Sequoia Union board weighs reverting Title IX policy changes after federal court ruling

District staff presented a proposal on March 25 to revert several board policies and administrative regulations related to Title IX to the U.S. Department of Education's 2020 regulatory framework after a federal court ruled the 2024 regulations unenforceable nationwide.

The staff member leading the review told trustees the Jan. 9, 2025 court decision in Tennessee v. Cardona found the Department of Education exceeded its authority by expanding Title IX's definition of sex to include gender identity, and that as a result the district should rely on the 2020 Title IX regulations until new federal guidance is issued. "We are reverting our policies back to 2020 regulations," the presenter said, explaining the change is intended to reduce confusion while keeping the district aligned with both federal and state obligations.

Why it matters: the 2024 regulations broadened the circumstances and remedies that trigger a district's formal Title IX processes, including changes to when written complaints and evidence disclosures are required and to how investigators and decision-makers are assigned. Reverting to the 2020 rule set narrows the federal compliance trigger to conduct that is "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive" with a close nexus to campus activities, staff said. At the same time, presenters repeatedly noted that California law (citing Education Code provisions referenced in the meeting) still requires protection against discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

Details of the staff presentation included: the 2024 rules had allowed broader definitions of sex-based harassment and expanded district obligations for off-campus and online conduct; they removed some formal written-complaint and evidence-exchange requirements; and they relaxed the prior requirement that different people serve as investigator and decision-maker. The presenter said CSBA (California School Boards Association) model language is not yet updated to reflect any new federal action, and the district's plan is to adopt the 2020-aligned language to avoid leaving families and staff operating under inconsistent or unenforceable rules.

Trustees asked clarifying questions about the differences between board policy (BP) and administrative regulations (AR), and whether the district would still provide supports when incidents involve gender identity or involve students off campus. The staff presenter said California law'including Education Code 210.7'continues to obligate districts to combat bias and protect students, and that the policy reversion does not mean the district will stop case-by-case supports or protections.

Next steps: staff indicated the revised language would return to the board for formal action (consent or action calendar) at a later meeting once CSBA and the district finalize the specific BP/AR wording. The presenter emphasized the change is procedural: the district is aligning with the currently enforceable federal framework while separately complying with state law.

Local context: the presentation covered three related policy areas (sex discrimination/sexual harassment, nondiscrimination/harassment BP 5145.3, and married/pregnant parenting students) and described how portions of detailed language were shifted back to administrative regulations under the 2020 model. The presenter said districts must balance federal rules and California statutes and that staff will return with refined BP/AR text when available.