5. General complaint process requirements. Institutions shall:

1. Permit any person to report sex discrimination, including sexual harassment (whether or not the person reporting is the person alleged to be the victim of conduct that could constitute sex discrimination or sexual harassment), in person, by mail, by telephone, or by electronic mail, using the contact information listed for the Title IX Coordinator, or by any other means that results in the Title IX Coordinator receiving the person’s verbal or written report. Such a report may be made at any time (including during non-business hours) by using the telephone number or electronic mail address, or by mail to the office address, listed for the Title IX Coordinator;
2. Promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment;
3. Treat complainants and respondents equitably by providing remedies to a complainant where a determination of responsibility for sexual harassment has been made against the respondent, and by following a complaint process that complies with this Section before the imposition of any disciplinary sanctions or other actions that are not supportive measures as defined in Subsection f of Subsection 2 against a respondent. Remedies must be designed to restore or preserve equal access to the institution’s education program or activity. Such remedies may include the same individualized services described in Subsection f of Subsection 2 as “supportive measures”; however, remedies need not be non-disciplinary or non-punitive and need not avoid burdening the respondent;
4. Require an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence – including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence – and provide that credibility determinations may not be based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness;
5. Ensure that the Title IX Coordinator, investigator, hearing officer, and any person designated by an institution to facilitate an informal resolution process, does not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent;
6. Ensure that the Title IX Coordinator, investigator, hearing officer, and any person designated by an institution to facilitate an informal resolution process receive training on the definition of sexual harassment in Subsection 2, the scope of the institution’s education program or activity, how to conduct an investigation and complaint process including hearings, appeals, and informal resolution processes, as applicable, and how to serve impartially, including by avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias;
7. Ensure, in coordination with the NSHE Chief General Counsel, that hearing officers receive training on any technology to be used at a live hearing and on issues of relevance of questions and evidence, including when questions and evidence about the complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior are not relevant, as set forth in Subsection d of Subsection 8;
8. Ensure that investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence, as set forth in Subsection d of Subsection 8;
9. Ensure that any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, hearing officers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, do not rely on sex stereotypes;
10. Include a presumption that the respondent is not responsible for the alleged conduct until a determination regarding responsibility is made at the conclusion of the complaint process;
11. Establish a reasonably prompt time frame for conclusion of the complaint process, including reasonably prompt time frames for filing and resolving appeals and informal resolution processes if the institution offers informal resolution processes, and a process that allows for the temporary delay of the complaint process or the limited extension of time frames for good cause with written notice to the complainant and the respondent of the delay or extension and the reasons for the action. Good cause may include considerations such as the absence of a party, a party’s advisor, or a witness; concurrent law enforcement activity; or the need for language assistance or accommodation of disabilities. The institution must establish a reasonably prompt time frame that complies with the procedures outlined in Chapter 284 of the Nevada Administrative Code for classified employees, Chapter 289 of the Nevada Administrative Code for law enforcement, Chapter 6 of the NSHE Code for professional employees, and Chapter 10 of the NSHE Code or applicable code of conduct for students. Institutions may establish different time frames for different types of cases (e.g., sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, etc.);
12. Describe the range of possible disciplinary sanctions and remedies or list the possible disciplinary sanctions and remedies that the institution may implement following any determination of responsibility;
13. State that the standard of evidence to be used to determine responsibility is the preponderance of the evidence standard, and must apply the same standard of evidence for formal complaints against students as for formal complaints against employees, including faculty, and must apply the same standard of evidence to all formal complaints of sexual harassment. “Preponderance of the evidence” means the evidence establishes that it is more likely than not that the prohibited conduct occurred;
14. Include the procedures and permissible bases for the complainant and respondent to appeal a written determination;
15. Describe the range of supportive measures available to complainants and respondents;
16. Not require, allow, rely upon, or otherwise use questions or evidence that constitute, or seek disclosure of, information protected under a legally recognized privilege, unless the person holding such privilege has waived the privilege; and
17. Require any party to assert that the Title IX Coordinator, investigator(s), or hearing officer(s) has a conflict of interest or bias against complainants or respondents generally or the individual complainant or respondent at the time the party knew or should have known of such conflict of interest or bias.