Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 351

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

306 GEBSER v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

exceed the amount of a federal grant.18 That is surely not
relevant to the question whether the school district or the
injured student should bear the risk of harm—a risk against
which the district, but not the student, can insure.
It is not
clear to me why the well-settled rules of law that impose
responsibility on the principal for the misconduct of its
agents should not apply in this case. As a matter of policy,
the Court ranks protection of the school district’s purse
above the protection of immature high school students that
those rules would provide. Because those students are
members of the class for whose special beneﬁt Congress
enacted Title IX, that policy choice is not faithful to the
intent of the policymaking branch of our Government.

I respectfully dissent.

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Souter and

Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

Justice Stevens’ opinion focuses on the standard of
school district liability for teacher-on-student harassment in
secondary schools.
I join that opinion, which reserves the
question whether a district should be relieved from dam-
ages liability if it has in place, and effectively publicizes and
enforces, a policy to curtail and redress injuries caused by
sexual harassment. Ante, at 304–305.
I think it appro-
priate to answer that question for these reasons: (1) the di-
mensions of a claim are determined not only by the plaintiff ’s

18 Amici curiae National School Boards Association and the New Jer-
sey School Boards Association point to a $1.4 million verdict in a recent
Title IX case. See Brief for National School Boards Association et al. as
Amici Curiae 5, and n. 4 (citing Canutillo Independent School Dist. v.
Leija, 101 F. 3d 393 (CA5 1996), cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1265 (1997)); see
also Brief for TASB Legal Assistance Fund et al. as Amici Curiae 23
(same). Signiﬁcantly, however, the District Judge in that case refused to
enter a judgment on that verdict; the judge instead ordered a new trial
on damages, limited to medical and mental health treatment and special
education expenses. See 887 F. Supp. 947, 957 (WD Tex. 1995), rev’d, 101
F. 3d 393 (CA5 1996).