## Facts

- Alida Star Gebser, a student in a Texas public school district receiving federal education funds, participated in a book discussion group led by teacher Frank Waldrop, who made sexually suggestive comments.
- After Gebser entered high school and was assigned to Waldrop’s classes, he directed increasingly suggestive remarks toward her, including when they were alone.
- In spring 1992, Waldrop initiated sexual contact with Gebser; they had repeated sexual intercourse during the remainder of the school year and into the next year, often during class time but not on school property.
- Gebser did not report the relationship to school officials.
- Before the relationship was discovered, the principal received parent complaints about Waldrop’s inappropriate classroom remarks; the principal reprimanded Waldrop after he apologized but did not take further investigative or disciplinary action.
- The district’s superintendent served as Title IX coordinator, but the district had not implemented a distributed grievance procedure or formal antiharassment policy.
- Police discovered Waldrop and Gebser engaged in sexual intercourse; Waldrop was arrested and the district terminated his employment.
- Gebser and her mother sued the district for damages under Title IX.

## Issues

1. Under Title IX, when may a federally funded school district be held liable in monetary damages for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student?
2. Must the district have actual notice of the misconduct by an official with authority to take corrective action, and must the district respond with deliberate indifference?
3. May damages liability rest on constructive notice, agency principles, or standards drawn from Title VII?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the school district in a 5–4 decision.
- Damages are unavailable in an implied private Title IX action for teacher-student harassment unless an official with authority to institute corrective measures has actual notice of the misconduct and responds with deliberate indifference.
- The Court rejected damages liability based on respondeat superior or constructive notice.
- Because no authorized district official had actual knowledge of the sexual relationship before police discovery, and the district terminated the teacher once it learned of the misconduct, the district was not liable for damages.

## Legal Principles

- Title IX damages liability is limited by Spending Clause notice principles: funding recipients must have clear notice of the conditions and potential monetary consequences attached to federal funds.
- In private damages actions for teacher-student sexual harassment, liability requires:
  - Actual notice of the misconduct to an official who at minimum has authority to address the discrimination and institute corrective measures on the recipient’s behalf; and
  - Deliberate indifference, i.e., a response that is clearly unreasonable in light of known circumstances.
- Constructive notice (“knew or should have known”) and vicarious liability theories do not suffice for Title IX damages.
- Regulatory noncompliance (e.g., failure to distribute grievance procedures) does not by itself establish damages liability absent actual notice and deliberate indifference.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a school district may be liable for money damages under Title IX for a teacher’s sexual harassment only when an authorized official has actual notice of the misconduct and the district responds with deliberate indifference; absent such notice and fault, damages are unavailable.


Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998)