School district is not liable under Title IX for teacher's sexual harassment of student absent actual notice and deliberate indifference

Law Reporter, Aug 1998

Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., - S. Ct. _, No. 96-1866,1998 WL 323555 (June 22,1998).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a school district could not be held liable for damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. (sec)1681 et seq., for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student absent actual notice of the harassment and a failure to respond adequately.

Here, a high school teacher was sexually involved with a ninth grade student. School officials were unaware of the relationship. The onl official alleged to have had informarion about the teacher's misconduct was the high school principal, who had received complaints from the parents of two other students that the teacher had made inappropriate comments during a class. When the relationship was discovered, the teacher was fired.

The student and her mother sued the school district under Title IX. Plaintiffs alleged that ( 1 ) based on the prior complaints to the principal, defendant had constructive knowledge of the teacher's misconduct and (2) defendant was liable under respondeat superior. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Affirming, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that Title IX permits federal agencies to terminate funding to education programs that have actual notice of sex discrimination and fail to adequately respond. The statute's remedial scheme is based on ( 1 ) notice to an "appropriate person" such as an official with authority to take corrective action and (2) an opportunity to rectify any violation. Thus, a damages remedy does not lie under Title IX unless an official who has authority to address the alleged discrimination has actual knowLedge of it and fails to adequately respond.

Here, the principal knew only about the teacher's inappropriate comments. This was insufficient to alert the principal to the possibility the teacher was involved in a sexual relationship vAth a student. Moreover, the school district fired the teacher when it discovered the relationship.

The Court noted that the purpose behind the act's requirements of notice and an opportunity to comply is to avoid diverting funds from beneficial uses where a recipient was unaware of the discrimination and is willing to rectify, it promptly. Finding private damages at odds with this purpose, the Court concluded summary judgment for defendant was proper.