# data[].attributes.body
Field of Education: I am currently a part of the Educational Leadership Program and plan to gain my Principal Certification.

School districts should conduct an annual review and adjustment of policies to address issues within the educational system. In particular, administrators should focus on formulating policies to tackle inappropriate teacher/student relationships. Teachers should take the lead in establishing and upholding clear boundaries to prioritize an environment conducive to learning.

Topic: This guide explores the laws and current issues surrounding inappropriate teacher/student relationships.

Guide Audience: This guide is intended to be useful for school administration, school board members, and district policy makers.

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: United States Constitution

14th Amendment

(U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2.)

Protects individuals, regardless of gender, against sexual harassment.

Legal framework for Title VII

Equal protection under the law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Administrative Law

Texas Administrative Code

(19 Tex. Admin. Code §247.2)

Protect the well-being of students

Guidelines for resolving disciplinary investigations against educators.

Ensure morally fit educators are serving in school systems.

Source of Law: Statue

Texas Penal Code

(Tex. Penal Code § 21.12)

https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_21.12

Sexual offenses committed against educators against students are considered a felony of the second degree.

A student involved in an improper relationship has the right to privacy and their names are not public information.

# data[].attributes.body
Governing Agencies

Federal: U.S. Department of Education

State: Texas Education Agency

The U.S. Department of Education works to provide funding through various programs to help build effective school systems at state levels. However, education is more of a state and local responsibility. Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides support and guidance for public schools at a state level. TEA, under the guidance of the State Board for Education Certification (SBEC), has the authority to seek disciplinary action against an educator's certification due to misconduct in the school setting.

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Case Law

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools

Allegation: Sexual harassment by a teacher

Legal Basis: Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs and activities

Outcome: Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Christine Franklin

Ruling: Monetary damages are available as a remedy for victims of intentional sexual harassment under Title IX.

Significance: Clarified the right of individuals to seek damages for sexual harassment under Title IX, setting a precedent for addressing such issues in educational institutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
503 U.S. 60

112 S.Ct. 1028

117 L.Ed.2d 208

Christine FRANKLIN, Petitioner,
v.
GWINNETT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS and William Prescott.

No. 90-918.

Petitioner Franklin, a student in a high school operated by respondent school district, filed an action for damages in Federal District Court under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, alleging, inter alia, that she had been subjected to continual sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher, Andrew Hill. After the complaint was filed, Hill resigned on the condition that all matters pending against him be dropped, and the school thereupon closed its investigation. The District Court subsequently dismissed the complaint on the ground that Title IX does not authorize an award of damages, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: A damages remedy is available for an action brought to enforce Title IX. Pp. 65-76.

(a) Title IX is enforceable through an implied right of action. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560. P. 65.

(b) The longstanding general rule is that absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, the federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute. See, e.g., Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684, 66 S.Ct. 773, 777, 90 L.Ed. 939; Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 246-247, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2278, 60 L.Ed.2d 846. Pp. 65-68.

(c) This Court's adherence to the general rule has not eroded since Bell. See, e.g., J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 433-435, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 1560-1561, 12 L.Ed.2d 423. In declaring that "the question of who may enforce a statutory right is fundamentally different from the question of who may enforce a [constitutionally protected] right," Davis, 442 U.S., at 241, 99 S.Ct., at 2275, was not limiting the traditional presumption in favor of all appropriate relief to actions claiming constitutional violations. Rather it was merely attempting to decide whether a litigant had a "cause of action," a question that is analytically distinct from, and prior to, the one at issue: what relief, if any a litigant is entitled to receive, see id., at 239, 99 S.Ct., at 2274. Nor did Guardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm'n of New York City, 463 U.S. 582, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 77 L.Ed.2d 866, and Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 104 S.Ct. 1248, 79 L.Ed.2d 568, erode the traditional presumption. In fact, those cases support it, since a clear majority in Guardians expressed the view that damages were available in an action seeking remedies for an intentional violation of a statute closely analogous to Title IX, while a unanimous Court in Darrone held that another such statute authorized the award of backpay. Pp. 68-71.

(d) Congress did not intend to limit the remedies available in a Title IX suit. Because the Cannon Court inferred a cause of action upon concluding that Title IX supported no express right of action, the silence of the pre- Cannon statutory text and legislative history on the issue of available remedies is neither surprising nor enlightening. Rather, the appropriate inquiry for the pre- Cannon period is the state of the law when Congress passed Title IX. Since, at that time, the traditional presumption in favor of all available remedies was firmly established, and this Court had recently found implied rights of action in six cases and approved a damages remedy in three of them, the lack of any legislative intent to abandon the traditional presumption is amply demonstrated. For the post- Cannon period, when Congress was legislating with full cognizance of that decision, analysis of the text and history of the two statutes enacted to amend Title IX-the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Amendment of 1986 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987-establishes that Congress validated Cannon's holding and made no effort to alter the traditional presumption. Pp. 71-73.

(e) The argument that a damages award would unduly expand the federal courts' power into a sphere properly reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches in violation of separation of powers principles misconceives the difference between a cause of action and a remedy. Unlike the finding of a cause of action, which authorizes a court to hear a case or controversy, the discretion to award appropriate relief involves no such increase in judicial power and, in fact, historically has been thought necessary to provide an important safeguard against legislative and executive abuses and to insure an independent judiciary. Moreover, selective adjudication of the sort advocated here would harm separation of powers by giving judges the power to render inutile causes of action authorized by Congress through a decision that no remedy is available. Pp. 73-74.

(f) Also rejected is the contention that the normal presumption in favor of all appropriate remedies should not apply because Title IX was enacted pursuant to Congress' Spending Clause power. The Court's observation in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 28-29, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 1545-46, 67 L.Ed.2d 694, that remedies are limited under Spending Clause statutes when the alleged violation is unintentional is based on the theory that an entity receiving federal funds lacks notice that it will be liable for damages for such a violation, see id., at 17, 101 S.Ct., at 1539. This notice problem does not arise in a case such as the present, where intentional discrimination is alleged and is proscribed by the statute in question. Moreover, the notion that Spending Clause statutes do not authorize monetary awards for intentional violations is belied by the unanimous holding in Darrone, supra, 465 U.S., at 628, 104 S.Ct., at 1251. Pp. 74-75[[SC2Q!]] (g) The assertion that Title IX remedies should nevertheless be limited to backpay and prospective relief diverges from this Court's traditional approach to deciding what remedies are available for violation of a federal right. Both suggested remedies are equitable in nature, and it is axiomatic that a court should determine the adequacy of damages at law before resorting to equitable relief. Moreover, both suggested remedies are clearly inadequate in that they would provide Franklin no relief: backpay because she was a student when the alleged discrimination occurred, and prospective relief because she no longer attends school in respondent system and Hill no longer teaches there. Pp. 1037-1038.

911 F.2d 617 (CA11 1985), reversed and remanded.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and THOMAS, J., joined.

Joel I. Klein, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Albert M. Pearson, III, Athens, Ga., for respondents.

Stephen L. Nightingale, Washington, D.C., for respondents as amicus curiae.

Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether the implied right of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681- 1688 (Title IX), 1 which this Court recognized in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), supports a claim for monetary damages.

* Petitioner Christine Franklin was a student at North Gwinnett High School in Gwinnett County, Georgia, between September 1985 and August 1989. Respondent Gwinnett County School District operates the high school and receives federal funds. According to the complaint filed on December 29, 1988 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Franklin was subjected to continual sexual harassment beginning in the autumn of her tenth grade year (1986) from Andrew Hill, a sports coach and teacher employed by the district. Among other allegations, Franklin avers that Hill engaged her in sexually-oriented conversations in which he asked about her sexual experiences with her boyfriend and whether she would consider having sexual intercourse with an older man, Complaint ¶ 10; First Amended Complaint, Exh. A, p. 3; 2 that Hill forcibly kissed her on the mouth in the school parking lot, Complaint ¶ 17; that he telephoned her at her home and asked if she would meet him socially, Complaint ¶ 21; First Amended Complaint, Exh. A, pp. 4-5; and that, on three occasions in her junior year, Hill interrupted a class, requested that the teacher excuse Franklin, and took her to a private office where he subjected her to coercive intercourse. Complaint &Par; 25, 27, 32. The complaint further alleges that though they became aware of and investigated Hill's sexual harassment of Franklin and other female students, teachers and administrators took no action to halt it and discouraged Franklin from pressing charges against Hill. Complaint &Par; 23, 24, 35. On April 14, 1988, Hill resigned on the condition that all matters pending against him be dropped. Complaint &Par; 36, 37. The school thereupon closed its investigation. Complaint ¶ 37.

In this action, 3 the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Title IX does not authorize an award of damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Public Schools, 911 F.2d 617 (CA11 1990). The court noted that analysis of Title IX and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (Title VI), has developed along similar lines. Citing as binding precedent Drayden v. Needville Independent School Dist., 642 F.2d 129 (CA5 1981), a decision rendered prior to the division of the Fifth Circuit, the court concluded that Title VI did not support a claim for monetary damages. The court then analyzed this Court's decision in Guardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm'n of New York City, 463 U.S. 582, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983), to determine whether it implicitly overruled Drayden. The court stated that the absence of a majority opinion left unresolved the question whether a court could award such relief upon a showing of intentional discrimination. As a second basis for its holding that monetary damages were unavailable, the court reasoned that Title IX was enacted under Congress' Spending Clause powers and that "[u]nder such statutes, relief may frequently be limited to that which is equitable in nature, with the recipient of federal funds thus retaining the option of terminating such receipt in order to rid itself of an injunction." Franklin, 911 F.2d, at 621. 4 The court closed by observing it would "proceed with extreme care" to afford compensatory relief absent express provision by Congress or clear direction from this Court. Id., at 622. Accordingly, it held that an action for monetary damages could not be sustained for an alleged intentional violation of Title IX, and affirmed the District Court's ruling to that effect. Ibid. 5

Because this opinion conflicts with a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area School Dist., 917 F.2d 779, 787-789 (1990), we granted certiorari, 501 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2795, 115 L.Ed.2d 969 (1991). We reverse.

II

In Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the Court held that Title IX is enforceable through an implied right of action. We have no occasion here to reconsider that decision. Rather, in this case we must decide what remedies are available in a suit brought pursuant to this implied right. As we have often stated, the question of what remedies are available under a statute that provides a private right of action is "analytically distinct" from the issue of whether such a right exists in the first place. Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 239, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2274, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979). Thus, although we examine the text and history of a statute to determine whether Congress intended to create a right of action, Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575-576, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 2489, 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979), we presume the availability of all appropriate remedies unless Congress has expressly indicated otherwise. Davis, supra, 442 U.S., at 246- 247, 99 S.Ct., at 2277-2278. This principle has deep roots in our jurisprudence.

A.

"[W]here legal rights have been invaded, and a federal statute provides for a general right to sue for such invasion, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done." Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684, 66 S.Ct. 773, 777, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). The Court explained this longstanding rule as jurisdictional, and upheld the exercise of the federal courts' power to award appropriate relief so long as a cause of action existed under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Ibid.

The Bell Court's reliance on this rule was hardly revolutionary. From the earliest years of the Republic, the Court has recognized the power of the judiciary to award appropriate remedies to redress injuries actionable in federal court, although it did not always distinguish clearly between a right to bring suit and a remedy available under such a right. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), for example, Chief Justice Marshall observed that our government "has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." This principle originated in the English common law, and Blackstone described "it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy, by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded." 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 23 (1783). See also Ashby v. White, 1 Salk. 19, 21, 87 Eng. Rep. 808, 816 (Q.B.1702) ("If a statute gives a right, the common law will give a remedy to maintain that right . . .").

In Kendall v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 9 L.Ed. 1181 (1838), the Court applied these principles to an act of Congress that accorded a right of action in mail carriers to sue for adjustment and settlement of certain claims for extra services but which did not specify the precise remedy available to the carriers. After surveying possible remedies, which included an action against the postmaster general for monetary damages, the Court held that the carriers were entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling payment under the terms of the statute. "It cannot be denied but that congress had the power to command that act to be done," the Court stated; "and the power to enforce the performance of the act must rest somewhere, or it will present a case which has often been said to involve a monstrous absurdity in a well organized government, that there should be no remedy, although a clear and undeniable right should be shown to exist. And if the remedy cannot be applied by the circuit court of this district, it exists nowhere." Id., at 624. Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 229, 21 S.Ct. 762, 764, 45 L.Ed. 1074 (1901), also restated "the principle that a liability created by statute without a remedy may be enforced by a common-law action."

The Court relied upon this traditional presumption again after passage of the Federal Safety Appliance Act of 1893, ch. 196, 27 Stat. 531. In Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct. 482, 60 L.Ed. 874 (1916), the Court first had to determine whether the Act supported an implied right of action. After answering that question in the affirmative, the Court then upheld a claim for monetary damages: "A disregard of the command of the statute is a wrongful act, and where it results in damage to one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted, the right to recover the damages from the party in default is implied, according to a doctrine of the common law. . . ." Id., at 39, 36 S.Ct., at 484. The foundation upon which the Bell v. Hood Court articulated this traditional presumption, therefore, was well settled. See also Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Railway & Steamship Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 569, 50 S.Ct. 427, 433, 74 L.Ed. 1034 (1930).

B

Respondents and the United States as amicus curiae, however, maintain that whatever the traditional presumption may have been when the Court decided Bell v. Hood, it has disappeared in succeeding decades. We do not agree. In J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964), the Court adhered to the general rule that all appropriate relief is available in an action brought to vindicate a federal right when Congress has given no indication of its purpose with respect to remedies. Relying on Bell v. Hood, the Borak Court specifically rejected an argument that a court's remedial power to redress violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was limited to a declaratory judgment. 377 U.S., at 433- 434, 84 S.Ct., at 1560. The Court concluded that the federal courts "have the power to grant all necessary remedial relief" for violations of the Act. Id., at 435, 84 S.Ct., at 1561. As Justice Clark's opinion for the Court observed, this holding closely followed the reasoning of a similar case brought under the Securities Act of 1933, in which the Court had stated:

" 'The power to enforce implies the power to make effective the right of recovery afforded by the Act. And the power to make the right of recovery effective implies the power to utilize any of the procedures or actions normally available to the litigant according to the exigencies of the particular case.' " Id., at 433-434, 84 S.Ct., at 1560 (quoting Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 288, 61 S.Ct. 229, 233, 85 L.Ed. 189 (1940)).

That a statute does not authorize the remedy at issue "in so many words is no more significant than the fact that it does not in terms authorize execution to issue on a judgment." Id., at 288, 61 S.Ct., at 233. Subsequent cases have been true to this position. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 239, 90 S.Ct. 400, 405, 24 L.Ed.2d 386 (1969), stating that the "existence of a statutory right implies the existence of all necessary and appropriate remedies"; Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 255, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1048, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978), upholding damages remedy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 even though the enacting Congress had not specifically provided such relief.

The United States contends that the traditional presumption in favor of all appropriate relief was abandoned by the Court in Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), and that the Bell v. Hood rule was limited to actions claiming constitutional violations. The United States quotes language in Davis to the effect that "the question of who may enforce a statutory right is fundamentally different from the question of who may enforce a right that is protected by the Constitution." Davis, 442 U.S., at 241, 99 S.Ct., at 2275. The Government's position, however, mirrors the very misunderstanding over the difference between a cause of action and the relief afforded under it that sparked the confusion we attempted to clarify in Davis. Whether Congress may limit the class of persons who have a right of action under Title IX is irrelevant to the issue in this lawsuit. To reiterate, "the question whether a litigant has a 'cause of action' is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if any, a litigant may be entitled to receive." Id., at 239, 99 S.Ct., at 2274. Davis, therefore, did nothing to interrupt the long line of cases in which the Court has held that if a right of action exists to enforce a federal right and Congress is silent on the question of remedies, a federal court may order any appropriate relief. See id., at 247, n. 26, 99 S.Ct., at 2278, n. 26 (contrasting Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976)). 6

Contrary to arguments by respondents and the United States that Guardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm'n of New York City, 463 U.S. 582, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983), and Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 104 S.Ct. 1248, 79 L.Ed.2d 568 (1984), eroded this traditional presumption, those cases in fact support it. Though the multiple opinions in Guardians suggest the difficulty of inferring the common ground among the Justices in that case, a clear majority expressed the view that damages were available under Title VI in an action seeking remedies for an intentional violation, and no Justice challenged the traditional presumption in favor of a federal court's power to award appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action. See Guardians, 463 U.S., at 595, 103 S.Ct., at 3229 (WHITE, J., joined by REHNQUIST, J.); id., at 607-611, 103 S.Ct., at 3235-3237 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment, joined by Burger, C.J.); id., at 612, and n. 1, 103 S.Ct., at 3237, and n. 1 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 624-628, 103 S.Ct., at 3244-3246 (Marshall, J., dissenting); id., at 636, 103 S.Ct., at 3250 (STEVENS, J., dissenting, joined by Brennan and BLACKMUN, JJ.). The correctness of this inference was made clear the following Term when the Court unanimously held that the 1978 amendment to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973-which had expressly incorporated the "remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI" ( 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2))-authorizes an award of backpay. In Darrone, the Court observed that a majority in Guardians had "agreed that retroactive relief is available to private plaintiffs for all discrimination . . . that is actionable under Title VI." 465 U.S., at 630, n. 9, 104 S.Ct., at 1252 n. 9. The general rule, therefore, is that absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, the federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute.

III

We now address whether Congress intended to limit application of this general principle in the enforcement of Title IX. See Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 378, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 2411-2412, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983); Wyandotte Transp. Co. v. United States, 389 U.S. 191, 200, 88 S.Ct. 379, 385, 19 L.Ed.2d 407 (1967). Because the cause of action was inferred by the Court in Cannon, the usual recourse to statutory text and legislative history in the period prior to that decision necessarily will not enlighten our analysis. Respondents and the United States fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the inquiry, therefore, by needlessly dedicating large portions of their briefs to discussions of how the text and legislative intent behind Title IX are "silent" on the issue of available remedies. Since the Court in Cannon concluded that this statute supported no express right of action, it is hardly surprising that Congress also said nothing about the applicable remedies for an implied right of action.

During the period prior to the decision in Cannon, the inquiry in any event is not " 'basically a matter of statutory construction,' " as the United States asserts. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8 (quoting Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 15, 100 S.Ct. 242, 245, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979)). Rather, in determining Congress's intent to limit application of the traditional presumption in favor of all appropriate relief, we evaluate the state of the law when the legislature passed Title IX. Cf. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353, 378, 102 S.Ct. 1825, 1839, 72 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982). In the years before and after Congress enacted this statute, the Court "follow[ed] a common-law tradition [and] regarded the denial of a remedy as the exception rather than the rule." Id., at 375, 102 S.Ct., at 1837 (footnote omitted). As we outlined in Part II, this has been the prevailing presumption in our federal courts since at least the early nineteenth century. In Cannon, the majority upheld an implied right of action in part because in the decade immediately preceding enactment of Title IX in 1972, this Court had found implied rights of action in six cases. 7 In three of those cases, the Court had approved a damages remedy. See, e.g., J.I. Case Co., 377 U.S., at 433, 84 S.Ct., at 1560, Wyandotte Transp. Co., supra, 389 U.S., at 207, 88 S.Ct., at 389; Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 90 S.Ct. 400, 24 L.Ed.2d 386 (1969). Wholly apart from the wisdom of the Cannon holding, therefore, the same contextual approach used to justify an implied right of action more than amply demonstrates the lack of any legislative intent to abandon the traditional presumption in favor of all available remedies.

In the years after the announcement of Cannon, on the other hand, a more traditional method of statutory analysis is possible, because Congress was legislating with full cognizance of that decision. Our reading of the two amendments to Title IX enacted after Cannon leads us to conclude that Congress did not intend to limit the remedies available in a suit brought under Title IX. In the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Amendment of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7, Congress abrogated the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title IX, Title VI, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. This statute cannot be read except as a validation of Cannon § holding. A subsection of the 1986 law provides that in a suit against a State, "remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(2). While it is true that this savings clause says nothing about the nature of those other available remedies, cf. Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 329, n. 22, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 1798-1799 n. 22, 68 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981), absent any contrary indication in the text or history of the statute, we presume Congress enacted this statute with the prevailing traditional rule in mind.

In addition to the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Amendment of 1986, Congress also enacted the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28 (1988). Without in any way altering the existing rights of action and the corresponding remedies permissible under Title IX, Title VI, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination Act, Congress broadened the coverage of these antidiscrimination provisions in this legislation. In seeking to correct what it considered to be an unacceptable decision on our part in Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 104 S.Ct. 1211, 79 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984), Congress made no effort to restrict the right of action recognized in Cannon and ratified in the 1986 Act or to alter the traditional presumption in favor of any appropriate relief for violation of a federal right. We cannot say, therefore, that Congress has limited the remedies available to a complainant in a suit brought under Title IX.

IV

Respondents and the United States nevertheless suggest three reasons why we should not apply the traditional presumption in favor of appropriate relief in this case.

A.

First, respondents argue that an award of damages violates separation of powers principles because it unduly expands the federal courts' power into a sphere properly reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches. Brief for Respondents 22-25. In making this argument, respondents misconceive the difference between a cause of action and a remedy. Unlike the finding of a cause of action, which authorizes a court to hear a case or controversy, the discretion to award appropriate relief involves no such increase in judicial power. See generally Note, Federal Jurisdiction in Suits for Damages Under Statutes Not Affording Such Remedy, 48 Colum.L.Rev. 1090, 1094-1095 (1948). Federal courts cannot reach out to award remedies when the Constitution or laws of the United States do not support a cause of action. Indeed, properly understood, respondents' position invites us to abdicate our historic judicial authority to award appropriate relief in cases brought in our court system. It is well to recall that such authority historically has been thought necessary to provide an important safeguard against abuses of legislative and executive power, see Kendall v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 9 L.Ed. 1181 (1838), as well as to insure an independent judiciary. See generally Katz, The Jurisprudence of Remedies: Constitutional Legality and the Law of Torts in Bell v. Hood, 117 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1, 16-17 (1968). Moreover, selective abdication of the sort advocated here would harm separation of powers principles in another way, by giving judges the power to render inutile causes of action authorized by Congress through a decision that no remedy is available.

B

Next, consistent with the Court of Appeals's reasoning, respondents and the United States contend that the normal presumption in favor of all appropriate remedies should not apply because Title IX was enacted pursuant to Congress's Spending Clause power. In Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 28-29, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 1545-1546, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981), the Court observed that remedies were limited under such Spending Clause statutes when the alleged violation was unintentional. Respondents and the United States maintain that this presumption should apply equally to intentional violations. We disagree. The point of not permitting monetary damages for an unintentional violation is that the receiving entity of federal funds lacks notice that it will be liable for a monetary award. See id. at 17, 101 S.Ct., at 1540. This notice problem does not arise in a case such as this, in which intentional discrimination is alleged. Unquestionably, Title IX placed on the Gwinnett County Schools the duty not to discriminate on the basis of sex, and "when a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate because of the subordinate's sex, that supervisor 'discriminate[s]' on the basis of sex." Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2404, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). We believe the same rule should apply when a teacher sexually harasses and abuses a student. Congress surely did not intend for federal monies to be expended to support the intentional actions it sought by statute to proscribe. Moreover, the notion that Spending Clause statutes do not authorize monetary awards for intentional violations is belied by our unanimous holding in Darrone. See 465 U.S., at 628, 104 S.Ct., at 1251. Respondents and the United States characterize the backpay remedy in Darrone as equitable relief, but this description is irrelevant to their underlying objection: that application of the traditional rule in this case will require state entities to pay monetary awards out of their treasuries for intentional violations of federal statutes. 8

C

Finally, the United States asserts that the remedies permissible under Title IX should nevertheless be limited to backpay and prospective relief. In addition to diverging from our traditional approach to deciding what remedies are available for violation of a federal right, this position conflicts with sound logic. First, both remedies are equitable in nature, and it is axiomatic that a court should determine the adequacy of a remedy in law before resorting to equitable relief. Under the ordinary convention, the proper inquiry would be whether monetary damages provided an adequate remedy, and if not, whether equitable relief would be appropriate. Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U.S. 146, 150, 11 S.Ct. 276, 276, 34 L.Ed. 873 (1891). See generally C. McCormick, Law of Damages 1 (1935). Moreover, in this case the equitable remedies suggested by respondent and the Federal Government are clearly inadequate. Backpay does nothing for petitioner, because she was a student when the alleged discrimination occurred. Similarly, because Hill the person she claims subjected her to sexual harassment-no longer teaches at the school and she herself no longer attends a school in the Gwinnett system, prospective relief accords her no remedy at all. The government's answer that administrative action helps other similarly-situated students in effect acknowledges that its approach would leave petitioner remediless.

V

In sum, we conclude that a damages remedy is available for an action brought to enforce Title IX. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, therefore, is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Justice SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice THOMAS join, concurring in the judgment.

The substantive right at issue here is one that Congress did not expressly create, but that this Court found to be "implied." See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Quite obviously, the search for what was Congress's remedial intent as to a right whose very existence Congress did not expressly acknowledge is unlikely to succeed, see ante, at 71; it is "hardly surprising," as the Court says, ibid., that the usual sources yield no explicit answer.

The Court finds an implicit answer, however, in the legislators' presumptive awareness of our practice of using "any available remedy" to redress violations of legal rights. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684, 66 S.Ct. 773, 777, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); see ante, at 72-73. This strikes me as question-begging. We can plausibly assume acquiescence in our Bell v. Hood presumption when the legislature says nothing about remedy in expressly creating a private right of action; perhaps even when it says nothing about remedy in creating a private right of action by clear textual implication; but not, I think, when it says nothing about remedy in a statute in which the courts divine a private right of action on the basis of "contextual" evidence such as that in Cannon, which charged Congress with knowledge of a court of appeals' creation of a cause of action under a similarly worded statute. See Cannon, supra, 441 U.S., at 696- 698, 99 S.Ct., at 1957-58. Whatever one thinks of the validity of the last approach, it surely rests on attributed rather than actual congressional knowledge. It does not demonstrate an explicit legislative decision to create a cause of action, and so could not be expected to be accompanied by a legislative decision to alter the application of Bell v. Hood. Given the nature of Cannon and some of our earlier "implied right of action" cases, what the Court's analytical construct comes down to is this: Unless Congress expressly legislates a more limited remedial policy with respect to rights of action it does not know it is creating, it intends the full gamut of remedies to be applied.

In my view, when rights of action are judicially "implied," categorical limitations upon their remedial scope may be judicially implied as well. Cf. Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 84-85, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2091, 45 L.Ed.2d 26. Although we have abandoned the expansive rights-creating approach exemplified by Cannon, see Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575-576, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 2489, 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979); Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 18, 23-24, 100 S.Ct. 242, 249, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979)-and perhaps ought to abandon the notion of implied causes of action entirely, see Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 191, 108 S.Ct. 513, 522, 98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment)-causes of action that came into existence under the ancien regime should be limited by the same logic that gave them birth. To require, with respect to a right that is not consciously and intentionally created, that any limitation of remedies must be express, is to provide, in effect, that the most questionable of private rights will also be the most expansively remediable. As the United States puts it, "[w]hatever the merits of 'implying' rights of action may be, there is no justification for treating [congressional] silence as the equivalent of the broadest imaginable grant of remedial authority." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12-13.

I nonetheless agree with the Court's disposition of this case. Because of legislation enacted subsequent to Cannon, it is too late in the day to address whether a judicially implied exclusion of damages under Title IX would be appropriate. The Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Amendment of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(2), must be read, in my view, not only "as a validation of Cannon's holding," ante, at 11, but also as an implicit acknowledgment that damages are available. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1) (withdrawing the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity); § 2000d-7(a)(2) (providing that, in suits against States, "remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for [violations of Title IX] to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State"). I therefore concur in the judgment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Christine FRANKLIN, Petitioner, v. GWINNETT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS and William Prescott.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
503 U.S. 60 112 S.Ct. 1028 117 L.Ed.2d 208 Christine FRANKLIN, Petitioner,v.GWINNETT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS and William Prescott. No. 90-918. Petitioner Franklin, a student in a high school operated by respondent school district, filed an action for damages in Federal District Court under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, alleging, inter alia, that she had been subjected to continual sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher, Andrew Hill.

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Federal Mandate

Title IX

(20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.)

The Law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities

Schools must have a Title IX Coordinator.

Schools must have a policy in place for students to be able to make complaints of sexual discrimination and harassment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(b) Preferential or disparate treatment because of imbalance in participation or receipt of Federal benefits; statistical evidence of imbalance

Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of that sex participating in or receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or activity, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of that sex in any community, State, section, or other area: Provided, That this subsection shall not be construed to prevent the consideration in any hearing or proceeding under this chapter of statistical evidence tending to show that such an imbalance exists with respect to the participation in, or receipt of the benefits of, any such program or activity by the members of one sex.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(b) Preferential or disparate treatment because of imbalance in participation or receipt of Federal benefits; statistical evidence of imbalance Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of

# data[].attributes.body
Source of Law: Local Policy

Aquilla ISD Board Policy Manual

(Board Policy Manual, 2022)

The district policy explicitly prohibits any form of sexual harassment of a student by a district employee.

Engaging in romantic or inappropriate social relationships between students and district employees is strictly prohibited.

Any form of sexual relationship between a student and a district employee is prohibited, irrespective of whether it is consensual or not.

Employees are required to report any belief or suspicion of sexual harassment promptly.

The policy outlines how reports will be handled in accordance with state laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Policy Code DIA – Employee Welfare: Freedom from Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation – Aquilla ISD Board Policy Manual - Policy Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: This policy addresses the prohibition against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. For legally referenced material relating to the prohibition against discrimination in hiring and discharging employees, see DAA(LEGAL).

# data[].attributes.body
Clear Policies and Procedures

Develop and communicate clear policies and procedures regarding appropriate conduct between students and teachers.

Training and Awareness

Provide explicit training to teachers, staff, and administrators about the policies and guidelines related to student-teacher relationships.

Social Media Guidelines:

Establish guidelines for the use of social media between teachers and students.

(Crockett et al., 2023)

Crockett, M., Henry, L., McGuire, S., & Gurdal, A. (2023). Teachers’ Social Media Use and Its Legal Implications. The William & Mary Educational Review, 8(1).

# data[].attributes.body
Texas Educators Code of Ethics

(19 TAC § 247)

Standard 3.8 mandates that educators uphold appropriate professional relationships and boundaries with students.

Educators are required to establish and uphold clear boundaries with their students. Failing to establish these boundaries puts teachers at risk of breaching ethical codes. When the distinction between a teacher and a student becomes unclear, the resulting issues can be damaging for a student's mental health and puts the future of the educator at risk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.body
When exploring my connection to legal and ethical standards, I have come to realize that these standards are something I interact with on daily basis. This includes understanding and adhering to codes of conduct and recognizing the importance of maintaining a safe and inclusive learning environment. I have a new heightened awareness for ensuring that standards that are relevant to my role are being consistently followed and enforced. As someone pursuing an educational leadership role, I acknowledge the importance of upholding these legal and ethical standards. These legal and ethical standards were designed to keep quality education and fairness in our school systems.

# data[].attributes.body
Develop and communicate clear policies and procedures regarding appropriate conduct between students and teachers.

Conduct thorough background checks on all employees, including teachers, to identify any history of inappropriate behavior or criminal offenses.

Implement clear reporting mechanisms for students and staff to report any concerns or suspicions regarding inappropriate relationships.

Establish guidelines for the use of social media between teachers and students.

Regularly review and update policies and procedures to adapt to changing circumstances, technologies, and legal requirements.

Establish guidelines for the supervision of student-teacher interactions.

Emphasize professional boundaries and the importance of maintaining a safe and respectful learning environment.