This article focuses on practical approaches to scheduling Title IX hearings. In a companion piece (to be published this month), we will explore useful strategies for facilitating Title IX hearings.
Scheduling a Title IX hearing requires coordinating decision-makers, parties, advisors, and institutional timelines — often all at once. It is one of the most logistically demanding stages of the grievance process.
Title IX Coordinators know that availability conflicts, advisor schedules, academic breaks, and graduation timelines can quickly complicate even a well-managed case. At the same time, institutions must move the process forward promptly and in accordance with policy.
The challenge is not understanding what Title IX requires, but coordinating people and timelines in a way that protects fairness and keeps the case on track.
Before selecting a scheduling strategy, it is essential to begin with the regulatory requirements that shape the earliest possible hearing date.
What Title IX Requires Before a Hearing
Under Title IX, institutions must:
- Provide the parties with the final investigative report and evidence at least 10 days prior to the hearing
- Issue written notice of the date, time, location, participants, and purpose of the pre-hearing meetings and hearing with sufficient time for the parties to prepare
These requirements dictate the earliest possible hearing date. Many institutional policies also impose additional timing requirements, such as a minimum number of days between issuing the Notice of Hearing and the live hearing.
Your institutional policy governs first and foremost. Any scheduling approach should align with both federal requirements and your written procedures.
In our experience, hearing scheduling typically is approached in one of three ways.
“The challenge is not understanding what Title IX requires, but coordinating people and timelines in a way that protects fairness and keeps the case on track.”
Three Approaches to Scheduling a Title IX Hearing
Option 1: Request (Un)availability Before Issuing the Notice of Hearing
One approach is to provide a defined window of dates,or a list of specific proposed hearing dates, and ask the decision-maker(s), parties, and advisors to identify when during those timeframes they are unavailable to participate. This method assumes availability unless a conflict is identified.
For example, an institution might provide a two-week window or several specific dates that comply with the 10-day evidence review requirement and institutional notice timelines. Participants are asked to respond by a clear deadline and identify dates that do not work for them or their advisor.
Why institutions use this approach:
- It allows the institution to confirm a workable date before issuing the formal Notice of Hearing
- It increases the likelihood that the date listed in the Notice of Hearing will remain final
- It reduces the need to issue amended notices
Because this approach depends on timely responses, it can lead to delays when parties or advisors do not respond promptly or provide extremely limited availability.
What to keep in mind:
- As with all party communications, you should communicate with each party and advisor separately. Avoid group email threads that include both parties.
- Set a clear response deadline.
- Keep communications focused strictly on scheduling, not substance.
If reasonable outreach does not produce a workable date, the institution may need to set the hearing date and proceed.
Option 1: Sample Language for Scheduling
We are working to schedule the full-day hearing (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Central) on one of the following dates: March 24, 25, 27 or April 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.
Please let me know if any of these dates would not work for you and your advisor by 5:00 p.m. CT on Friday, March 6, 2025.
Option 2: Set the Hearing Date and Issue the Notice of Hearing
The institution selects a hearing date that works for the decision-maker and hearing facilitator and then issues the formal Notice of Hearing to the parties and their advisors.
Why institutions use this approach:
- It advances the process without extended coordination
- It may be appropriate when prior outreach has stalled
- It provides a clear, definitive hearing date
- The formality of the Notice of Hearing may prompt parties and advisors to adjust their schedules
This approach reduces prolonged back-and-forth communication. If the selected date conflicts with someone’s availability, the institution may need to issue an Amended Notice of Hearing.
What to keep in mind:
- Confirm the decision-maker’s full-day availability before issuing the Notice.
- Anticipate the possibility of issuing an amended notice if a legitimate scheduling conflict arises.
Without prior input from the parties and advisors you may have to re-issue the Notice of Hearing multiple times.
Option 2: Sample Language for Notice of Hearing
The letter also serves as notice that the hearing has been scheduled to occur on the following date:
When: Day, Date Time
Who: The following individuals are invited to attend the hearing:
- Decision-Maker Name
- Complainant Name
- Complainant’s Advisor Name
- Respondent Name
- Respondent’s Advisor Name
- Title IX Coordinator/Hearing Facilitator Name
- [Other School Representatives (e.g., legal counsel, Deputy Title IX Coordinator, etc.)]
- Witnesses:
- [Names of witnesses]
Where: The hearing meeting will take place virtually via Zoom.
The Zoom/Microsoft Teams link to join the hearing meeting is provided here: [insert link]
The duration of the hearing will depend upon the duration of direct examination conducted by the Decision-Maker and cross-examination of each Party and witness, as well as the number of witnesses present at the hearing. The start time mentioned above is certain, and it is possible that the hearing will conclude prior to 6:00 pm ET. Additional information about the hearing can be found in Sections VII. and VIII. of this Notice.
Participation in the pre-hearing meeting and hearing is expected but not mandated. Parties and Advisors are also expected to prioritize the pre-hearing meeting and hearing. If certain circumstances prevent any Party or Advisor from participating in the scheduled pre-hearing meeting and/or hearing, please notify me as soon as possible.
Option 3: Schedule the Hearing During the Pre-Hearing Meeting
Another approach involves discussing or narrowing down the hearing date during the pre-hearing meetings. We have often seen this option used after one of the two approaches above has proved unsuccessful, although that is not required. After the pre-hearing meetings conclude and a hearing date is finalized, the Notice of Hearing will be issued or amended to include the specific date and time.
Why institutions use this approach:
- Rather than coordinating availability through multiple emails, it allows the decision-maker, parties, and advisors to address scheduling directly in real time.
- It allows key participants to align on availability simultaneously.
- It creates a structured opportunity to confirm expectations.
Because the pre-hearing meeting must be scheduled and occur before the hearing date is finalized, issuing the Notice of Hearing may be delayed until after the meeting takes place.
What to keep in mind:
- Provide written notice of the pre-hearing meeting that includes the date, time, location, participants, and purpose, with sufficient time to prepare.
- Ask parties and advisors to bring their calendars to the meeting so the hearing date can be confirmed during the discussion.
- Follow promptly with formal written notice once the hearing date is set.
Option 3: Sample Language for Pre-Hearing Meeting
After reviewing the hearing procedures, rules of decorum for the hearing, and addressing other pre-hearing matters, the decision-maker may say something such as:
“Due to the number of individuals involved in this hearing, we wanted to take a moment during this pre-hearing meeting to ask each individual to provide any dates between March 24 and April 26, 2026 in which they would be unavailable for the live hearing. If you can also provide dates in which you may be unavailable for simply part of the day that would be useful as well. We understand that everyone has busy schedules, particularly during this time of year, so I appreciate your prioritizing this hearing to ensure we maintain a prompt process for our involved parties. The hearing facilitator will document the dates you provide today and compare them to the dates provided by the other party and their advisor to identify a mutually agreeable date. In the coming days, you will receive a Notice of Hearing with the final hearing date and the Zoom link to join the hearing on that date. Let’s begin…”
Common Challenges in Scheduling Title IX Hearings
What if a party does not respond or repeatedly indicate they are unavailable?
Parties have the right to decline participation in a hearing. A lack of response does not prevent the institution from moving forward.
Attempting outreach at least three times before finalizing a hearing date helps demonstrate reasonable efforts to secure participation. Each attempt should be documented, and the second to last communication regarding the date should specify that if no response is received by a date certain that will be taken to mean that the party is exercising their right to decline to respond. If a party does not respond after reasonable outreach, the institution may proceed with scheduling and issue the Notice of Hearing. The party should continue to receive all formal communications, even if they ultimately choose not to participate.
When a party repeatedly indicates they are unavailable, the institution must assess whether the conflicts are reasonable and whether continued delay is appropriate. Establishing an internal protocol, such as limiting reschedules or setting a timeframe for confirming availability, promotes consistency across cases.
If ongoing unavailability significantly delays the hearing, consultation with institutional leadership or legal counsel may be appropriate before finalizing the date.
What if an advisor is the primary obstacle to scheduling?
Advisors, particularly attorneys, often have competing obligations that affect availability. In some cases, advisor schedules become the primary source of delay.
It can be helpful to schedule a conversation to clarify institutional timelines and the importance of confirming a hearing date within a reasonable period. Clear communication often resolves misunderstandings about expectations.
If an advisor remains unavailable and institutional policy permits, the institution may choose to develop protocols to notify the party and the advisor that the advisor will not be permitted to participate if they cannot make themselves available by a date certain and that if that occurs, the party may then select a different advisor or request that the institution assign one without charge.
Bringing a new advisor into the case may require additional time to review the investigative file. However, that delay may be more manageable than continued postponement caused by unresolved scheduling conflicts.
Should witness availability factor into scheduling the hearing?
Generally, no. Scheduling typically centers on the availability of the decision-maker(s), parties, advisors, and hearing facilitator.
Witnesses are notified after the hearing date is set. Depending on institutional policy, not all witnesses will ultimately be called to participate.
Need an Experienced Decision-Maker for an Active Case?
If your institution has an active Title IX matter and requires a trained, independent Decision-Maker (Hearing Officer), Title IX Solutions provides experienced professionals who conduct fair, compliant, and defensible hearings.
When you engage our Decision-Makers, our team can also assist with scheduling and facilitating the hearing — helping reduce administrative burden and keep your process on track.