[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H5039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1745
                   STATUTE IN SERIOUS NEED OF FIXING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Diaz-Balart). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to put the Congress on 
fair warning that there is a statute in serious need of fixing. Women 
Members of Congress will hold a press conference tomorrow at 11 a.m. to 
call the attention of the Congress to this predicament. The Supreme 
Court handed down a decision, the Gebser decision, involving a ninth 
grade student who was assaulted by her teacher in as much as he had 
sexual intercourse with her over a period of time.
  She sued under title 9 for sexual assault and harassment and the 
Court found that this Congress had not, in fact, given the Court 
sufficient guidance so that damages could be awarded under title 9.
  This affair with a student began when she was in the eighth grade and 
joined a high school book discussion group. The teacher often made 
sexually suggestive remarks to her. Later on, when she went to the 
ninth grade and was assigned to his class, he lured her into sexual 
intercourse and apparently had sexual intercourse many times, including 
during class times.
  This youngster did not report this relationship to school officials. 
She said she was uncertain how to act. I am sure she was utterly 
confused that this disproportionate power relationship had evolved in 
this direction. When her parents found out, of course they looked for 
remedies and among them was a remedy under title 7.
  The Court found that she did not report the relationship to school 
officials. Surprise, surprise. But the Court also found that the school 
system had not distributed an official grievance procedure for how to 
lodge complaints with school officials, even though that is required 
under title 9.
  So the Court found that one could not sue under title 9 for teacher-
student sexual harassment unless the following four circumstances were 
met:
  First, that the employee had supervisory power over the offending 
employee; actually knew of the abuse; had the power to end it; and 
failed to do so. Of course, the school system at top levels could not 
meet those standards.
  Mr. Speaker, if in fact this were a title 7 matter involving a 
teacher and a principal, and the principal had sexually harassed the 
teacher in any way, then the teacher would have a cause of action 
against the school system under title 7. But here we have a minor child 
who has no cause of action under the only statute available to her.
  Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Court's predicament. The Court had 
implied a cause of action for damages rather than gotten it from the 
wording of title 9. And so the Court simply does not know how far we in 
the Congress want the Court to go in allowing damages.
  I do not think there is a Member of this body that would not regard 
damages lying against the school system as the way to deter this kind 
of harassment, this kind of affair, this kind of assault by a teacher 
on a student. But the court said, and I quote, absent further direction 
from Congress, the Court could not go further.
  Mr. Speaker, I know I will be joined by other Members of this body, 
quite apart from the women Members, who will appear with me tomorrow at 
a press conference to suggest to this body that the only reason the 
damage element is not laid out is when title 9 was passed 25 years ago, 
who would have thought that we would be dealing with teacher affairs 
with an eighth and ninth great student? No, we did not have it in our 
mind then.
  We must have it in our minds now, because it has occurred and we are 
all embarrassed that there is no remedy. I do not believe we seek this 
remedy simply because the remedy would be deserved in regard to this 
case. And if ever there was a damage remedy deserved in this case, it 
is this case.
  The reason this remedy is important here is that we want to deter 
this kind of conduct and we want to say to school systems that they 
must pass out a grievance system guidance manual that puts people on 
notice as to how to file a complaint. And if they do not, then they, 
themselves, will be liable under the statute.
  I am sure that that is what we mean. We must move to do so as soon 
after the school year for 1999-2000 begins. I regret that this 
occurred. It is time though for the Congress to move forward and meet 
its obligations to correct the statute.

                          ____________________