Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 333

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

288 GEBSER v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

sume that Congress did not envision a recipient’s liability in
damages in that situation. See Rosa H., 106 F. 3d, at 654
(“When the school board accepted federal funds, it agreed
not to discriminate on the basis of sex. We think it unlikely
that it further agreed to suffer liability whenever its employ-
ees discriminate on the basis of sex”).

Most signiﬁcantly, Title IX contains important clues that
Congress did not intend to allow recovery in damages where
liability rests solely on principles of vicarious liability or
constructive notice. Title IX’s express means of enforce-
ment—by administrative agencies—operates on an assump-
tion of actual notice to ofﬁcials of the funding recipient. The
statute entitles agencies who disburse education funding
to enforce their rules implementing the nondiscrimination
mandate through proceedings to suspend or terminate fund-
ing or through “other means authorized by law.”
20 U. S. C.
§ 1682. Signiﬁcantly, however, an agency may not initiate
enforcement proceedings until it “has advised the appro-
priate person or persons of the failure to comply with the
requirement and has determined that compliance cannot
Ibid. The administrative
be secured by voluntary means.”
regulations implement that obligation, requiring resolution
of compliance issues “by informal means whenever possible,”
34 CFR § 100.7(d) (1997), and prohibiting commencement of
enforcement proceedings until the agency has determined
that voluntary compliance is unobtainable and “the re-
cipient . . . has been notiﬁed of its failure to comply and of
the action to be taken to effect compliance,” § 100.8(d); see
§ 100.8(c).

In the event of a violation, a funding recipient may be
required to take “such remedial action as [is] deem[ed]
necessary to overcome the effects of [the] discrimination.”
§ 106.3. While agencies have conditioned continued funding
on providing equitable relief to the victim, see, e. g., North
Haven, 456 U. S., at 518 (reinstatement of employee), the
regulations do not appear to contemplate a condition order-