An Act Protecting Participants In Title Ix Proceedings At Institutions Of Higher Education.
Summary
SB 977 creates a civil-liability protection for students and employees at institutions of higher education who report, disclose, participate in, or testify in Title IX-related proceedings involving sexual assault, stalking, or intimate partner violence. The immunity applies to reports made to the institution and to participation in the institution’s investigation or disciplinary process arising from that report.
The protection is not absolute: it does not shield perjury, and it does not apply if the person acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose. The bill is framed as an act protecting participants in Title IX proceedings, and it would take effect July 1, 2025, amending Connecticut General Statutes section 10a-55m by adding a new subsection (i).
Impact
The bill would add a new statutory immunity provision to Connecticut’s higher-education sexual misconduct reporting law, limiting civil lawsuits against students and employees who come forward or participate in campus Title IX processes. In practice, it would affect colleges and universities, complainants, witnesses, and other participants in investigations or disciplinary proceedings by reducing the risk of civil liability tied to reporting or testimony, while preserving liability for perjury and conduct undertaken in bad faith or with malicious intent.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It received a unanimous 18-0 joint favorable substitute vote in the Higher Education Committee and later passed the Judiciary Committee 28-11. No committee transcript is available, but the committee actions indicate the measure was generally viewed favorably, with more support than opposition overall.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of immunity for people involved in Title IX proceedings. Supporters likely view the bill as encouraging reporting and participation by reducing the threat of retaliatory civil suits, while opponents may worry that the immunity could be too broad or could limit recourse for people harmed by false or malicious accusations. The bill addresses that concern in part by excluding perjury and conduct done in bad faith or with malicious purpose.