Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 343.0

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

298 GEBSER v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Stevens, J., dissenting

Franklin,6 has been alleged in this case.7 During her fresh-
man and sophomore years of high school, petitioner Alida
Star Gebser was repeatedly subjected to sexual abuse by her
teacher, Frank Waldrop, whom she had met in the eighth
grade when she joined his high school book discussion group.
Waldrop’s conduct was surely intentional, and it occurred
during, and as a part of, a curriculum activity in which he
wielded authority over Gebser that had been delegated to
it is undisputed that the
him by respondent. Moreover,
activity was subsidized, in part, with federal moneys.

The Court nevertheless holds that the law does not pro-
vide a damages remedy for the Title IX violation alleged
in this case because no ofﬁcial of the school district with
“authority to institute corrective measures on the district’s
behalf ” had actual notice of Waldrop’s misconduct. Ante,
at 277. That holding is at odds with settled principles of

6 As the Court notes, the student in Franklin—unlike the student in
this case—alleged that school administrators knew about the harassment
but failed to act. See ante, at 281; Franklin v. Gwinnett County Schools,
503 U. S., at 64. The Franklin opinion does not suggest, however, that
that allegation was relevant to its holding that the school district could be
liable in damages for an intentional violation of Title IX as a result of
teacher-student harassment.

7 Cf. Brief for Respondent 9 (“It is important to bear in mind that the
question in this case is not whether school districts are somehow ‘responsi-
ble’ for violations of Title IX and for failure to comply with administrative
procedures. The issue is in what circumstances a school district may be
compelled to answer in damages for a violation of Title IX or its imple-
menting regulations”); id., at 13 (“In sum, the manner in which Title IX is
phrased simply determines that a violation of the statute may occur when-
ever a person is discriminated against on the basis of sex, regardless of
the school district’s knowledge of the discrimination. But nothing in the
language of the statute indicates that a school district must respond in
damages for every such violation, regardless of its own knowledge or
culpability”). But see id., at 19 (“[T]here is no evidence that Lago Vista
committed an intentional violation of Title IX”).