I. Purpose
This protocol establishes the guiding principles for investigations conducted at the University of Pittsburgh (“University”) so that investigations are conducted consistently, fairly, and in accordance with the applicable laws and University Policies. This protocol aims to promote transparency and accountability while safeguarding the rights of all parties involved.
II. Jurisdiction and Scope
The Office of Compliance, Investigations & Ethics (“CIE Office”) is responsible for conducting investigations into alleged violations of University Policy by a University Member when such violations occur during University-sponsored activities or on University property.
III. Definitions
A. Complaint: Any disclosure of a potential violation of University Policy. The requirements of what constitutes a complaint and how they can be made may differ according to the relevant University Policy
B. Complainant: An individual who makes a Complaint to the CIE Office or other referring office, unit, department, or school.
C. Investigator: An individual who is authorized by the University to investigate alleged University Policy violations.
D. Respondent: An individual against whom a Complaint has been made.
E. University Member: All full-time and part-time faculty, staff, students, temporary employees, researchers, academic visitors, volunteers, postdocs, fellows, trainees, and interns at the University.
IV. Principles
A. Upholding Due Process
Investigations adhere to the principles of due process to ensure substantive fairness in procedures that could impact a University Member’s employment or student experience. Due process guarantees basic fairness, including:
Right to be notified: Written notification is given to parties (where applicable) involved in the investigation process. Such notifications will include the following information:
- The applicable University Policy at issue;
- The nature of the allegations, including the identities of the parties and the approximate date, time, and location of the alleged events;
- The standard of evidence that will be applied, which is the preponderance of evidence standard (see 4 of this section); and
- The act that the Respondent is presumed not responsible until the matter is resolved by the University.
Right to support persons: Parties to an investigation will be informed of their right to have an advisor and/or support person present during interviews and other proceedings, as well as their right to review their statements, as outlined in the relevant University Policies. If a party is a member of a union, they may have a union representative present during meetings, interviews, or other investigative activities.
Opportunity to be heard: The parties to an investigation are given a meaningful opportunity to present and respond to evidence. Party participation and the opportunity to be heard may differ according to the relevant University Policy
This opportunity may include:
- Reviewing the formal complaint;
- Providing a written statement;
- Identifying potential witnesses to be contacted; and
- Reviewing a summary of information provided to the investigator.
Evidentiary burden: The University applies the preponderance of the evidence standard to its investigations. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when there is a greater than 50% chance that the allegation is true. Said another way, the preponderance of the evidence is such evidence as leads a fact-finder to find a contested fact to be more probable than its nonexistence. Parties to an investigation are presumed not responsible unless and until the evidence gathered during the investigation establish
B. Preserving Confidentiality and Information Security
To maintain the integrity of the investigation process and protect the confidentiality of all individuals involved, the following practices will guide how information is shared, stored, and handled:
- Disclosure of investigation details will only be made on a legitimate need-to-know basis, balancing transparency and privacy concerns.
- Necessary consent will be obtained when dealing with student-related matters, to comply with FERPA and other applicable regulations.
- Interviews will be conducted in private settings.
- Sensitive information and investigation materials will be handled and stored according to appropriate data security protocols.
C. Investigator Responsibilities
To conduct investigations consistently, fairly, and in accordance with the applicable laws and University Policies investigators are required to:
- Conduct investigations in an unbiased, diligent, and professional manner.
- Seek to gather all material facts and to report those facts accurately and completely.
- Not permit bias, prejudice, or preconceived opinions to interfere with an investigation.
- Not participate in any investigation in which they have an actual conflict of interest or in which there is an appearance of their having such a conflict.
- Conduct investigations with honesty and integrity. Lying or the use of deceit during interviews is prohibited.
- Gather information and evidence in a manner that respects the relevant privacy rights and protects the integrity of that evidence. This includes using public records and safeguarding confidential information.
V. Procedure
Unless otherwise noted, the procedures below outline the key stages of the investigation process, from CIE’s receipt of a complaint through the completion of an investigation. While the nature and the scope of the investigation may vary depending on the case, the following framework provides the general process and guiding principles used by the CIE in addressing complaints. These procedures aim to promote consistency, transparency, and fairness throughout the process.
A. Processing a Complaint
Receiving a Complaint: The CIE Office receives a referral, request for investigation, or complaint from a University Member, office, department, unit, or school. The CIE Office may also initiate an inquiry based upon concerns reported to the Pitt Concern Connection.
Initial Inquiry: This is a preliminary review process to assess whether a full investigation of a complaint is appropriate. As a part of this process, the CIE will evaluate the nature of the complaint, jurisdiction, level of detail known about the incident or behavior, the availability of information, and the willingness of a Complainant to participate in the process. If the CIE Office determines that available information indicates a potential violation of University Policy, the CIE will initiate the investigation process.
In the event that the complaint falls outside of the jurisdiction of the CIE Office, it will be referred to the appropriate University Member by the CIE Office, along with any information gathered during the inquiry process. Further, the CIE may close a matter at this stage if it deems that the complaint does not allege a violation of a University Policy. In such cases, the CIE will inform the relevant parties of the closure of the case.
The findings of this inquiry are documented in an inquiry memorandum or report, which includes the CIE Office’s recommendations for next steps. This documentation is shared with the referring office for approval.
[Please note that, the procedures associated with sexual misconduct (CS 20), Title IX harassment (CS 27), and hazing under the Student Code of Conduct specifically provide for an initial inquiry and establish additional thresholds beyond the ones described above, as outlined in those relevant Policies.]
B. Investigation
While the specific steps of an investigation may vary based on regulatory requirements (e.g., Title IX) and University Policy requirements, as well as the rights and assurances afforded to the parties involved (e.g., e.g., student, staff, or faculty), the following principles and guidelines apply to every investigation conducted by the CIE.
Evidence collection, handling, and storage: Relevant evidence will be gathered and preserved in a reliable, secure, and legally defensible manner. A transparent chain of custody for physical and digital evidence will be maintained. Information will be evaluated critically, considering factors such as source reliability, corroboration, and potential bias. Records will be retained in accordance with the retention policies of the University and legal requirements.
Conducting interviews: All parties (Complainant, Respondent, and witnesses) are permitted to have a support person attend interviews or meetings with the CIE. If a party is a member of a union, they may have a union representative present at the proceedings.
Prior notice will be given, and consent will be obtained from interviewees before recording (audio, video, or both). Consent can be documented either with the acknowledgment from all parties present or using a recording consent form produced by the CIE Office.
Complainants and Respondents will be permitted to review and comment on a written summary of their interview with the CIE Office.
Evaluating evidence and findings: Credibility will be assessed based on consistency, corroboration, demeanor, and the context of statements. Evidence will be weighed objectively, avoiding biases and ensuring a fair assessment. All relevant factors, including timelines, external corroborations, and any exculpatory information, will be considered.
C. Reporting and Resolution
The investigator is responsible for preparing a comprehensive investigative report. This will be at the completion of all necessary processes pertaining to an investigation and after reviewing any written submissions from the parties (if applicable).
The report shall fairly summarize the allegations and all relevant evidence, including a description of the procedural steps taken during the investigation. This should encompass the notifications sent to the parties, interviews, site visits, and methods used to gather evidence.
Depending on the applicable University Policy at issue, the parties may have an opportunity review a summary report. Also depending on the applicable University Policy at issue, the investigator will either refer the matter for a hearing or include the determination of whether it is more likely than not that a University Policy violation has occurred.