Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 332.0

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 274 (1998)

287

Opinion of the Court

tation marks omitted). Title VII, moreover, seeks to “make
persons whole for injuries suffered through past discrimi-
nation.”
Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus,
whereas Title VII aims centrally to compensate victims of
discrimination, Title IX focuses more on “protecting” in-
dividuals from discriminatory practices carried out by re-
cipients of federal funds. Cannon, supra, at 704. That
might explain why, when the Court ﬁrst recognized the im-
plied right under Title IX in Cannon, the opinion referred
to injunctive or equitable relief in a private action, see 441
U. S., at 705, and n. 38, 710, n. 44, 711, but not to a damages
remedy.

Title IX’s contractual nature has implications for our
construction of the scope of available remedies. When
Congress attaches conditions to the award of federal funds
under its spending power, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, as
it has in Title IX and Title VI, we examine closely the
propriety of private actions holding the recipient liable in
monetary damages for noncompliance with the condition.
See Franklin, supra, at 74–75; Guardians, supra, at 596–
603 (White, J.); see generally Pennhurst, supra, at 28–29.
Our central concern in that regard is with ensuring that “the
receiving entity of federal funds [has] notice that it will be
liable for a monetary award.” Franklin, supra, at 74.
Jus-
tice White’s opinion announcing the Court’s judgment in
Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of New York City,
for instance, concluded that the relief in an action under Title
VI alleging unintentional discrimination should be prospec-
tive only, because where discrimination is unintentional, “it
is surely not obvious that the grantee was aware that it was
administering the program in violation of the [condition].”
If a
463 U. S., at 598. We confront similar concerns here.
school district’s liability for a teacher’s sexual harassment
rests on principles of constructive notice or respondeat supe-
rior, it will likewise be the case that the recipient of funds
It is sensible to as-
was unaware of the discrimination.