Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 321

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

276 GEBSER v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Syllabus

even though the district had no actual knowledge of the teacher’s con-
It would
duct and no opportunity to take action to end the harassment.
be unsound for a statute’s express enforcement system to require no-
tice and an opportunity to comply while a judicially implied system
permits substantial liability—including potentially an award exceed-
ing a recipient’s federal funding level—without regard to either require-
ment. Pp. 284–290.

(c) Absent further direction from Congress, the implied damages
remedy should be fashioned along the same lines as the express reme-
dial scheme. Thus, a damages remedy will not lie unless an ofﬁcial who
at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and
to institute corrective measures on the recipient’s behalf has actual
knowledge of discrimination and fails adequately to respond. More-
over, the response must amount to deliberate indifference to discrim-
ination, in line with the premise of the statute’s administrative enforce-
ment scheme of an ofﬁcial decision by the recipient not to remedy the
violation. Applying the framework to this case is fairly straightfor-
ward, as petitioners do not contend they can prevail under an actual
notice standard. Lago Vista’s alleged failure to comply with federal
regulations requiring it to promulgate and publicize an effective policy
and grievance procedure for sexual harassment claims does not establish
the requisite actual notice and deliberate indifference, and the failure
to promulgate a grievance procedure does not itself constitute discrimi-
nation in violation of Title IX. Pp. 290–292.

106 F. 3d 1223, afﬁrmed.

O(cid:146)Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,
C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., ﬁled
in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ.,
a dissenting opinion,
joined, post, p. 293. Ginsburg, J., ﬁled a dissenting opinion, in which
Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 306.

Terry L. Weldon argued the cause for petitioners. With
him on the briefs were Cynthia L. Estlund and Samuel
Issacharoff.

Beth S. Brinkmann argued the cause for the United
States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With her on the
brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Acting Assistant At-
torney General Lee, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Dep-
uty Assistant Attorney General Pinzler, Dennis J. Dimsey,
and Rebecca K. Troth.