Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 324.0

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

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

279

Opinion of the Court

42 U. S. C. § 1983, and state negligence law, and claims
against Waldrop primarily under state law. They sought
compensatory and punitive damages from both defendants.
After the case was removed, the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary
judgment in favor of Lago Vista on all claims, and remanded
the allegations against Waldrop to state court.
In rejecting
the Title IX claim against the school district, the court rea-
soned that the statute “was enacted to counter policies of
discrimination . . . in federally funded education programs,”
and that “[o]nly if school administrators have some type of
notice of the gender discrimination and fail to respond in
good faith can the discrimination be interpreted as a policy
of the school district.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a–7a. Here,
the court determined, the parents’ complaint to the principal
concerning Waldrop’s comments in class was the only one
Lago Vista had received about Waldrop, and that evidence
was inadequate to raise a genuine issue on whether the
school district had actual or constructive notice that Waldrop
was involved in a sexual relationship with a student.

Petitioners appealed only on the Title IX claim. The
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit afﬁrmed, Doe v. Lago
Vista Independent School Dist., 106 F. 3d 1223 (1997), rely-
ing in large part on two of its recent decisions, Rosa H. v.
San Elizario Independent School Dist., 106 F. 3d 648 (1997),
and Canutillo Independent School Dist. v. Leija, 101 F. 3d
393 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1265 (1997). The court
ﬁrst declined to impose strict liability on school districts for
a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student, reiterating its
conclusion in Leija that strict liability is inconsistent with
“the Title IX contract.”
106 F. 3d, at 1225 (internal quota-
tion marks omitted). The court then determined that Lago
Vista could not be liable on the basis of constructive notice,
ﬁnding that there was insufﬁcient evidence to suggest that a
school ofﬁcial should have known about Waldrop’s relation-
Ibid. Finally, the court refused to in-
ship with Gebser.