Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 349.0

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

304 GEBSER v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Stevens, J., dissenting

289. That fact did not affect the Court’s analysis, much less
persuade the Court that a damages remedy was unavailable.
Cf. Cannon, 441 U. S., at 711 (“The fact that other provisions
of a complex statutory scheme create express remedies has
not been accepted as a sufﬁcient reason for refusing to imply
an otherwise appropriate remedy under a separate section”).
The majority’s inappropriate reliance on Title IX’s admin-
istrative enforcement scheme to limit the availability of a
damages remedy leads the Court to require not only actual
knowledge on the part of “an ofﬁcial who at a minimum has
authority to address the alleged discrimination and to insti-
tute corrective measures on the recipient’s behalf,” but also
that ofﬁcial’s “refus[al] to take action,” or “deliberate indif-
ference” toward the harassment. Ante, at 290.13 Presum-
ably, few Title IX plaintiffs who have been victims of inten-
tional discrimination will be able to recover damages under
this exceedingly high standard. The Court fails to recog-
nize that its holding will virtually “render inutile causes of
action authorized by Congress through a decision that no
remedy is available.” Franklin, 503 U. S., at 74.

IV

We are not presented with any question concerning the
afﬁrmative defenses that might eliminate or mitigate the
recovery of damages for a Title IX violation.
It has been
argued, for example, that a school district that has adopted
and vigorously enforced a policy that is designed to prevent
sexual harassment and redress the harms that such conduct
may produce should be exonerated from damages liability.14

13 The only decisions the Court cites to support its adoption of such a
stringent standard are cases arising under a quite different statute, 42
U. S. C. § 1983. See ante, at 291.

14 See Brief for National Education Association as Amicus Curiae 15
(proposing afﬁrmative defense that “the entity had adopted and has
implemented an effective prevention and compliance program”).