Title IX and misconduct claims pose legal, reputational and operational risks for colleges and universities. These matters often require balancing due process rights, campus safety, compliance obligations and public scrutiny — all while under threat of litigation, investigation or political pressure.

Title IX & University Misconduct

Strategic defense and compliance insight for
Title IX.

Title IX & University Misconduct

Overview

Title IX, a federal civil rights law passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. Though initially focused on access to education, Title IX has evolved significantly through decades of regulatory interpretation and case law to apply to virtually every aspect of education and cover a broad range of issues, including sexual harassment, sexual assault and gender-based misconduct in schools and universities.

Title IX compliance is not just a legal requirement — it’s a reputational and operational imperative. Allegations of mishandled investigations, procedural unfairness or failure to protect students can lead to federal investigations, lawsuits, media scrutiny and loss of public trust. Navigating this terrain requires both legal precision and institutional insight, as well as a steady hand during times of public controversy. That’s where experienced counsel like Munger, Tolles & Olson makes all the difference. We understand what’s at stake and we know how to manage these issues in a way that preserves institutional integrity while minimizing disruption.

Our attorneys have represented higher education clients in administrative writs, Title IX damages claims, Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) reviews, whistleblower lawsuits and internal investigations. We have successfully defended against claims brought by both complainants and respondents — including matters involving due process, gender discrimination, free speech, retaliation and federal funding obligations.

We’ve also represented institutions through reputationally sensitive matters, such as a system-wide internal investigation into “Varsity Blues” allegations. Our groundbreaking legal work includes defending the University of California in a case that led to a seminal federal appeals court decision clarifying standards for post-assault deliberate indifference under Title IX. We also secured a published California appellate opinion now recognized as a leading authority on due process and fair hearing standards in sexual misconduct proceedings.

Leading public and private educational institutions trust MTO to handle their most sensitive Title IX and university misconduct matters. We deliver results grounded in legal acumen, institutional awareness and a deep familiarity with the challenges of higher education today.

Representative Clients

University of California (including all ten campuses and five academic medical centers)
NCAA
Stanford University
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina
California State University
Harvard Law Review
Caltech
Corinthian Colleges

Experience

Representative Experience

Representing the University of California in Karasek v. Regents of the University of California, No. 4:15-cv-03717 (N.D. Cal.) and 956 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2020), a Title IX lawsuit for damages filed by three UC Berkeley students who allege the University was deliberately indifferent to their sexual assaults and that the University’s policy of deliberate indifference caused their sexual assaults. The Ninth Circuit’s published opinion affirms the stringent showing required for post-assault deliberate indifference.
Obtaining dismissal on the pleadings of a lawsuit filed by a graduate student complainant alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation under Title IX. The appeal is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. Justine Tanjaya v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. 20-55040.
Representing the NCAA in a nationwide class action seeking damages and injunctive relief, filed on behalf of a class of NCAA student-athletes from 1992 to the present who allege that the NCAA’s negligently failed to enact and enforce policies prohibiting sexual abuse by coaches. We successfully obtained dismissal on the pleadings for lack of personal jurisdiction and will continue to defend the NCAA following transfer of the lawsuit to federal court in the Southern District of Indiana.
Obtaining a published opinion by the California Court of Appeal, Doe v. Regents, 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1073 (2016), that is one of the leading authorities regarding the applicable standard in administrative mandate proceedings and the requisite due process and fair hearing procedures in student sexual misconduct matters.