As a option to resolve a complaint of discrimination or harassment, including sexual misconduct, the parties may request to attempt an Informal Resolution (Title IX) or Conflict Resolution (Equity).  IR/CR is a voluntary resolution process using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation, facilitated dialogue, administrative resolution (Title IX only), or restorative justice. 

• Both the Complainant and Respondent must agree to pursue IR/CR, and this agreement must be voluntary, informed, and in writing. 
  • To submit your consent form, visit Request for Informal/Conflict Resolution (link).
• Neither the Complainant nor Respondent are required to engage in IR/CR as a condition of enrollment or continuing enrollment, or employment or continuing employment, or enjoyment of any other right.
• At any time prior to the completion of the IR/CR process, the Complainant and/or Respondent may choose to withdraw from IR/CR, and then the complaint will be addressed through investigation and the formal resolution process per the applicable policy.
• IR/CR is never available to resolve allegations that an employee sexually harassed a student.
• Support Persons may attend any meetings as part of the IR/CR.
• The content of discussions held as part of the IR/CR process will be kept confidential and cannot be introduced as part of any Formal Resolution should IR/CR be unsuccessful.
• The decision by the Complainant or Respondent to participate, refuse to participate, or request to end IR/CR and return to the investigation or to resolve the complaint using the formal resolution process will not be a factor in any determination made by the decision-maker(s) as to whether a policy violation occurred.

The Complainant and/or Respondent may request a specific form of IR/CR by submitting the online form or alerting the investigator assigned to the complaint.  Once a request has been received, our team will share the request with the other party, who may choose to move forward with IR/CR or decline to do so.  Both parties must consent to IR/CR by submitting the online form (link) prior to any attempts at IR/CR.

Parties may attempt more than one form of IR/CR.  For example, if an attempt is made to participate in a facilitated dialogue but the results are not satisfactory to both parties, the Complainant or Respondent may request a transition to a Formal Mediation.  If both parties agree, an attempt at Formal Mediation will be made.

Once an IR/CR has been finalized, the terms of the agreement are binding on both parties, and failure to abide by the terms of the resolution may be referred to the appropriate University process for review and possible application of corrective action(s) or sanction(s).

The Title IX Coordinator/Equity Officer will keep records of any IR/CR, either after both parties confirm their agreement to the terms of the IR/CR or once the determination has been made by the decision-maker in an Administrative Resolution (Title IX only).

For more information on the options available, click below or scroll to the applicable section:
Equity – Conflict Resolution Options (link)
Title IX – Informal Resolution Options (link)

---

Equity – Conflict Resolution

Upon receiving a request for Conflict Resolution, the Equity Officer will determine if CR is appropriate based on the willingness of the parties, the nature of the conduct at issue, and whether it is reasonable to believe that the CR will result in a resolution of the complaint.

The Equity Officer can also choose to stop the CR whenever either party is no longer displaying the intention of participating in good faith or if the details or nature of the complaint fundamentally change and CR is no longer reasonable.

Facilitated Dialogue
This form of CR is most appropriate when both parties are comfortable with direct interaction and management of the discussion but prefer the presence of a neutral third party.  The process typically begins with a brief conversation between the facilitator and each party to allow for an assessment of the situation.  Once these conversations have occurred, the facilitator then schedules a meeting with the parties together.

During this meeting, the Complainant and Respondent participate in a facilitated discussion with the purpose being to develop a shared agreement regarding how to correct the harm perceived or realized by the Complainant.  The Complainant and Respondent work together to develop an agreement that resolves the issue and repair relationships that were damaged by the conduct.  The neutral facilitator acts as a buffer should emotions run high or parties need assistance in maintaining focus on the primary issue(s). The facilitator may suggest breaks or interject comments/questions designed to redirect dialogue in a productive manner.

Formal Mediation
This form of CR is most appropriate when the parties are unlikely to reach a solution without support. Mediation involves a neutral mediator who seeks to improve the parties’ relationship through assisting them in understanding one another, introducing possible solutions to the problem, and making suggestions for improved communication.

• Step 1: Mediator schedules private meetings with each party individually; guidelines for mediation will be presented and parties will sign an Agreement to Mediate
• Step 2: Mediator assesses appropriateness of mediation as a conflict resolution technique, and if appropriate, schedules a joint meeting with all parties
• Step 3: Meeting is held to allow parties to share their views with one another without interruption, followed by an interactive mediator-guided discussion to determine a resolution, if possible
• Step 4: If a resolution is reached between the parties, each party will review and sign a binding resolution agreement, which will outline terms of the resolution and expectations of the parties moving forward

Alternative Resolution
Alternative options to facilitated dialogue and formal mediation include the following:

• Shuttle Diplomacy – The crafting of an agreement that does not require the Complainant and Respondent to participate in an in-person meeting with one another. A member of our team, typically the investigator, will work with parties individually to create an agreement that satisfies both parties.
• Acceptance of Responsibility – The Respondent can choose to take responsibility for the alleged policy violation(s).  When this path is chosen, the Equity Officer works directly with the Respondent to determine corrective action(s) and/or sanctions.  Both the Complainant and Respondent must agree to attempt this form of CR, and the parties must also agree to the planned corrective actions/sanctions prior to the conclusion of the CR.
• Voluntary Permanent Separation – The Respondent can choose to voluntarily request to permanently separate from the University of Missouri System.  If this CR is accepted by the Equity Officer, the Respondent must sign a Voluntary Permanent Separation and General Release agreement to terminate the complaint resolution process.
• Resignation – If a Respondent employee resigns from UMKC during the complaint resolution process, the Equity Officer may close the complaint through CR.  However, should the Respondent employee choose to pursue employment in any position within the UM System in the future, the complaint resolution process may be resumed under the policies in place at the time of the Respondent’s rehire.

---

Title IX – Informal Resolution

Options for Informal Resolution under the University’s Title IX complaint resolution policy (link) are outlined below.

Facilitated Dialogue
This form of IR is most appropriate when both parties are comfortable with direct interaction and management of the discussion but prefer the presence of a neutral third party.  The process typically begins with a brief conversation between the facilitator and each party to allow for an assessment of the situation.  Once these conversations have occurred, the facilitator then schedules a meeting with the parties together.

During this meeting, the Complainant and Respondent participate in a facilitated discussion with the purpose being to develop a shared agreement regarding how to correct the harm perceived or realized by the Complainant.  The Complainant and Respondent work together to develop an agreement that resolves the issue and repair relationships that were damaged by the conduct.  The neutral facilitator acts as a buffer should emotions run high or parties need assistance in maintaining focus on the primary issue(s). The facilitator may suggest breaks or interject comments/questions designed to redirect dialogue in a productive manner.

Formal Mediation
This form of IR is most appropriate when the parties are unlikely to reach a solution without support. Mediation involves a neutral mediator who seeks to improve the parties’ relationship through assisting them in understanding one another, introducing possible solutions to the problem, and making suggestions for improved communication.

• Step 1: Mediator schedules private meetings with each party individually; guidelines for mediation will be presented to both parties
• Step 2: Mediator assesses appropriateness of mediation as a conflict resolution technique, and if appropriate, schedules a joint meeting with all parties
• Step 3: Meeting is held to allow parties to share their views with one another without interruption, followed by an interactive mediator-guided discussion to determine a resolution, if possible
• Step 4: If a resolution is reached between the parties, each party will review and sign a binding resolution agreement, which will outline terms of the resolution and expectations of the parties moving forward

Alternative Resolution
Alternative options to facilitated dialogue and formal mediation include the following:

• Shuttle Diplomacy – The crafting of an agreement that does not require the Complainant and Respondent to participate in an in-person meeting with one another. A member of our team, typically the investigator, will work with parties individually to create an agreement that satisfies both parties.
• Acceptance of Responsibility – The Respondent can choose to take responsibility for the alleged policy violation(s).  When this path is chosen, the Equity Officer works directly with the Respondent to determine corrective action(s) and/or sanctions.  Both the Complainant and Respondent must agree to attempt this form of IR, and the parties must also agree to the planned corrective actions/sanctions prior to the conclusion of the IR.
• Voluntary Permanent Separation – The Respondent can choose to voluntarily request to permanently separate from the University of Missouri System.  If this IR is accepted by the Equity Officer, the Respondent must sign a Voluntary Permanent Separation and General Release agreement to terminate the complaint resolution process.
• Resignation – If a Respondent employee resigns from UMKC during the complaint resolution process, the Equity Officer may close the complaint through IR.  However, should the Respondent employee choose to pursue employment in any position within the UM System in the future, the complaint resolution process may be resumed under the policies in place at the time of the Respondent’s rehire.

Administrative Resolution – For Conduct Alleged to Have Occurred On or After August 14, 2020
In an Administrative Resolution, the decision-maker will meet separately with the Complainant and Respondent to discuss the allegations; both parties may have their Support Person present for these meetings. The Respondent and Complainant may provide a list of questions for the decision-maker to ask the other party. If those questions are considered appropriate and relevant by the decision-maker, they may be asked on behalf of the requesting party; answers to such questions will be shared with the requesting party.

The decision-maker will also consider the evidence provided by the investigator, including the Investigative Report and Exhibits.  Once the decision-maker has deliberated, they will make a determination as to whether the Respondent has violated University policy.  Once issued, this determination is binding on both parties.

Prior to this option being chosen by the Complainant and Respondent, both parties must acknowledge that by choosing to pursue an Administrative Resolution, they are waiving their rights to a Formal Resolution by a Hearing Panel unless they choose to end the IR process prior to the determination being issued by the decision-maker.

The decision-maker’s determination will be based on “preponderance” standard of evidence.  Ultimately, a decision-maker is balancing probabilities, or determining whether it was more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred.  This standard of evidence is known as a “preponderance” and requires only that one party is able to support their position with evidence and credible testimony “a feather” more than the other.  Think about it this way – let’s say you and the other party have presented all evidence and testimony to the investigator, and all witnesses have done the same.  Picture a person holding two shopping bags that are exactly equal in weight, with each party’s supporting evidence and testimony being contained separately in one of the bags; at this point, the parties are balanced at a 50/50 probability.  Then, as part of your meeting with the decision-maker, you are asked a question that was submitted by the other party.  The information provided in the response is relevant but only slightly important to the determination, contributing no more weight to one party’s bag than a feather.  However, once the information is added, the balance shifts and the bags are no longer equal.  The decision-maker bases their determination on this shift, which was caused by one piece of evidence or testimony that weighed just a feather but tipped the finding to “more likely than not” in favor of one party over the other.  This is known as “50 percent and a feather” and is the volume of relevant evidence required to meet the preponderance standard used under Equity and Title IX.

The decision-maker has the discretion to determine the relevance of any witness or documentary evidence and may exclude information that is irrelevant, immaterial, cumulative, or more prejudicial than informative.

• This may include evidence submitted regarding the Complainant’s prior sexual history or sexual preferences, character evidence not directly related to the complaint, or incidents or behaviors of the Respondent not directly related to the possible policy violation(s).
• The decision-maker cannot consider medical records as evidence without the consent of the party whose records have been submitted.
• The decision-maker will not request or require information protected by legal privilege, nor will they rely on it to make their determination.

For more information on how the decision-maker will consider evidence and testimony in making their determination, visit Determining Findings & Sanctions (link).

Possible Sanctions – The sanctions of expulsion and termination are not available under an Administrative Resolution. Further, any suspension of a student will not exceed two (2) years. Any suspension of an employee may be without pay, but may not exceed ten (10) business days.

For more detailed information regarding the option of Administrative Resolution, review CRR 600.030 (link) or contact us (link).