[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 137 (Monday, October 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H9348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




OVERTURN SUPREME COURT DECISION DENYING DAMAGES TO NINTH GRADER WHO WAS 
                     SEXUALLY ABUSED BY HER TEACHER

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court begins its session today 
and has announced a set of cases it will decide, among them another 
troublesome sexual harassment case, this one called Davis versus Monroe 
County Board of Education. It involves student-on-student sexual 
harassment under Title IX. We have here a student who was making As and 
Bs but fell to failing grades, to writing suicide notes, a fifth 
grader, after 5 months of groping of her breasts and other parts of her 
body. There were constant complaints from her parents, there were 
vulgar comments and the rest, until finally the parents simply sued the 
school after the school ignored the complaints. We have a split in the 
circuits based on how we have written Title IX, two circuits saying 
damages are recoverable, two circuits are saying they are not. Well, 
Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be no split here in this body. If the 
Supreme Court rules that Title IX does not cover this kind of action, 
we must take action next term.
  Why do I raise this now? Because the Court has already moved in an 
unacceptable direction on a not dissimilar case last term in the case 
of Gebser versus Largo Vista School District. There we had a ninth 
grader whose teacher sexually assaulted and harassed her, and yet the 
Supreme Court set a standard that makes it almost impossible for a 
parent and a child to recover against a school system. The reason, the 
Court said, was that, quote, ``the statutory text of Title IX does not 
shed light on Congress' intent with respect to the scope of available 
remedies.'' Understand that this was a child who beginning in the 
eighth grade had her teacher during Advanced Placement classtime 
initiate sexual relations with her and at other times and otherwise 
engage in sexual activity with this youngster.
  This decision is a virtual summons to Congress. Justice Stevens 
thought that Title IX did cover damages. That was not the majority, 
however. Instead the Court set an absolutely absurd standard that the 
school had to have actual notice or a deliberate indifference by an 
official with authority to implement correction measures before damages 
could be obtained.
  What we are left with now is an indefensible distinction in our law. 
If a principal sexually harasses a teacher, even though the 
superintendent knew nothing about it, damages are forthcoming under 
Title VII. We must make sure that teachers who are sexually harassed by 
other teachers or by their superiors do not have rights superior to 
when a teacher harasses a student or a student harasses another 
student. We must protect students at least as much as we protect 
teachers from sexual harassment. I am already writing a bill to remedy 
the finding that sexual harassment by a teacher on a student cannot 
yield damages.
  Mr. Speaker, if the court fails again, this time in a case involving 
outrageous student on student sexual harassment, this House will have a 
second provision to correct next term.

                          ____________________