Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 325

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

280 GEBSER v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

voke the common law principle that holds an employer vicar-
iously liable when an employee is “aided in accomplishing [a]
tort by the existence of the agency relation,” Restatement
(Second) of Agency § 219(2)(d) (1957) (hereinafter Restate-
ment), explaining that application of that principle would
result in school district liability in essentially every case of
teacher-student harassment.

106 F. 3d, at 1225–1226.

The court concluded its analysis by reafﬁrming its holding
in Rosa H. that “school districts are not liable in tort for
teacher-student [sexual] harassment under Title IX unless
an employee who has been invested by the school board
with supervisory power over the offending employee actu-
ally knew of the abuse, had the power to end the abuse, and
failed to do so,” 106 F. 3d, at 1226, and ruling that petitioners
could not satisfy that standard. The Fifth Circuit’s analysis
represents one of the varying approaches adopted by the
Courts of Appeals in assessing a school district’s liability
under Title IX for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a stu-
dent. See Smith v. Metropolitan School Dist. Perry Twp.,
128 F. 3d 1014 (CA7 1997); Kracunas v. Iona College, 119
F. 3d 80 (CA2 1997); Doe v. Claiborne County, 103 F. 3d 495,
513–515 (CA6 1996); Kinman v. Omaha Public School Dist.,
94 F. 3d 463, 469 (CA8 1996). We granted certiorari to ad-
dress the issue, 522 U. S. 1011 (1997), and we now afﬁrm.

II

Title IX provides in pertinent part: “No person . . . shall,
on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the beneﬁts of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any education program or activity receiving Federal
ﬁnancial assistance.”
20 U. S. C. § 1681(a). The express
statutory means of enforcement is administrative: The stat-
ute directs federal agencies that distribute education funding
to establish requirements to effectuate the nondiscrimination
mandate, and permits the agencies to enforce those require-
ments through “any . . . means authorized by law,” including