Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 344

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

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

299

Stevens, J., dissenting

agency law,8 under which the district is responsible for Wal-
drop’s misconduct because “he was aided in accomplishing
the tort by the existence of the agency relation.” Restate-
ment (Second) of Agency § 219(2)(d) (1957).9 This case pre-
sents a paradigmatic example of a tort that was made pos-
sible, that was effected, and that was repeated over a
prolonged period because of the powerful inﬂuence that Wal-
drop had over Gebser by reason of the authority that his
employer, the school district, had delegated to him. As a
secondary school teacher, Waldrop exercised even greater
authority and control over his students than employers and
supervisors exercise over their employees. His gross mis-
use of that authority allowed him to abuse his young stu-
dent’s trust.10

8 The Court’s holding is also questionable as a factual matter. Waldrop
himself surely had ample authority to maintain order in the classes that
he conducted.
Indeed, that is a routine part of every teacher’s responsi-
bilities.
If Gebser had been the victim of sexually harassing conduct by
other students during those classes, surely the teacher would have had
ample authority to take corrective measures. The fact that he did not
prevent his own harassment of Gebser is the consequence of his lack of
will, not his lack of authority.

9 The Court suggests that agency principles are inapplicable to this case
because Title IX does not expressly refer to an “agent,” as Title VII does.
See ante, at 283 (citing 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(b)). Title IX’s focus on the
protected class rather than the fund recipient fully explains the statute’s
failure to mention “agents” of the recipient, however. See n. 5, supra.
Moreover, in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57 (1986),
we viewed Title VII’s reference to an “agent” as a limitation on the liabil-
ity of the employer: “Congress’ decision to deﬁne ‘employer’ to include any
‘agent’ of an employer, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(b), surely evinces an intent to
place some limits on the acts of employees for which employers under Title
VII are to be held responsible.”

Id., at 72.
10 For example, Waldrop ﬁrst sexually abused Gebser when he visited
her house on the pretense of giving her a book that she needed for a school
project. See App. 54a (deposition of Alida Star Gebser). Gebser, then a
high school freshman, stated that she “was terriﬁed”: “He was the main
teacher at the school with whom I had discussions, and I didn’t know what