“ Accordingly, the Department thinks that prohibiting recipients from
utilizing casual resolution in which it benefits in expulsion is pointless if expulsion is
the sanction proposed as component of an casual resolution course of action, that consequence can only arise if
both equally parties agree to the resolution. As these, absolutely nothing in § 106.45(b)(9) prohibits recipients from applying restorative justice as an casual resolution system to handle sexual misconduct incidents.
Therefore, the language restricting the availability of an casual resolution method only to a time period just before there is a perseverance of accountability does not prevent a receiver from
utilizing the process of restorative justice underneath § 106.45(b)(9),
and a receiver has discretion beneath this provision to specify the situations below which a respondent's admission of obligation whilst collaborating in a
restorative justice product would, or would not, be used in an adjudication if
both bash withdraws from the casual system and resumes the formal grievance system.
Because a recipient have to investigate and adjudicate allegations in a official criticism, informal
resolution stands as a opportunity choice to finishing the investigation and adjudication that the
final laws if not have to have. ”