Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 336.0

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 274 (1998)

291

Opinion of the Court

ages not for its own ofﬁcial decision but instead for its em-
independent actions. Comparable considerations
ployees’
led to our adoption of a deliberate indifference standard
for claims under § 1983 alleging that a municipality’s actions
in failing to prevent a deprivation of federal rights was the
cause of the violation. See Board of Comm’rs of Bryan Cty.
v. Brown, 520 U. S. 397 (1997); Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S.
378, 388–392 (1989); see also Collins v. Harker Heights, 503
U. S. 115, 123–124 (1992).

Applying the framework to this case is fairly straight-
forward, as petitioners do not contend they can prevail under
an actual notice standard. The only ofﬁcial alleged to have
had information about Waldrop’s misconduct is the high
school principal. That information, however, consisted of a
complaint from parents of other students charging only that
Waldrop had made inappropriate comments during class,
which was plainly insufﬁcient to alert the principal to the
possibility that Waldrop was involved in a sexual relation-
ship with a student. Lago Vista, moreover, terminated Wal-
drop’s employment upon learning of his relationship with
Justice Stevens points out in his dissenting opin-
Gebser.
ion that Waldrop of course had knowledge of his own actions.
See post, at 299, n. 8. Where a school district’s liability rests
on actual notice principles, however, the knowledge of the
wrongdoer himself is not pertinent to the analysis. See Re-
statement § 280.

Petitioners focus primarily on Lago Vista’s asserted fail-
ure to promulgate and publicize an effective policy and griev-
ance procedure for sexual harassment claims. They point to
Department of Education regulations requiring each funding
recipient to “adopt and publish grievance procedures provid-
ing for prompt and equitable resolution” of discrimination
complaints, 34 CFR § 106.8(b) (1997), and to notify students
and others that “it does not discriminate on the basis of sex
in the educational programs or activities which it operates,”
§ 106.9(a). Lago Vista’s alleged failure to comply with the