Adjudicatory Jurisdiction

The objective of this Policy is to provide a learning and working environment that is free from the Prohibited Conduct described below consistent with the University’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. While UM strongly opposes all forms of protected-class harm, the University’s jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate Formal Complaints is limited.  Except as otherwise specified in the definitions below, adjudicatory jurisdiction under this policy extends to Prohibited Conduct that is alleged to have occurred within a University Program or Activity, or that has a material adverse effect on an individual’s participation in or attempted participation in a University Program or Activity. A University Program or Activity includes locations, events, or circumstances over which the University exercised substantial control over both the Respondent and the context in which the Prohibited Conduct is alleged to have occurred, and also includes any buildings owned or controlled by a student organization that is officially recognized by the University.

Jurisdiction is determined by the EO/Title IX Coordinator.

Federal regulations limit the University’s jurisdiction to resolve a Formal Complaint alleging Sexual Harassment to conduct occurring against a person in the United States.  

Supportive and Protective Measures Jurisdiction

Individuals should not avoid reporting Prohibited Conduct to the University on jurisdictional grounds. While the University may not have jurisdiction to investigate or adjudicate a report of Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation that occurred separate from a University Program or Activity, EO/TIX has broad jurisdiction to coordinate and implement Supportive and Protective Measures. See our Supportive and Protective Measures webpage (located here).