Joe and Kayleigh break down three recent court decisions shaping education and civil rights compliance: a Title VII case testing the Supreme Court’s stricter “substantial hardship” standard, a Seventh Circuit decision that a single sexual assault incident meets the “SPOO” criteria (severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive), and a ruling against a university that cut women’s sports teams, upholding Title IX's long-standing compliance standards despite the rollback of Chevron deference.

They also respond to a timely Listserv question: Can AI be used for incident reports? Weighing the benefits of accessibility, efficiency, and administrative support against concerns around accuracy, privacy, and confidentiality, they remind practitioners to avoid assuming AI-assisted reports are inherently unreliable. Reports should always be assessed according to policy and evidence, regardless of who—or what—helped draft them.

If you’re asking whether your m dash makes your Title IX report sound like a bot, or whether the era of the compliance silo is truly over, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Relevant News:

Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp.

Groff v. DeJoy (2023, U.S. Supreme Court)

Arana v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999, U.S. Supreme Court)

Stephen F. Austin State University Athletics Case

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)