Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 347.0

524US2

Unit: $U87

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

302 GEBSER v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

Stevens, J., dissenting

First, the Court observes that at the time Title IX was
enacted, “the principal civil rights statutes containing an
express right of action did not provide for recovery of mon-
etary damages at all.” Ante, at 285. Franklin, however,
forecloses this reevaluation of legislative intent; in that case,
we “evaluate[d] the state of the law when the Legislature
passed Title IX,” 503 U. S., at 71, and concluded that “the
same contextual approach used to justify an implied right of
action more than amply demonstrates the lack of any legisla-
tive intent to abandon the traditional presumption in favor
of all available remedies,” id., at 72. The Court also sug-
gests that the fact that Congress has imposed a ceiling on
the amount of damages that may be recovered in Title VII
cases, see 42 U. S. C. § 1981a, is somehow relevant to the
question whether any damages at all may be awarded in a
Title IX case. Ante, at 286. The short answer to this cre-
ative argument is that the Title VII ceiling does not have
any bearing on when damages may be recovered from a
defendant in a Title IX case. Moreover, this case does not
present any issue concerning the amount of any possible
damages award.12

Second, the Court suggests that the school district did
not have fair notice when it accepted federal funding that
it might be held liable “ ‘for a monetary award’ ” under
Title IX. Ante, at 287 (quoting Franklin, 503 U. S., at 74).
The Court cannot mean, however, that respondent was not

12 The lower courts are not powerless to control the size of damages
verdicts. See n. 18, infra. Courts retain the power to order a remittitur,
for example.
In addition, the size of a jury verdict presumably would
depend on several factors, at least some of which a school district could
control. For example, one important factor might be whether the district
had adopted and disseminated an effective policy on sexual harassment.
See also Dept. of Education, Ofﬁce for Civil Rights, Sexual Harrassment
Policy Guidance: Harrassment of Students by School Employees, Other
Students, or Third Parties, 62 Fed. Reg. 12034, 12048, n. 35 (1997) (“[A]
school’s immediate and appropriate remedial actions are relevant in deter-
mining the nature and extent of the damages suffered by a plaintiff ”).