Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools
503 U.S. 60 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A damages remedy is available for an action brought to enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 where the violation is intentional. Federal courts operate under the long-standing presumption that all appropriate remedies are available for the violation of a federal statutory right unless Congress has expressly indicated otherwise.
Facts:
- Christine Franklin was a student at North Gwinnett High School, an institution operated by the Gwinnett County School District, which receives federal funds.
- Between 1986 and 1989, a teacher and sports coach employed by the district, Andrew Hill, subjected Franklin to continual sexual harassment.
- Hill's conduct included engaging Franklin in sexually-oriented conversations, forcibly kissing her, and on three separate occasions, taking her to a private office where he subjected her to coercive intercourse.
- Franklin reported the harassment to other teachers and school administrators.
- School officials became aware of Hill's harassment of Franklin and other female students but took no action to halt it and discouraged Franklin from pressing charges.
- Hill was allowed to resign on the condition that all matters pending against him would be dropped, at which point the school closed its investigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Christine Franklin sued the Gwinnett County School District in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking monetary damages for violations of Title IX.
- The District Court dismissed Franklin's complaint, holding that Title IX does not authorize an award of monetary damages.
- Franklin appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Franklin's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the implied private right of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 support a claim for monetary damages for a student who was intentionally subjected to sexual harassment by a teacher?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. A damages remedy is available for an action brought to enforce Title IX. The Court operates under the traditional presumption that where a federal statute provides a right to sue, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done unless Congress has expressly indicated otherwise. This principle, articulated in cases like Bell v. Hood, is deeply rooted in jurisprudence. Since the Court implied a private right of action under Title IX in Cannon v. University of Chicago, and Congress has not explicitly limited the available remedies, the full scope of remedies is presumed to be available. The Court rejected the argument that Spending Clause legislation prohibits damages for intentional violations, noting that the 'notice' concern applicable to unintentional violations does not apply when the discrimination is intentional. Furthermore, post-Cannon legislation, such as the 1986 Rehabilitation Act Amendments, implicitly validated the availability of damages by providing that 'remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available' against states to the same extent as other entities. Finally, equitable remedies like prospective relief or backpay would be inadequate for Franklin, who has already graduated and whose harasser no longer works at the school, making a damages remedy necessary and appropriate.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. While the majority's reliance on a general presumption of remedies for a judicially-created right is flawed, subsequent congressional action has implicitly acknowledged that damages are available. It is 'question begging' to assume Congress intended the full scope of remedies for a right of action it never explicitly created. However, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, which abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity for Title IX violations and explicitly referenced 'remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity),' serve as an implicit congressional validation that damages are available. This subsequent legislation, not a general common-law presumption, is the proper basis for the Court's judgment.
Analysis:
This decision firmly established that implied rights of action under federal anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title IX, carry a full range of remedies, including monetary damages for intentional violations. The ruling significantly strengthened Title IX's enforcement power, transforming it into a more potent tool for victims of sex-based discrimination in educational settings. By confirming the availability of compensatory damages, the Court ensured that victims could be made whole for their injuries, going beyond merely stopping the discriminatory practice. This created a powerful financial incentive for educational institutions to proactively prevent and properly address sexual harassment and discrimination.
Unlock the full brief for Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools