Sex dating in pleasant valley texas
: Engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of others, or suffer substantial emotional distress. exists when an individual harasses, intimidates or takes other adverse actions against a person because of the person’s participation in an investigation of discrimination or sexual misconduct or their support of someone involved in an investigation of discrimination or sexual misconduct.
Retaliatory actions include, but are not limited to, threats or actual violence against the person or their property, adverse educational or employment consequences, ridicule, intimidation, bullying, or ostracism.
In accordance with federal and state law, the University prohibits unlawful discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of race, age, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national or ethnic origin, veteran’s status, disability, or citizenship.
Retaliation against individuals who in good faith file a claim of discrimination or otherwise oppose discriminatory actions will not be tolerated.
We ask for discretion in what you each choose to share and hope that you will respect the sensitive nature of these allegations in such a manner to not adversely impact the integrity and impartiality of the investigatory process. An attorney may also fill this role of advisor; however, the Title IX/Sexual Misconduct Investigation process is not comparable to a criminal or civil court proceeding, and therefore, the role of an attorney as an advisor is different in MSU’s process than it is in a court of law.
Gender-based verbal or physical conduct that has the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or academic performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or educational environment.
These circumstances could include, but are not limited to: • The frequency of the speech or conduct; • The nature and severity of the speech or conduct; • Whether the conduct was physically threatening; • Whether the speech or conduct was humiliating; • The effect of the speech or conduct on the alleged victim’s mental and/or emotional state; • Whether the speech or conduct was directed at more than one person; • Whether the speech or conduct arose in the context of other discriminatory conduct; • Whether the speech or conduct unreasonably interfered with the alleged victim’s educational or work performance; • Whether a statement is a mere utterance of an epithet which engenders offense in an employee or a student or offends by mere discourtesy or rudeness; and/or • Whether the speech or conduct deserves the protections of academic freedom.