of these responsibilities, OCR
recommends that the Title IX coordinator be involved in assessing the compliance of the
recipients single-sex classes, both when determining whether and how single-sex classes
can be offered and during the recipients periodic review of single-sex offerings.
Employment
29. May a recipient assign teachers to single-sex classes based on the sex of the teacher?
Answer: No. A recipient must not assign teachers to single-sex classes on the basis that
boys should be taught by men and girls should be taught by women or vice versa.63 Title IX
prohibits recipients from discriminating on the basis of sex in: employment; recruitment;
compensation and benefits; job assignment, classification, and structure; and consideration
and selection of individuals for jobs in any education program or activity operated by a
recipient.64 Although Title IX allows employment decisions based on sex provided it is
shown that sex is a bona-fide occupational qualification for that action,65 a school may not,
for example, assign a male teacher, on the basis of his sex, to teach an all-boys class
because the schoo
e
e
prefer, respond better to, or learn more
66
effectively from, a man.
Other Federal Protections for Students in Single-Sex Classes
30. May a recipient exclude students with disabilities or English language learners from a
single-sex class so long as it permits them to participate in the substantially equal
coeducational class?
Answer: No. Students with disabilities or English language learners may not be excluded
from single-sex classes because of their need for special education or related aids and
services or English language services. Schools must ensure that students with disabilities
participating in single-sex classes receive needed special education and related services in
accordance with their individualized education programs, developed under Part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (including, if applicable, the Part B educational
placement provisions), or their plans developed under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
1
e e e c
st provide the same English language services in single-sex
classes as in coeducational classes.
31. How do the Title IX requirements on single-sex classes apply to transgender students?
Answer: All students, including transgender students and students who do not conform to
sex stereotypes, are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. Under Title IX,
a recipient generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity
in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of
single-sex classes.
Additional Topics
32. Which set of regulations governs a school within a schoolthe regulations governing
single-sex schools or the regulations governing single-sex classes?
Answer: If a recipient operates a single-sex school within another school or two single-sex
academies, OCR will consider these to be single-sex classes within a coeducational school
unless the two entities are administratively separate from each other.69 This is a factspecific inquiry and will depend on the specific organization of the school within a school.
o Example V: A district operates dual single-sex academies that are housed in the
same facility and share the same principal and certain support staff. The district
claims that it need not comply with the Departments Title IX regulations on
single-sex classes because each academy is a single-sex school. Because the two
academies are not administratively separate, OCR would instead view the
academies as one coeducational school offering single-sex classes in every
subject.
33. How can I contact OCR to get additional information or to file a complaint?
Answer: A recipient, parent, student, or other member of the public who has a question or
concern about a particular single-sex offering may contact the appropriate OCR regional
enforcement office. To determine which OCR regional enforcement office handles inquiries
and complaints in your State, please call 1-800-421-3481 or 1-800-877DD
c ec
OCRs website at http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm.
OTHER FEDERAL LEGAL RESOURCES RELATED TO SINGLE-SEX EDUCATION:

Department of Education Title IX regulations: 34 C.F.R. part 106, available at
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/34cfr106.pdf
OCR Dear Colleague Letter on Single-Sex Title IX Regulations, dated January 31, 2007, available
at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/single-sex-20070131.pdf
Final Rule: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving
Federal Financial Assistance, 71 Fed. Reg. 62,530 (October 25, 2006), available at
http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2006-4/102506a.pdf
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Doe v. Vermilion Parish Sch. Bd., No. 10-30378 (5th
Cir.) (filed June 4, 2010), available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/app/briefs/vermillion_brief.pdf
20 U.S.C. 1681-1688.
Id.; see also 34 C.F.R. 106.34.
Private elementary and secondary schools are subject to the Departments regulatory requirements for single-sex
classes if they receive Federal financial assistance directly from the Department or indirectly through an
intermediary. Private elementary and secondary schools are not considered recipients of Federal financial
assistance if the only form of assistance that they receive is through their students participation in programs
conducted by public school districts that are funded under Federal programs such as Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. These private schools are not
subject to these regulations, but public school districts must ensure that their programs, including services to
private school students, are consistent with Title IX. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Final Regulations, 71 Fed. Reg. 62,530, 62,530 n.7
(Oct. 25, 2006).
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, 1; see also United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531, 533 (1996) (holding, in a
challenge to an all-male public postsecondary institution, that a party see
ee
e e -based
government action under the Equal Protection Clause must demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification
for that action, which means the government must show at least that the challenged classification serves
important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the
achievement of those objectives c
c e
e
e
5
42 U.S.C. 2000c to c-9.
20 U.S.C. 1703(c), 1705, 1720(c); see also 71 Fed. Reg. at 62,533 n.18 (referencing same).
34 C.F.R. 106.71 (incorporating by reference 34 C.F.R. 100.6-100.11 and 34 C.F.R. part 101).
34 C.F.R. 106.6(b); see also 71 Fed. Reg. at 62,533 n.18 (Public school and private school recipients also may be
subject to State or local laws prohibiting single-sex classes or schools.).
34 C.F.R. 106.34(c).
10
34 C.F.R. 106.35; 34 C.F.R. 106.2(o) (defining institution of vocational education).
11
34 C.F.R. 106.15(c)(e).
12
20 U.S.C. 1681-1688; 34 C.F.R. 106.34(a).
13
In addition to these exceptions, the Departments Title IX regulations do not prohibit schools from employing the
following facially neutral tests or criteria even if they have a disproportionate effect on persons on the basis of sex:
the grouping of students in physical education classes and activities by ability as assessed by objective standards of
individual performance developed and applied without regard to sex; and the use of requirements based on vocal
range or quality that may result in a chorus or choruses of one or predominantly one sex. 34 C.F.R. 106.34(a)(2)
and (4).
14
34 C.F.R. 106.34(a)(1).
15
34 C.F.R. 106.34(a)(3).
16
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b).
17
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(5).
18
34 C.F.R. 106.35; 34 C.F.R. Appendix A to Part 106; see also Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education
c
e ece
e e
c
ce
ce
e
e
e
e 11
11,278 (Mar. 9, 2004) (Even in these elementary and secondary schools that are not vocational schools, the
proposed amendments do not change the applicability of the current general regulatory prohibition against singlesex vocational education classes.).
19
This document refers to vocational classes because the Departments Title IX regulations refer to
nonvocational classes. The Department currently prefers the term career and technical courses.
20
The Departments Title IX regulations governing athletics appear at 34 C.F.R. 106.41 and 106.37(c).
21
34 C.F.R. 106.36(c).
22
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(1)(i).
23
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,533 (citing Virginia, 518 U.S. at 533) (The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or
invented post hoc in response to litigation.).
24
Id.
25
34. C.F.R. 106.34(b)(1)(i)(A).
26
e
ec e
1 e
e
ee
27
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,535.
28
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(1)(i)(B).
29
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,535 & n.30.
30
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,536.
c e e
e e
e e
31
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,535 (citing Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co., 446 U.S. 142, 151-52 (1980) and Frontiero v.
Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 689-90 (1973)).
32
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,533 (citing Virginia, 518 U.S. at 533).
33
The 2005 Department-commissioned survey of research on single-sex schooling found that for many outcomes,
there is no evidence of either benefit or harm. OFFICE OF PLANNING, EVALUATION AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SINGLE-SEX VERSUS COEDUCATIONAL SCHOOLING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW x (2005), available at
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/single-sex.pdf.
34
ce
e e
e
cee
e
c
e e e ce e
ce
ce
35
.pdf.
e
e e
ee
e
e
c e
e
e c
c
e e e
understand how OCR would evaluate a recipients single-sex class for compliance with the Departments Title IX
regulations. A recipient cannot rely on the hypothetical research described in this example to show a substantial
relationship between its important objective and the single-sex nature of the class.
36
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(1)(ii).
37
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,536 (citing Virginia, 518 U.S. at 554).
38
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,536.
39
Id.
40
Id. at 62,536e-sex class would not be required in that subject, evenhanded

implementation of the recipients objective does require the recipient to determine, based on its assessment of
educational needs of students, whether a class in another subject should be offered on a single-sex basis to meet
the particular, identified needs of the students of the excluded sex.).
41
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(1)(iii).
42
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,537.
43
Id.; Doe v. Wood Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 888 F. Supp. 2d 771, 776 (S.D. W. Va. 2012) (An opt-out provision is
insufficient to meet the requirement that single-sex classes be completely voluntary.).
44
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,537; Doe, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 776 ( he Department of Education regulations require an
affirmative assent by parents or guardians before placing children in single-sex classrooms.).
45
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,537; Doe, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 776 (Such affirmative assent would preferably come in the form
of a written, signed agreement by the parent explicitly opting into a single-sex program.).
46
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,537.
47
Doe, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 777 (The close proximity of the notices to the beginning of the school year, after
students have already enrolled, suggest that their choice was not fully voluntary.).
48
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,537.
49
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(1)(iv).
50
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(2).
51
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(3); 71 Fed. Reg. at 62,538.
52
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,538.
53
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(3); see also 71 Fed. Reg. at 62,538.
54
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,538 ( e e e situations in which geographic accessibility will be relevant for classes. For
example, if a recipient operates a consortium of schools whereby students at th ee e
c
e
c e
ee c
e c
i.e., geographic accessibility, of the classes in the same subject, would be
relevant to the issue of substantial equality.).
55
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(4).
56
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,539.
57
34 C.F.R. 106.34(b)(4)(i).
58
Id.
59
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996) (Physical differences between men and women, however, are
enduring . . . .).
60
See J.E. B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 139 n.11 (1994) (We have made abundantly clear in past cases that gender
classifications that rest on impermissible stereotypes violate the Equal Protection Clause, even when some
statistical support can be conjured up for the generalization.).
61
71 Fed. Reg. at 62,539 (Part of the periodic evaluation requirement involves an assessment of the degree to
which the recipients important objective has been achieved and an assessment of whether the single-sex nature
of the class is substantially related to achievement of the recipients objective.).
62
34 C.F.R. 106.8(a).
63
1 e
e
e
e
e
e
ec e
assignments on the basis of sex, 106.51(b)(4), and from classifying jobs as being for males or females,
106.55(a). Both of these provisions would prohibit schools from assigning teachers to single-sex classes based on
their sex.).
64
34 C.F.R. part 106, subpart E.
65
34 C.F.R. 106.61.
66
Id.
ec e
e c
ec
e
- e cc
c
which is based upon . . . preference based on sex of the recipient, employees, students, or other persons.).
67
29 U.S.C. 794 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 34 C.F.R. part 104; 42 U.S.C. 12131-12165
(Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) and 28 C.F.R. part 35; 42 U.S.C. 2000d to d-7 (Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and 34 C.F.R. part 100. OCR enforces Section 504 as it applies to recipients of Federal
financial assistance from the Department and shares enforcement responsibility with the U.S. Department of
Justice for Title II in the education context. Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public
entities, including public school districts, in their services, programs, and activities, regardless of receipt of Federal
funds.
68
20 U.S.C. 1411-1414; 34 C.F.R. part 300.
69
34 C.F.R. 106.34(c)(4).
&YIJCJU#
&YIJCJU$
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Koenig, Kathleen (koenigkn)

Bortner, Larry (bortnelj)
RE: lab issue
Wednesday, September 2, 2015 6:53:34 PM
Larry
Ok, this sheds more light on things. What about the grading issue Kay brought up? Or did you get the sense it was
merely segregation going on?
Kathy
Kathy Koenig, PhD
Associate Professor
Joint Appt Physics & STEM Education
University of Cincinnati
Physics Office 513-556-0507 (443 Geo-Phys)
STEM FUSION Center Office 513-556-0391 (511 TC)
________________________________________
From: Bortner, Larry (bortnelj)
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 6:50 PM
To: Koenig, Kathleen (koenigkn)
Subject: RE: lab issue
Kathy,
I talked today with a student in that class,
, who was
and
.
She related what went on in the class
and how she was affected. I explained the reasoning behind having all-female
groups was better. I did not make excuses but offered the explanation that
it may be the result of
.
needs to learn that
the tone is very important.
I reported the meeting to Kay.
Larry
Larry Bortner, Ph.D.
Manager of College Labs
Physics Department
-----Original Message----From: Koenig, Kathleen (koenigkn) [mailto:koenigkn@UCMAIL.UC.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 6:41 PM
To: Bortner, Larry (bortnelj)
Subject: RE: lab issue
Larry
On the first day of TA training you mentioned grouping all the girls
together when forming groups. I am wondering if this might be what
happened? Your statement caught my attention that first TA training day and
I was going to ask for clarity but we were already running behind so I let
it go. I figured that most TAs probably hadn't heard it or there would be
so few girls that it would be figured out. I will ask him tomorrow how he
groups his students rather than bring up the complaint directly. This whole
thing is strange.
Kathy
Kathy Koenig, PhD
Associate Professor
Joint Appt Physics & STEM Education
Physics Office 513-556-0507 (443 Geo-Phys) STEM FUSION Center Office
&YIJCJU%

Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:43 AM
To: Shaffer, Jyl (shaffej2)
Subject: Handling placement in small lab groups
Hi Jyl,
We just talked at your 9/9/15 training session in TUC. I run the introductory physics labs at UC. The
Physics 1 and 2 Lab courses are independent of but parallel to the lecture courses. They are service
courses required by the engineering college and the hard sciences in A&S. (Majors take a different
course.)
Physicists are predominantly male. To change this, we try to make the educational environment
open to females. Studies have shown that females do better in small lab groups (three or four) that
contain more females than males than more males than females. I train the instructors who teach
the labs and have told them to rearrange groups if there is one female with three males; if at all
possible have all-female groups.
I just talked with
last week who wanted to

where the TA was
. Her perception was that the all-female groups were
treated
than the all-male groups. My question was how I would modify my training so that
this would not be an issue?
Regards,
Larry
Larry Bortner, Ph.D.

Manager of College Labs
Physics Department
&YIJCJU&

Physics Department
From: Shaffer, Jyl (shaffej2) mailto shaffej2 ucmail.uc.edu

Sent: riday, September 11, 2 15 2 AM
To: ortner, Larry (bortnelj) bortnelj ucmail.uc.edu
Subject: R Handling placement in small lab groups
Larry, thanks for checking in with me on this. The fact that you are being so intentional in how
students learn is fantastic. I definitely want to keep your work out of the realm of even the
perception of discriminatory. Im going to have
review
the Dept. of Educations guidance on same-sex classes/programs. When we talked I
immediately thought of that guidance because it speaks to how to document, implement, and
provide reasonable alternatives to exactly what youre working on. Ill have them work on that
today and early next week and get you an answer soon.
Regarding the student who wants
, if youd like to pass along their name to me I can
have someone in my office follow up with her. She can certainly
with no problem (if its
), but if shes expressing that she was treated
differently due to her sex, Id like to have us check in. From your description it sounds like
that isnt the case, but we want to make sure we respond to any reports.
Thank you!
Jyl Shaffer
Title IX Coordinator
Office: (513) 556-3349
Edwards I Suite 3115
45 Corry Blvd
Cincinnati OH 45221
jyl.shaffer@uc.edu
www.uc.edu/titleix
Pronouns: she, her, hers

Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:43 AM
To: Shaffer, Jyl (shaffej2)
Subject: Handling placement in small lab groups
Hi Jyl,
We just talked at your 9/9/15 training session in TUC. I run the introductory physics labs at UC. The
Physics 1 and 2 Lab courses are independent of but parallel to the lecture courses. They are service
courses required by the engineering college and the hard sciences in A&S. (Majors take a different
course.)
&YIJCJU'
Physicists are predominantly male. To change this, we try to make the educational environment
&YIJCJU(
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Shaffer, Jyl (shaffej2)

FW: Handling placement in small lab groups
Friday, September 11, 2015 6:29:09 AM
and
Below is an e-mail I received after a conversation with a physics professor after a training. He
is trying to implement in his course research he found about how women vs. men learn in
physics labs. While I dont think hes intentionally doing anything wrong or denying access,
we do always want to be careful when we begin segregating people according to sex, even if
there is research backing up the methodology.
He and I talked about our office reviewing DOE guidance related to this. The DOE wrote an
FAQ on single sex education. Its explicitly focused on elementary and secondary schools, but
I think it could be useful in helping implement his idea in a way that offers an alternative if
someone doesnt want to be segregated by sex. He also has TAs doing this, which could also
open the door to a good intention/bad impact implementation because of inexperience.
Please take a look at the e-mail below and read the FAQ (linked below). Either or both of you
can do this for me; yall decide. Based on what he is implementing, let me know if theres
anything in the letter that you think would be helpful for him in implementing this. Im
specifically concerned that if they are creating the lab groups based on sex, there should be
some transparency and an opt-out/alternative.
He mentioned in the e-mail one student who
because of this,
and I asked him to provide us thats students name so we can follow up. A reasonable
alternative may be a different section of the course, but it may not be reasonable if they only
get it when they complaint. Make sense?
Let me know if you have questions.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf
Thanks,
Jyl Shaffer
Office: (513) 556-3349
45 Corry Blvd
Cincinnati OH 45221
jyl.shaffer@uc.edu
www.uc.edu/titleix
&YIJCJU)
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Shaffer, Jyl (shaffej2)

FW: Handling placement in small lab groups
Friday, September 11, 2015 6:29:09 AM
and
Below is an e-mail I received after a conversation with a physics professor after a training. He
is trying to implement in his course research he found about how women vs. men learn in
physics labs. While I dont think hes intentionally doing anything wrong or denying access,
we do always want to be careful when we begin segregating people according to sex, even if
there is research backing up the methodology.
He and I talked about our office reviewing DOE guidance related to this. The DOE wrote an
FAQ on single sex education. Its explicitly focused on elementary and secondary schools, but
I think it could be useful in helping implement his idea in a way that offers an alternative if
someone doesnt want to be segregated by sex. He also has TAs doing this, which could also
open the door to a good intention/bad impact implementation because of inexperience.
Please take a look at the e-mail below and read the FAQ (linked below). Either or both of you
can do this for me; yall decide. Based on what he is implementing, let me know if theres
anything in the letter that you think would be helpful for him in implementing this. Im
specifically concerned that if they are creating the lab groups based on sex, there should be
some transparency and an opt-out/alternative.
He mentioned in the e-mail one student who
because of this,
and I asked him to provide us thats students name so we can follow up. A reasonable
alternative may be a different section of the course, but it may not be reasonable if they only
get it when they complaint. Make sense?
Let me know if you have questions.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf
Thanks,
Jyl Shaffer
Office: (513) 556-3349
45 Corry Blvd
Cincinnati OH 45221
jyl.shaffer@uc.edu
www.uc.edu/titleix
&YIJCJU)
&YIJCJU*
&YIJCJU+

Complaint W Exhibits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint W Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 1 of 26 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 2 of 26 PAGEID #: 2

Plaintiff objects to the sex discrimination imposed by

Defendants as a violation of her rights to enjoy equal educational opportunities without

UC has adopted and thoroughly ratified the discredited and refuted

principle of separate but equal in its policy of segregation in physics labs.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 3 of 26 PAGEID #: 3

Venue is proper in this district and division under 28 U.S.C. 1391

because the facts giving rise to this action occurred therein.

Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201, 28 U.S.C. 2202 and

Defendant UC is a recipient of federal funds under Title IX and a public

Defendant Dr. Larry Bortner (Dr. Bortner) is a Physics Professor at the

belief is a Teaching Assistant (TA) in the Physics Department at the University of

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 4 of 26 PAGEID #: 4

nondiscrimination rule, permitting rules or policies creating single-sex educational programs

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 5 of 26 PAGEID #: 5

In 1975, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (the

predecessor of the United States Department of Education (DOE)) adopted regulations

Section (a) of 34 C.F.R. 106.34 provides, Except as provided for in this

Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 106.34(a), the discrete categories of exceptions

In 2006, the Department of Education issued regulations identifying

additional exceptions pursuant to which Title IX recipients may implement single-sex

Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 106.34(b), a recipient that operates a

nonvocational coeducational elementary or secondary school may provide nonvocational

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 6 of 26 PAGEID #: 6

extracurricular activity in those same schools must be completely voluntary.

Specifically, the regulation, which applies to a coeducational elementary

None of the exceptions for single-sex classes or activities as outlined in 34

The Department of Education OCR has provided additional guidance as to

In addition, within that guidance the Department of Education has

None of the exceptions for single-sex classes or activities as outlined in the

DOE guidance are applicable here.

In addition, 34 C.F.R. 106.31(a) of the Department of Educations Title

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 7 of 26 PAGEID #: 7

Subsection (b) of this Section further states, in relevant part: Specific

The University of Cincinnati receives federal funding and is subject to

the requirements of Title IX.

The University of Cincinnati is a public university with students

In or around August 26, 2015, Helmicki was enrolled in a UC physics lab

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 8 of 26 PAGEID #: 8

Helmicki was distraught by Mr. El-Demerys actions but returned to

Certain that UC would not condone such clearly discriminatory policies,

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 9 of 26 PAGEID #: 9

Sometime thereafter, Helmicki learned that an official Title IX report had

Helmicki, through continued communication with her former classmates,

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 10 of 26 PAGEID #: 10

By letter dated February 11, 2016 (the Demand Letter), Plaintiff

contacted Defendants, by and through counsel, advising them that sex-segregation is

Ms. Ross endorsed and institutionalized the unlawful discriminatory

UCs own investigation confirmed the existence of the discriminatory

In an email on September 2, 2015 in reply from Larry Bortner to

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 11 of 26 PAGEID #: 11

Kathleen Koenig, head of the Department of Physics, Dr. Bortner stated,

Following the incident with Helmicki, in an email between Ms. Shaffer

In this same email, Dr. Bortner referred to the incidents involving

Unbelievably, on September 11, 2015, the Title IX Coordinator for the

In a later email, that same day, Ms. Shaffer wrote,

Case: 1:16-cv-00728-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/16 Page: 12 of 26 PAGEID #: 12

Ms. Shaffer then stated in the same email,

In addition, in notes from a meeting on November 16, 2015, Ms. Shaffer

referred to her meeting with Helmicki and stated