Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 345.0

524US2

Unit: $U87

[09-15-00 14:31:25] PAGES PGT: OPIN

300 GEBSER v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Stevens, J., dissenting

Reliance on the principle set out in § 219(2)(b) of the
Restatement comports with the relevant agency’s interpre-
tation of Title IX. The United States Department of Edu-
cation, through its Ofﬁce for Civil Rights, recently issued
a policy “Guidance” stating that a school district is liable
under Title IX if one of its teachers “was aided in carrying
out the sexual harassment of students by his or her position
of authority with the institution.” Sexual Harassment Pol-
icy Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees,
Other Students, or Third Parties, 62 Fed. Reg. 12034, 12039
(1997). As the agency charged with administering and en-
forcing Title IX, see 20 U. S. C. § 1682, the Department of
Education has a special interest in ensuring that federal
funds are not used in contravention of Title IX’s mandate.
It is therefore signiﬁcant that the Department’s interpre-
tation of the statute wholly supports the conclusion that
respondent is liable in damages for Waldrop’s sexual abuse
of his student, which was made possible only by Waldrop’s
afﬁrmative misuse of his authority as her teacher.

The reason why the common law imposes liability on the
principal in such circumstances is the same as the reason
why Congress included the prohibition against discrimina-
tion on the basis of sex in Title IX: to induce school boards
to adopt and enforce practices that will minimize the danger
that vulnerable students will be exposed to such odious
behavior. The rule that the Court has crafted creates the
opposite incentive. As long as school boards can insulate
themselves from knowledge about this sort of conduct, they

to do.”
Id., at 56a. Gebser was the only student to attend Waldrop’s
summer advanced placement course, and the two often had sexual inter-
course during the time allotted for the class. See id., at 60a. Gebser
stated that she declined to report the sexual relationship because “if I was
to blow the whistle on that, then I wouldn’t be able to have this person as
a teacher anymore.”
Id., at 62a. She also stated that Waldrop “was the
person in Lago administration . . . who I most trusted, and he was the one
that I would have been making the complaint against.”

Id., at 63a.