UCLA’s Civil Rights Office (CRO) is responsible for receiving, reviewing, responding to, and addressing complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation at UCLA in violation of the University of California systemwide Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy and Anti-Discrimination Policy (referred collective as UC Nondiscrimination Policies).

When the CRO receives a report, a member of the CRO team will acknowledge receipt of the report to both the individual who is reported to have experienced harassment or discrimination by email and the person who reported the incident (if they are not the same person). If a reported concern does not fall within CRO’s purview, CRO will acknowledge receipt of the report and provide an introduction to or contact information for the office or individual to whom the report should be directed. 

There are many ways to make a report to CRO, including the Report a Concern online form; calling (310) 825-7102 during business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) when campus is open; visiting us on campus at Murphy Hall 2255, 410 Charles E. Young Drive; or emailing us at civilrightsoffice@ucla.edu. You can also leave a message for us after hours at the University of California Whistleblower Hotline 24 hours a day, (800) 403-4744, 7 days a week. Messages left with the UC Whistleblower Hotline will be forwarded to CRO on the next business day.

CRO is not a “first responder,” and does not provide emergency services. If you are experiencing an emergency, contact UCPD or call 911.

If you are a UCLA employee and you learn about or observe conduct that might violate UC Nondiscrimination Policies, you may be required to report that information to CRO. (Your responsibility to report depends on the nature of the misconduct and your job at the University.) The Responsible Employee FAQ provides more information about reporting responsibilities.

Once a report has been received by CRO, a member of the CRO intake team will acknowledge receipt of the report by email to the individual who is reported to have experienced harassment or discrimination and the person who reported the incident (if they are not the same person) to acknowledge receipt of the report. The outreach message will include information about resources available and options for resolving the complaint. The message will also invite the person who is reported to have experienced harassment or discrimination (the Complainant) to meet with CRO to discuss Supportive Measures, the complaint process and their options. It is up to the Complainant to decide whether they choose to respond to the outreach.  It is also up to each Complainant who responds to outreach to decide what they will discuss with CRO.  For example, a Complainant may access Supportive Measures without making a formal complaint. Or the Complainant might just want to speak with a member of the CRO team to discuss their options.

Yes. 

• Rules of Conduct For Participants in the University of California’s Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Resolution Processes; and
• Rules of Conduct For Participants in the University of California’s Anti-Discrimination Resolution Processes

No.  There is no time limit, but reports should be made as soon as possible.  The sooner a report is made, the sooner CRO can help by providing access to supportive measures and information about reporting options. Timely reporting also allows the University to take prompt action to stop discriminatory or harassing conduct, prevent it from recurring, and address its effects, in furtherance of our University mission and values, and as required by law.

How CRO responds to reports of discrimination and harassment depends on the circumstances and nature of the concern or incident. Examples include: 

• Supportive Measures (no formal complaint).  When appropriate, reasonable steps will be taken to provide support, restore or preserve access to a University program or activity, or deter conduct prohibited by UC nondiscrimination policies, provided that they are not punitive in nature and do not interfere with an employee’s due process or collective bargaining rights. Examples include academic, workplace, or housing adjustments; separation of the parties; referrals to resources (including other complaint processes); providing targeted preventive education (including to the Respondent) or other discussions with individuals involved in the concern; training programs; and public service announcements.
• Case Closure after an assessment coupled with Supportive Measures.  A case could be closed after an initial assessment for several reasons including: if it is determined that the conduct described in the complaint would not violate UC nondiscrimination policies; there is not enough information to carry out a resolution process; a Complainant’s request that no formal investigation occur can be honored; or there is not enough nexus between the alleged conduct and the University to carry out a resolution process.  When appropriate, reasonable steps will be taken to provide support, restore or preserve access to a University program or activity, or deter conduct prohibited by UC nondiscrimination policies, provided that they are not punitive in nature and do not interfere with an employee’s due process or collective bargaining rights. Examples include academic, workplace, or housing adjustments; separation of the parties; referrals to resources (including other complaint processes); providing targeted preventive education (including to the Respondent) or other discussions with individuals involved in the concern; training programs; and public service announcements.
• Alternative Resolution.  In many cases, the Complainant (the individual accused of the conduct prohibited by a UC nondiscrimination policy) and Respondent (the individual accused of conduct prohibited by a UC nondiscrimination policy) may enter into a voluntary agreement  that is intended to address the concern, remedy harm and prevent future harm.  In that event, there would be no investigation and the case would be closed.
• Formal Investigation. Complaints are investigated in accordance with UC nondiscrimination policies. The specific policy and procedures that will apply to the investigation and complaint resolution process depend on the nature of the complaint and other factors.  A member of the CRO team can answer your questions.  You can contact them by calling (310) 825-7102 during business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) when campus is open  or by email at civilrightsoffice@ucla.edu.

Regardless of the complaint resolution pathway (or in the absence of a complaint altogether), Parties may receive reasonable Supportive Measures, as appropriate. 

No. For example, Alternative Resolution is not available when the Complainant is a student and the Respondent is an employee of the University. Alternative Resolution is also not available where an employee Respondent is alleged to have engaged in sexual violence, as defined in the SVSH Policy. 

Please contact the Civil Rights Office at civilrightsoffice@ucla.edu to get more information about resolution options.

Not necessarily. When a report is made to CRO, a member of the CRO team will reach out to the Complainant to offer resources and support and to share information about resolution options. The Complainant will also be invited to meet with a member of the CRO team (virtually or in person). 

If a Complainant requests an investigation, CRO will determine whether an investigation is appropriate under the circumstances. If a Complainant decides not to proceed with a formal complaint, CRO will generally honor that request unless CRO determines that an investigation is necessary to mitigate the risk of harm to the campus community. If CRO decides to open an investigation despite the Complainant’s request, CRO will: explain its decision to the Complainant before beginning the investigation or otherwise notifying the Respondent of the Complainant’s identity; tell the Respondent that the Complainant did not request an investigation but CRO determined one was necessary; and provide the Complainant with all information required by this Policy unless the Complainant states in writing that they do not want it.

When CRO receives a report, the case is assessed to determine whether the reported conduct (if substantiated after investigation) would constitute a policy violation, and if so, whether it can be resolved through a resolution process. If a case is not appropriate for a resolution process through CRO (for example, the identity of the Respondent is unknown), other support may be available for impacted individuals, such as connecting Parties with supportive resources, issuing no-contact directives, and/or providing Targeted Prevention Education to individuals or groups.

A case may be closed following initial assessment for various reasons.  For example, the reported conduct might not constitute a violation of UC Nondiscrimination Policies, either because it is not prohibited by the policies or does not meet certain elements required under the policies.  If the reported behavior would be prohibited by a different University policy, CRO will refer the matter to the appropriate office for review and resolution where appropriate. CRO also may not be able to proceed if there is not enough information to carry out a resolution process (for example, the identity of the Respondent is unknown or the Respondent is not affiliated with UCLA). CRO also may not be able to act if there is not enough connection between the reported conduct and the University to carry out a resolution process.

Alternative Resolution is a complaint resolution option that involves a voluntary, formal agreement between the person who reported having experienced discrimination or harassment (the Complainant) and the person who is reported to have engaged in the Prohibited Conduct (the Respondent). An Alternative Resolution is intended to address the concern, remedy harm and prevent future harm.

In general, Alternative Resolution is an alternative to a Formal Investigation and does not result in a finding (of responsibility or no responsibility) about whether University policy was violated.

It depends on the circumstances. If an Alternative Resolution is unsuccessful, an investigation may be initiated, but only after CRO has determined that an investigation is warranted under applicable University policy.

A Targeted Educational Conversation involves a meeting between a University representative (often a member of the CRO team) and a person who has been reported to have engaged in conduct prohibited by a UC nondiscrimination policy or other misconduct. The purpose of the conversation is to address the alleged behavior and the impact of that behavior on others, and to prevent it from recurring and/or escalating in the future. It may be an alternative to an investigation (as part of an Alternative Resolution).

UC nondiscrimination policies and applicable law recognize the sensitivity of investigations and investigation records pertaining to faculty, students and staff. Student records generally remain private under University policy and state and federal law.  Under certain circumstances, University policy and the law require that certain records pertaining to employees may need to disclosed when an investigation has been completed, there are findings of a policy violation, and disciplinary proceedings have concluded.  

That said, UC nondiscrimination policies provide that the Complainant and Respondent have the opportunity to review and respond to evidence (or a summary of the evidence) before the investigation report is finalized. In addition, during the course of an investigation, certain information may be shared with witnesses, from which they may infer certain facts. Witnesses will be counseled to keep confidential and private any information that they may learn during an investigation, to protect both the people involved and the integrity of the complaint and resolution process.

An investigation is a process by which an impartial investigator examines an allegation or complaint of discrimination or harassment, for the purpose of making factual findings and determining whether a University policy has been violated. As part of that review, the University may evaluate what steps it may take to correct and protect the parties involved both during the process and after, if appropriate. The parties are referred to as Complainant and Respondent. The Complainant is the person who reports having experienced  conduct prohibited by a UC nondiscrimination policy and the Respondent is the person who is reported to have engaged in such conduct.

If CRO launches a formal investigation, trained, impartial investigators will interview the parties (the Complainant and the Respondent). The investigator may also interview witnesses and review other evidence identified in the course of the investigation. The parties will have the opportunity to review and comment on the evidence (or a summary of evidence) before the investigation report is finalized and issued.

CRO endeavors to complete investigations within 60 to 90 business days of notifying the Parties in writing of the investigation (called a Notice of Investigation). Investigations may take longer than the time frames listed in the policy due to the complexity of the matter, the unavailability of witnesses, or other delays, and the timeframe may be extended for good cause. In that event, CRO will notify the Parties in writing of any deadline extensions.

The 60-90 business day investigation timeline starts when CRO notifies the Parties in writing of the investigation in a Notice of Investigation. The timeline does not start when a report is made, an intake meeting occurs, or during an initial assessment because CRO first needs to assess the report and determine the scope of the investigation. If you have questions about the specific timeframes regarding a case in which you are involved (either as a Complainant or Respondent), please contact CRO at civilrightsoffice@ucla.edu.

At the completion of an investigation, CRO issues a written report. Both the Complainant and the Respondent are given the opportunity to comment on the evidence (or a summary of evidence) before the investigation report is finalized and issued.

For each allegation included in the Notice of Investigation, the report will make factual findings and a determination about whether there has been a policy violation. In cases involving allegations of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence and when the resolution process includes the right to a hearing, the investigator’s findings about policy violations will be recommended findings.

UC nondiscrimination policies use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to determine whether a University policy has been violated.  This means that the totality of the evidence must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred in violation of University policy.

Once an investigation report is issued and after any hearing (in cases involving allegations of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence), matters are referred to the appropriate University office for consideration of correction action: matters involving Respondents who are staff are referred to the appropriate Human Resources Office (Campus Human Resources or Health Human Resources; matters involving Respondents who are academic personnel are referred to the Academic Affairs and Personnel Office; and matters involving Respondents who are students are referred to the Office of Student Conduct.

Whether there is a right of appeal depends on a variety of factors including which UC Nondiscrimination Policy governs. Please direct any questions about appeals to CRO at civilrightsoffice@ucla.edu.

University investigations are administrative proceedings conducted by UCLA to determine whether University policy was violated. The procedures and rules that apply to University investigations and hearings are governed by University policy and are very different from the procedures and rules that apply to civil or criminal court proceedings.  

Complainants may make a report to law enforcement and the University and participate in both processes. Complainants are also always of course free to report misconduct to other government authorities. 

State and Federal law, as well as University policy require that the University conduct its own (administrative) investigation even if a criminal investigation is in process. In that event, CRO will coordinate its investigation with law enforcement and may temporarily delay certain evidence-gathering in deference to the criminal investigation. During this delay, the University may put measures in place to protect the Parties.

Supportive Measures are reasonable steps taken to provide support, restore or preserve access to a University program or activity, or deter conduct prohibited by a UC nondiscrimination policy, provided that they are not punitive in nature and do not interfere with an employee’s due process or collective bargaining rights.  Supportive Measures are determined by CRO on a case-by-case basis, offered at no cost, and may not be available in every case. For example, for issues arising out of student housing, Supportive Measures might involve adjustments to housing assignments. For issues arising out of workplace disputes, Supportive Measures might involve changes to working conditions. No-Contact Directives are also a supportive measure that separates individuals by restricting direct or indirect contact between them during work or while on campus. 

No. CRO will assist students and employees with reasonable supportive measures even if the student or employee chooses not to make a complaint. Students and employees also may request supportive measures from CRO without even disclosing everything that happened; however, the absence of detail or other information may limit the kind of supportive measures that are offered. As a general rule, any measures that would change, restrict, or otherwise impact a Respondent’s circumstances or would constitute a disciplinary measure requires a Complainant’s participation in a formal process.

Not necessarily. If appropriate, supportive measures may be put in place without participation in a resolution process and without notifying the person alleged to have engaged in the Prohibited Conduct if the supportive measures do not impact the Respondent. With some exceptions, however, any measures that would change, restrict, or otherwise impact a Respondent’s circumstances or would be part of disciplinary measures require a Complainant’s participation in a formal process and notice to the Respondent.

In the case of a No-Contact Directive (NCD), for example, the person alleged to have engaged in the Prohibited Conduct would be directed not to have contact with the person who reported experiencing discrimination, harassment or retaliation. They would be told of the report and the identity of the person reporting the conduct. Without such notice, the person who is the subject of the NCD could not be expected to comply with it. 

Both NCDs and restraining orders limit an individual community member’s contact with another individual community member. 

NCDs are issued by CRO and are not punitive. However, violations of an NCD can result in disciplinary action by the University. 

By contrast, a restraining order is a court-order that can be enforced by law enforcement. Violations could result in criminal sanctions involving fines and imprisonment. Please contact UCPD for more information about restraining orders.

Probably not. In general, an NCD between two Parties who are members of the same unit or group does not remove either from the unit or group. The Parties can both attend the same functions and meetings, but should take reasonable steps to avoid physical proximity to each other and should not address each other directly or indirectly. Please contact CRO if you have questions about a specific NCD and how to comply with one.

University policy allows the parties (Complainant and Respondent) to be accompanied by an advisor of their choice when they are interviewed and during meetings with the CRO. An advisor may be any person, except another party or potential witness (in cases governed by the Anti-Discrimination Policy), who provides the Complainant or Respondent with support, guidance, or advice. Parties may have other support persons present under other University policies. Other witnesses may have an advisor present at the discretion of CRO or as required by University policy or a collective bargaining agreement.

Complainants under the SVSH Policy may choose to be accompanied by a confidential CARE Advocate as their support person throughout the process. To contact CARE, please call (310) 206-2465 or fill out an appointment request. For 24/7 urgent support, please call 911 or contact the Santa Monica Rape Treatment Center at (424) 259-7208.  If you need to speak to a counselor, please contact CAPS at (310) 825-0768.

For complaints governed by the SVSH Policy, if a Party does not have an advisor, UCLA will provide an advisor for the purpose of asking questions at any hearing.

Students who have been notified of any alleged violation of the student conduct code (including a UC nondiscrimination policy) may request that the University provide an advisor to them.

A Complainant or Respondent’s advisor may provide advice and guidance on the CRO process. An advisor may accompany the person they are advising to meetings, interviews, and hearings throughout the process. The advisor may request breaks on behalf of the person they are advising. Parties may confer with their advisor in private to obtain procedural advice and assistance. 

However, an advisor may not speak on behalf of, answer questions for, or present information on behalf of, the person they are advising. An advisor may not disrupt any meeting, interview, or other proceeding. CRO may limit the participation or exclude an advisor who does not abide by these procedures.

Advisors are expected to comply with the Rules of Conduct for Participants in the University of California’s Anti-Discrimination Resolution Processes and the Rules of Conduct For Participants in the University of California’s Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Resolution Processes.

UC Nondiscrimination Policies provide that, unless an employee is designated as a Confidential Resource, all UC employees must report potential violations of the SVSH and Anti-Discrimination Policies under certain circumstances.

Any University employee who is not a Confidential Resource (as defined by UC Nondiscrimination Policies) who learns in the course of their employment that a student may have experienced conduct prohibited by the SVSH Policy (including sexual assault or sexual harassment) or that such Prohibited Conduct may have occurred in the context of patient care, must promptly notify the Title IX Officer or designee. This includes resident assistants, graduate teaching assistants, and all other student employees, when disclosures are made to them in their capacities as employees.

Campus Police; human resources administrators, academic personnel administrators, student affairs administrators; civil rights office professionals; managers and supervisors including deans, department chairs, and directors of organized research units and faculty members are Responsible Employees with elevated responsibilities. They must also report to CRO or the Title IX Officer when they learn in the course of their employment of possible conduct prohibited by a UC nondiscrimination policy (the SVSH Policy and/or the UC Anti-Discrimination Policy) experienced by anyone affiliated with UC. 

For more detailed information, please visit the Responsible Employees page on CRO’s website.

The following employees who receive information about Prohibited Conduct in their confidential capacity are Confidential Resources: Ombuds Office per University Policy; licensed counselors in student counseling centers and in employee assistance programs; any individual with a professional license requiring confidentiality (including health center employees but excluding campus legal counsel), or someone who is supervised by such an individual; and pastoral counselors (individuals associated with a religious order or denomination, who are recognized by that religious order or denomination as someone who provides confidential counseling).

The sooner a report is made, the sooner CRO can help by providing members of our community access to supportive measures and information about their options to make a complaint. Timely reporting also allows the University to take prompt action to stop discriminatory or harassing conduct, prevent it from recurring, and address its effects, in furtherance of our University mission and values, and as required by law.

Retaliation is conduct that would discourage a reasonable person from reporting harassment or discrimination to the University or from participating in a CRO process. Examples of retaliation are threats, intimidation, harassment, discrimination, and coercion. Petty slights, minor annoyances, bad manners and trivial inconveniences are not considered retaliation as defined by University policy.

Among its responsibilities, CRO investigates whether retaliation has occurred by assessing whether the person who engaged in the alleged retaliation knew that a report of harassment of discrimination had been made to the University or that the person was involved in a CRO process at the time the retaliatory conduct was alleged to have occurred and that the adverse action was a result of the report or participation.