Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District

Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 25, 1998; Decided June 22, 1998
Full case name	Gebser v. Lago Independent School District
Argument	Oral argument
Court membership
	Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor ; Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy ; David Souter · Clarence Thomas ; Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	Justice O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Dissent	Justice Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent	Justice Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer
Laws applied
	Title IX, Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Last updated May 30, 2023 • 9 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Gebser v. Lago Vista 524 U.S. 274 (1998) is a United States Supreme Court ruling regarding sexual harassment in schools. The case was heard before the Rehnquist Court on March 25, 1998, and decided on June 22, 1998.^[1] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that a school district may be liable for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student, but in order for an aggrieved party to recover damages under Title IX, a school official who had authority to address the alleged discrimination must have actual knowledge of the discrimination and must be deliberately indifferent.^[2]

Case summary

Alida Star Gebser, a high school student in the Lago Vista Independent School District of Texas, sued the school district and one if its teachers for violating the Title IX and state negligence law. During the eighth grade, Alida Star Gebser, the plaintiff, was placed in a high school book discussion group led by Frank Waldrop, a Lago Vista high school teacher. During discussions, Waldrop made sexually suggestive remarks to students. When Gebser entered the Lago Vista High School, Waldrop continued to make sexual remarks. In the spring of 1992, Waldrop and Gebser’s relationship became sexual. During the summer, the plaintiff was placed in Waldrop’s Advancement Placement class. Gebser did not report the incident, and their sexual relationship continued with secret off-campus sexual encounters.^[2] During Gebser’s freshman year, under the pretext of giving her a book relating to a school project, Waldrop made multiple sexual advances towards the plaintiff. Gebser later testified—

“I was terrified. I had no idea what I was supposed to do. I had trusted him. I had believed him. I—you know, he was basically my mentor. And it was terrifying. He was the main teacher at the school with whom I had discussions, and I didn’t know what to do."^[3]

While Lago Vista’s superintendent was the district’s Title IX coordinator, the Lago Vista School District had no official procedure for filing sexual harassment complaints and had not issued a formal anti-harassment policy.^[3]

Before the discovery of the relationship between Waldrop and Gebser, Lago Vista’s principal received complaints of Waldrop’s remarks from two other students and their parents. Waldrop apologized for the comments and was warned about his conduct, and the principal did not investigate the matter further. Waldrop met with the principal, apologized for the comments, and the principal did not investigate the matter further. The high school guidance counselor was informed of the meeting by the principal, yet the superintendent, the Title IX coordinator, was not told.^[4] In January 1993, a police officer discovered Gebser and Waldrop having sexual intercourse. Waldrop was fired, and his teaching license was revoked. The plaintiff and her mother originally suit only against Waldrop for violation of state tort law, but later amended the suit to join Lago Vista Independent School District for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972.^[2]

In the State and District Courts

Gebser and her mother sued against Lago Vista and Waldrop in state court, citing violations of Title IX, Rev. Stat. 42 U.S. Code § 1983,^[5] and state negligence law, seeking compensatory and punitive damages from both the school district and Waldrop. The case was removed to federal court where the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment for Lago Vista and remanded the case against Waldrop to state court. Rejecting the Title IX claim, the district court ruled that Title IX was “enacted to counter policies of discrimination” and that “only if school administrators have some type of notice of the gender discrimination and fail to respond in good faith can the discrimination be interpreted as a policy of the school district.” Relating to the case, the parents’ complaints to the principal regarding Waldrop’s comments, were insufficient.^[3]

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the school district was not vicariously liable because “strict liability” is not part of the Title IX contract. Finding not enough evidence to prove a school official should have known about Waldrop and Gebser’s relations, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Lago Vista would not be liable under a constructive notice theory of liability.^[3] The court rejected an agency theory, where an employer is vicariously liable for the tort of an employee accompanied by the “existence of the agency relationship.” The Fifth circuit ruled that a school district is not liable unless an official with supervisory power actually knew of the abuse and failed to end it.^[2]

Background

Title IX provides that 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.^[2]

One of the cases that established early procedural requirements for Title IX sexual harassment was Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979). In Cannon, the Supreme Court held that, although the text of Title IX does not contain a specific private cause of action for damages, nevertheless, it provides an implied private cause of action. This is due to the similarity of Title IX to Title VI, which has an implied right of action. Another early case that established Title IX procedure was Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992). In Franklin, the Supreme Court went beyond Cannon to explicitly hold that Title IX provides a damages remedy.^[2]

District courts have been divided about whether to compare the standard of liability of Title IX to Title VI or to Title VII. The text and subject matter of Title IX is closer to Title VII, which deals with gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Following Title VII, courts tend to adopt strict liability, agency principles, or a constructive notice theory.^[3] The division between the district courts arose because the only guidance the Supreme Court provided was that Title IX should be given “a sweep as broad as its language.” As a result of the unclarity, four different standards of school district liability arose in the circuit courts: actual knowledge, constructive knowledge, agency principles, and strict liability.^[2]

Actual knowledge is synonymous with intentional discrimination, a knowing failure to act on allegations of discrimination. The person with actual knowledge must be in a position of authority and must fail to respond adequately to the situation. Constructive knowledge would require that a school district “knew or should have known” of the harassment and failed to address it. This doctrine was developed in the Supreme Court case Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), where the court ruled sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Agency theory, in the context of Title IX, would bean a school district would be held liable for the actions of a teacher, even if those actions were outside the scope of the job, if the school discriminated intentionally, negligently, or recklessly or if the teacher was aided in performing a tort by virtue of his or her agency relationship with the school. Regarding types of harassment, in a quid pro quo situation, a school would always be held liable because the harasser uses authority that has been granted by the school. For hostile environment claims, a school would be held liable if the employee acted with authority or was aided in the harassing by their position of authority.^[2]

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split among the circuits regarding the two questions: whether a school district could be held liable under Title IX with actual or constructive notice, and second, whether a court may use agency principles to establish Title IX liability as in Title VII cases. In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice O’Connor, the court held that a Title IX plaintiff could not recover damages unless a school district official, with authority to institute corrective measures on behalf of the school district, had actual notice of, and was deliberately indifferent to the teacher’s misconduct. As the ruling in Franklin was broad regarding liability, the Lago Vista ruling had a “measure of latitude to shape a sensible remedial scheme that best comports with the statute.” The majority also concluded that Title IX was modeled after Title VI, which the court has ruled is under to the Spending Clause legislation. Due to this, the ruling explained that it must “examine closely the propriety of private actions holding the recipient liable in monetary damages for noncompliance with the condition."^[3] Effectively, the ruling that Title IX was enacted under the Spending Clause, would require that the recipients of those funds have clear notice of potential liability that it may incur when it chooses to accept the federal funds.^[2]

Applying this new standard of actual notice plus deliberate indifference to the Gebser case, the Court ruled that the complaint to the school principal was insufficient to alert the school district that Waldrop was involved in a sexual relationship with one of the students, and that Lago Vista’s failure to establish a sexual harassment grievance procedure did not amount to either actual notice or deliberate indifference. The Court refused to allow recovery under a less strict standard than actual knowledge unless Congress addressed the issue directly.^[3]

Dissent

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer dissented, arguing that the majority’s reasoning in Gebser was contrary to precedent and the Court’s “duty to interpret” Congressional legislation. Citing Cannon, Steven's dissent argues that Congress was aware of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title VI to include a private right of action and expected the interpretation of Title IX to do the same. Regarding the language of Title IX, the dissent argues that the language focuses on the victim of discrimination, rather than on the tort-feasor. As a result, the tort-feasor is entitled to greater protection than if the statute merely banned discriminatory conduct by those receiving federal funds. Rather than encourage districts to root out sexual harassment, the dissent argues the majority’s ruling in Gebser would provide incentives for district to turn a blind eye to sexual harassment and hide any evidence of wrongdoing.^[3]

Justice Ginsburg also authored a dissent, joined by Justice Souter and Breyer, that argued for the same standard of liability established in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998).^[3]

Related Research Articles

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.

Comparative negligence, called non-absolute contributory negligence outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury. When the defense is asserted, the factfinder, usually a jury, must decide the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence and the combined negligence of all other relevant actors all contributed to cause the plaintiff's damages. It is a modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence that disallows any recovery by a plaintiff whose negligence contributed even minimally to causing the damages.

Where two or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability, in most common law legal systems they may either be:

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), is a US labor law case, where the United States Supreme Court, in a 9–0 decision, recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was the first of its kind to reach the Supreme Court and would redefine sexual harassment in the workplace.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

Sexual harassment in education in the United States is an unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that interferes with an American student's ability to learn, study, work or participate in school activities. It is common in middle and high schools in the United States. Sexual or gender harassment is a form of discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Sexual harassment involves a range of behavior from mild annoyances to unwanted touching and, in extreme cases, rape or other sexual assault.

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on privity of contract.

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588 (1980), was a landmark products liability decision of the Supreme Court of California which pioneered the doctrine of market share liability.

Equal Rights Advocates (ERA) is an American non-profit gender justice/women's rights organization that was founded in 1974. ERA is a legal and advocacy organization for advancing rights and opportunities for women, girls, and people of gender identities through legal cases and policy advocacy.

The Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") is a 1946 federal statute that permits private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States. Historically, citizens have not been able to sue the government — a doctrine referred to as sovereign immunity. The FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, permitting citizens to pursue some tort claims against the federal government. It was passed and enacted as a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet. Further, the Court held that government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates without evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against Muslim men detained after the September 11 attacks. The decision also "transformed civil litigation in the federal courts" by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals' suits.

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. 246 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that parents could sue a school committee under grounds of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Alexander v. Yale, 631 F.2d 178, was the first use of Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 in charges of sexual harassment against an educational institution. It further established that sexual harassment of female students could be considered sex discrimination, and was thus illegal.

<i>Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc.</i>

Blakey v. Continental Airlines, 992 F.Supp. 731 and 164 N.J. 38 (2000), is a case concerning whether an employer must be held liable for harassment that can potentially occur on an internal internet bulletin board. The plaintiff brought action under the federal district court for claiming a hostile work environment sexual harassment under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Concurrently, the plaintiff brought action under the New Jersey state court alleging that employer was liable for hostile work environment arising from allegedly defamatory statements. While the case began as a sexual harassment lawsuit, the unusual circumstances involving the piloting forum where much of the harassment took place forced the courts to explore important questions concerning liabilities for content posted in a decentralized, electronic manner as is frequently the case on the internet.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

Byrne v. Ireland (1972) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Ireland that is important because it abolished the immunity of the state in tort, meaning that the state could be sued for the actions of its servants. The case also determined that the Attorney General was the appropriate party to represent the state in these tort cases.

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc, was a California torts case in which the Supreme Court of California dealt with the torts regarding product liability and warranty breaches. The primary legal issue of the case was to determine whether a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. The case was originally heard in a San Diego district court where the verdict was against the manufacturer. This verdict was appealed by the manufacturer to the Supreme Court of California which was presided by Gibson, C. J., Schauer, J., McComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., and Peek, J., and the opinion was delivered by Judge Roger J Traynor.

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992), is a United States Supreme Court Case in which the Court decided, in a unanimous vote, that monetary relief is available under Title IX of the Federal Education Amendments of 1972.

References

↑ "Gebser v. Lago Independent School District". Oyez. Retrieved 2023-03-20.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Titus, Kelly (1999). "Students, Beware: Gebser v. Lago Independent School District". Louisiana Law Review. 60 (1): 321–349 – via HeinOnline.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Busa, Amy (1999). "Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: The Supreme Court's Treatment of Teacher-Student Sexual Harassment in Gebster v. Lago Vista Independent School District". Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 34: 279–311 – via HeinOnline.
↑ Mizar, Robert C. (1999). "Gebser v. Lago Independent School District". Journal of Juvenile Law. 20 (231): 231–239 – via HeinOnline.
↑ "42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2023-03-21.