Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 337.0

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

292 GEBSER v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

regulations, however, does not establish the requisite actual
notice and deliberate indifference. And in any event, the
failure to promulgate a grievance procedure does not itself
constitute “discrimination” under Title IX. Of course, the
Department of Education could enforce the requirement ad-
ministratively: Agencies generally have authority to promul-
gate and enforce requirements that effectuate the statute’s
nondiscrimination mandate, 20 U. S. C. § 1682, even if those
requirements do not purport to represent a deﬁnition of dis-
crimination under the statute. E. g., Grove City, 465 U. S.,
at 574–575 (permitting administrative enforcement of regu-
lation requiring college to execute an “Assurance of Compli-
ance” with Title IX). We have never held, however, that
the implied private right of action under Title IX allows
recovery in damages for violation of those sorts of adminis-
trative requirements.

V

The number of reported cases involving sexual harassment
of students in schools conﬁrms that harassment unfortu-
nately is an all too common aspect of the educational experi-
ence. No one questions that a student suffers extraordinary
harm when subjected to sexual harassment and abuse by a
teacher, and that the teacher’s conduct is reprehensible and
undermines the basic purposes of the educational system.
The issue in this case, however, is whether the independent
misconduct of a teacher is attributable to the school district
that employs him under a speciﬁc federal statute designed
primarily to prevent recipients of federal ﬁnancial assistance
from using the funds in a discriminatory manner. Our deci-
sion does not affect any right of recovery that an individual
may have against a school district as a matter of state law
or against the teacher in his individual capacity under state
law or under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Until Congress speaks di-
rectly on the subject, however, we will not hold a school
district liable in damages under Title IX for a teacher’s
sexual harassment of a student absent actual notice and de-