Penn State University Title IX Attorney: Defense for Students and Faculty
Experienced Title IX defense for Penn State students, faculty, and staff. Former prosecutor. Hundreds of sex crime cases handled.
Call (513) 540-0450 – Free Consultation
If you are a Penn State student, faculty member, or staff member facing a Title IX complaint, the next 120 days will move faster than you expect. Hiring a Penn State Title IX attorney early is the single biggest factor in how the case unfolds. Penn State’s Office of Sexual Misconduct Reporting and Response will assign an investigator within days of the Formal Complaint. You will be summoned to interviews. You will receive a preliminary investigation report, then a final one. Then a three-person Title IX Hearing Panel will decide the rest of your academic career, your degree, and in many cases your professional license.
Mark Wieczorek is a former Hamilton County prosecutor who now defends students, faculty, and coaches accused of sexual misconduct at Big Ten and Midwest universities, including Penn State. As a Penn State University Title IX lawyer, his job is to put the same procedural pressure on Penn State that the school’s own investigators put on you, and to do it before the panel meets, not after.
Penn State’s Title IX Process Is Built to Move on Penn State’s Schedule
Penn State Policy AD85 (Title IX Sexual Harassment, last revised September 15, 2025) controls every Title IX matter on the University Park campus and the Commonwealth Campuses. The Title IX Coordinator, Amber Grove, oversees intake from offices at 227 West Beaver Avenue, Suite 212, in State College. Two deputy coordinators handle the daily caseload: the Office of Sexual Misconduct Reporting and Response in 120 Boucke Building takes student-respondent matters, and the Office of Equal Opportunity and Access in 328 Boucke Building takes employee and third-party respondent matters.
Once a Formal Complaint is filed, AD85 Section XIII sets a target of “not to exceed 120 days” to complete the investigation. That is not a hard cap, but it is the schedule the investigators work to. Within those 120 days a designated investigator (never the Title IX Coordinator) interviews both parties and any witnesses they identify, gathers evidence, and produces two documents: a preliminary investigative report (parties get 10 days to respond on a secure platform without download or photograph access) and a final investigative report (5 more days for additional response). At that point the file goes to a hearing.
The Three-Person Hearing Panel and Live Cross-Examination
Penn State’s hearing structure under AD85 Section XIV is a three-person panel drawn from the University’s Title IX Hearing Board. The panel is mixed-gender by policy, all three members are trained Title IX hearing officers, and students are explicitly prohibited from serving. The panel decides responsibility by preponderance of the evidence, the lower civil standard (“more likely than not”), not the criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
At the hearing itself, only Advisors can conduct cross-examination on behalf of a party. There is no right of self-representation at a Penn State Title IX hearing. The Advisor cross-examines the complainant, witnesses, and the investigator. The panel rules on relevance question by question before any answer is given, and irrelevant questions are not answered. The hearing is recorded by Penn State (parties cannot record), and the panel issues a written determination of responsibility and sanction.
This single procedural fact, the requirement that an Advisor and only an Advisor cross-examines, is the most important reason to retain experienced counsel before the investigation ends rather than after. The Advisor at the hearing should not be meeting the case for the first time when the hearing convenes. Strategy, witness preparation, and cross-examination questions are built during the investigation phase, not after.
What Sanctions Look Like If a Penn State Title IX Hearing Panel Finds Responsibility
Sanctions at a Penn State Title IX matter are imposed by the Hearing Panel itself in the written determination, not by a separate sanctioning body. For student respondents, the sanction range under AD85 spans the full institutional spectrum: written warning, formal probation, deferred suspension, suspension (definite or indefinite term), expulsion, transcript notation, residence-hall removal, no-contact directives, mandatory counseling or education, restitution, and revocation of degree if the conduct is discovered after graduation. For faculty respondents, sanctions can include written reprimand, suspension without pay, denial of merit increase, denial or revocation of tenure, and termination of employment. For staff respondents, sanctions can include written discipline, suspension, demotion, and termination.
The most common outcome in a contested Penn State Title IX matter where responsibility is found and the conduct is at the more serious end of the policy is a multi-semester suspension with a transcript notation, conditions for return (typically including completion of an educational program and a behavioral assessment), and a no-contact directive. Suspension with notation is functionally a career-altering sanction. Most graduate programs and many employers ask the question on application, and the notation is reported when other institutions request a transfer record. Expulsion is reserved for the most serious conduct findings or for repeat respondents.
The advisor’s job during sanctioning is to put the strongest possible mitigation case before the Hearing Panel before they issue the determination. AD85 does not provide for a separate sanctioning hearing, which means mitigation evidence and argument has to be built into the live hearing itself or into the response to the final investigative report. By appeal time, AD85 limits sanction-grounds appeals to “outside the range or unjustified by violation nature.” That standard rarely overturns a sanction once a finding has been entered.
The 5-5-5 Appeal Window
If the panel finds responsibility, AD85 Section XVII provides a tight appeal window. The appealing party has 5 business days from the Notice of Outcome to file the appeal. The non-appealing party has 5 days to file a written response. The designated appeal officer (Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Education for undergraduates, Vice Provost for Graduate Education for graduate students, Vice President for Human Resources for staff, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs for faculty) issues a final written decision within 5 days of receipt of the appeal packet. From determination to final appeal decision can be as fast as 15 business days.
The four available grounds for appeal under AD85 are narrow: procedural irregularity affecting outcome, new evidence not reasonably available at the time of determination, conflict of interest or bias by the Title IX Coordinator or investigators or panel, and (for student respondents only) sanctions outside the range or unjustified by the violation. Building the record for appeal grounds two and three has to start during the investigation, not after the panel decides. By appeal time, the record is closed.
Call (513) 540-0450 – Free Consultation
Why Penn State Has Every Reputational Incentive to Impose Maximum Sanctions
No Big Ten school has paid a higher institutional price for being seen as soft on sexual misconduct allegations. The Sandusky scandal cost Penn State at least $250 million in scandal-related costs through the 2010s, including $93 million in direct settlements with 33 Sandusky victims. The Freeh Report (2012), commissioned by Penn State’s own Board of Trustees, concluded the University suffered from a “lack of institutional control” at the highest levels.
The NCAA used the Freeh Report as the basis for its July 2012 sanctions: a $60 million fine, a four-year postseason ban, scholarship reductions, and the vacatur of every football victory from 1998 through 2011. The Big Ten followed with a separate $13 million fine. President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Vice President Gary Schultz all faced criminal charges; two pleaded guilty and Spanier was convicted at trial.
That history is not ancient. It is the institutional memory inside Old Main and the Freeh Report’s recommendations are still cited in current University policy reviews. Every Title IX investigator, every panelist on the Hearing Board, every appeal officer named in AD85 understands that Penn State will pay an enormous price if a public matter is decided in a way that looks like the school protected an accused student or employee. That posture matters in your case. Investigators do not credit ambiguity in your favor. Panelists do not split close calls toward not responsible. Appeal officers do not reverse on procedural close calls.
The institutional lesson Penn State took from Sandusky is over-prosecute. That is the operating environment your Title IX defense has to overcome. A Penn State University Title IX attorney who has not absorbed this background will walk in expecting normal civil due-process intuition to apply. It does not.
The Third Circuit’s Due Process Standard Cuts in the Other Direction
Penn State sits in the Third Circuit, federal venue Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Third Circuit is one of the most accused-student-favorable circuits in the federal system on Title IX procedural due process, and Penn State has lost recent appeals in this circuit.
The controlling 3d Circuit precedent on cross-examination and live hearings is Doe v. University of the Sciences, 961 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020). USciences is to the Third Circuit what Doe v. Baum is to the Sixth: the case that locked in the live-hearing-and-cross-examination requirement for institutions that promise basic fairness. The court held that a private university that promises fairness in its student conduct contract must provide a live hearing with the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses, including the accuser, when credibility is in dispute.
For pleading sex discrimination claims under Title IX itself, the Third Circuit adopted the “plausible inference” standard in Doe v. Princeton University, 30 F.4th 335 (3d Cir. 2022). A male respondent stating a Title IX claim need only allege facts that, taken together, support a plausible inference that the school discriminated on the basis of sex. The Third Circuit explicitly rejected the harder “erroneous outcome” pleading hurdles some courts had imposed. The plausible inference standard is the same standard the Seventh Circuit adopted in Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), authored by then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Penn State has lost in this circuit recently. In Oldham v. Pennsylvania State University, decided May 29, 2025, the Third Circuit held Title IX may allow claims by individuals who are neither current students nor current employees, expanding the “zone of interests” who can sue Penn State for Title IX violations. That ruling reflects how seriously the Third Circuit takes accused-respondent rights at Penn State specifically.
What this means in practice: every procedural shortcut by a Penn State investigator (an undisclosed bias, a witness interview Mark’s client never had access to, an evidentiary ruling that prevented cross-examination on a credibility-determinative point) is potentially a federal claim under USciences and Princeton, and a Section 1983 due process claim against the public University on top of the Title IX claim. The investigation file you build during the AD85 process is the same record you would use in federal court if the panel decides against you and the appeal officer affirms.
What Cross-Examination at Penn State Looks Like When It Is Done Right
The advisor’s cross-examination at the AD85 hearing is the single most consequential moment in the entire process. The panel rules on each question’s relevance before the witness answers. That means the cross has to be planned question by question, with admissibility theory built in, before the hearing convenes. Open-ended questions get blocked. Compound questions get blocked. Questions outside the scope of the investigation report get blocked. A skilled Penn State Title IX lawyer prepares this cross-examination during the investigation phase, weeks before the panel convenes.
The strongest cross-examinations at Penn State Title IX hearings work on three axes: credibility (consistency between the complainant’s earlier statements and hearing testimony), corroboration (whether documentary or third-party evidence backs or undermines the complainant’s account), and process (whether the investigator complied with AD85 itself in gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses). The third axis is the one most often underused. Investigators are human and AD85 is dense. Process violations preserved on the record become appeal grounds and federal claims.
A Penn State University Title IX attorney who has cross-examined at Big Ten Title IX hearings before knows how the Hearing Board reacts to certain question patterns, where panelists tend to draw the relevance line, and which procedural objections move the needle. That experience compounds across cases.
Why a Cincinnati-Based Title IX Attorney for a Penn State Matter
Mark Wieczorek practices Title IX defense across the Midwest from his Cincinnati office. State College is roughly 430 miles east, a drive Mark and his investigative team make regularly for Big Ten Title IX matters. Most of the AD85 process happens in writing and on secure video platforms, not in person. Investigation interviews can be conducted remotely. Document production runs through Penn State’s secure platform. The single in-person event that matters is the hearing itself.
Mark’s Title IX defense practice is built on his prosecutorial background. As a former Hamilton County prosecutor, he learned the investigator’s playbook from inside the system: how investigators frame questions to lock in answers, how they sequence interviews to corner accused parties, how they build a record that survives appellate review. He uses the same playbook in reverse for the defense. AD85’s preliminary investigation report is the document where most cases are won or lost, and the response window (10 days) is where Mark does the most damaging work.
Mark works the AD85 process the way he worked criminal investigations as a prosecutor. Build the record early. Pin down witness inconsistencies. Demand procedural compliance from the investigator. Treat the preliminary investigative report response window as the most important deadline of the case. Penn State students and faculty who retain Mark get a Penn State Title IX attorney whose strategy was built around their facts, not a generic Title IX template.
Call (513) 540-0450 – Free Consultation
Mark Wieczorek’s Title IX Case Results
Mark has not yet had a published Title IX matter at Penn State. The case results below are from his Title IX practice at other Midwest universities and reflect outcomes for similarly situated student and faculty respondents. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; every Title IX matter turns on the facts of that case and the procedural posture of that institution.
- University of Dayton, faculty respondent. Represented a tenured professor in a Title IX matter. Case dismissed. Tenure retained.
- University of Cincinnati, student respondent. Represented an undergraduate accused of sexual misconduct. Found not responsible after full ARC hearing.
- University of Cincinnati, student respondent. Represented an undergraduate in a separate Title IX matter. Charges dismissed during investigation phase.
- Miami University, fraternity matter. Represented an individual charged with Title IX sexual assault and hazing as part of a fraternity matter where over 20 individuals faced charges. Following full hearing, client found not individually responsible and all felony charges dismissed.
Disclaimer: The above case results are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your case. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does my Title IX advisor at Penn State have to be an attorney?
No. Penn State Policy AD85 expressly states that a party’s Advisor “may be, but need not be, an attorney.” Most respondents who retain a Penn State Title IX attorney do so because the AD85 hearing requires the Advisor (not the party) to conduct cross-examination of the complainant, witnesses, and the investigator, and that cross-examination is where the case is decided.
How long does a Penn State Title IX investigation take?
Penn State AD85 sets a target of “not to exceed 120 days” for the investigation, including production of the preliminary and final investigative reports. The actual hearing follows the final report, and the appeal window adds another roughly 15 business days. From Formal Complaint to final appeal decision typically runs four to six months, though Penn State may extend the schedule for good cause.
What is the standard of evidence at a Penn State Title IX hearing?
Preponderance of the evidence, the lower civil standard. AD85 Section XIII(i) defines this as “more likely than not, based upon the totality of all relevant evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence, that the Respondent engaged in the Prohibited Conduct.” This is the same standard most universities use post-2024 Title IX regulations.
Can I bring an attorney to my Penn State Title IX investigation interview?
Yes. AD85 permits an Advisor (who may be an attorney) to accompany a party at every meeting and interview throughout the grievance process. The Advisor may consult with the party quietly or in writing during meetings, but only the party may answer the investigator’s questions during the interview itself. Cross-examination of witnesses and the investigator is reserved for the live hearing, where only the Advisor (not the party) conducts the examination.
What appeals are available after a Penn State Title IX finding?
AD85 Section XVII provides four appeal grounds: procedural irregularity affecting outcome, new evidence not reasonably available at determination time, conflict of interest or bias by the Title IX Coordinator or investigators or panel, and (for student respondents) sanctions outside the range or unjustified. The appeal must be filed within 5 business days of the Notice of Outcome. Whichever Penn State officer decides the appeal (Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Education, Vice Provost for Graduate Education, Vice President for Human Resources, or Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs) issues a final written decision within 5 days of receiving the appeal packet.
Does Penn State’s Title IX process apply if the alleged conduct happened off campus?
AD85 covers conduct on Penn State campuses or at University-owned or controlled locations within the United States. Off-campus conduct that does not fit AD85’s jurisdiction is generally addressed under Penn State Policy AD91 (Discrimination and Harassment and Related Inappropriate Conduct), which has a broader jurisdictional reach. Both policies allow for Advisor representation, and many matters trigger investigation under both policies in parallel.
Title IX Defense at Other Midwest Universities
Mark Wieczorek defends Title IX matters across the Midwest. Related practice areas at other universities: University of Cincinnati Title IX defense, Ohio State University Title IX defense, University of Dayton Title IX defense, Miami University Title IX defense, Xavier University Title IX defense, University of Louisville Title IX defense, Indiana University Title IX defense, University of Illinois Title IX defense, Ohio University Title IX defense, University of Michigan Title IX defense, Purdue University Title IX defense, Michigan State University Title IX defense.
For an overview of Mark’s work across the Midwest, see Title IX defense practice.
Do Not Wait. Contact a Penn State University Title IX Attorney Now.
The window to build your defense at Penn State is the investigation phase, not the hearing. By the time the Hearing Panel meets, the record is largely closed. Every interview, every document response, every objection on the record matters. If you have been notified of a Title IX investigation at Penn State, retain experienced Title IX defense counsel today.
Call (513) 540-0450 – Free Consultation
Pennsylvania State University students and faculty: free consultation, flat fee, no payment plans on the back end. Mark answers his own phone.
