Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools

503 U.S. 60

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1992-02-26
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • concluding that “Congress did not intend to limit the remedies available in a suit brought under Title IX”
  • concluding that monetary damages were “appropriate” because equitable relief offered no redress for the injury suffered
  • holding that Title IX affords the full range of remedies to plaintiff's suing a school system receiving federal funds
  • holding that Congress did not intend to limit the range of remedies available under Title IX
  • holding that Title DC affords the full range of remedies to plaintiff's suing a school system receiving federal funds
  • holding that a student may sue a school district for damages based on sexual harassment by a teacher
  • holding that monetary damages are recoverable in a sexual harassment suit where intentional discrimination was alleged
  • concluding that Title VII precedent was the basis for recognizing a Title IX private cause of action for sexual harassment

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
1128 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Education Law — Title IX Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is enforceable through an implied private right of action. 503 U.S. 60, 65 (citing Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979))
  2. Remedies — Presumption of All Appropriate Relief 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; the question of what remedies are available under a statute that provides a private right of action is analytically distinct from, and prior to, the question whether such a right exists. 503 U.S. at 65-68, 70 (citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684 (1946); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 239, 246-247 (1979))
  3. Remedies — Statutory Rights and Necessary Relief Where legal rights have been invaded and a federal statute provides a general right to sue for such invasion, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done; the existence of a statutory right implies the existence of all necessary and appropriate remedies. 503 U.S. at 66-68 (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. at 684, and citing Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 239 (1969))
  4. Remedies — Congressional Intent to Limit Relief In determining whether Congress intended to limit the traditional presumption in favor of all appropriate relief, courts evaluate the state of the law when the legislature passed the statute; where a cause of action was judicially inferred rather than expressly created, the absence of statutory text or legislative history addressing remedies is neither surprising nor evidence of intent to restrict relief. 503 U.S. at 71-73
  5. Remedies — Subsequent Congressional Validation Where Congress legislates with full cognizance of a decision recognizing an implied right of action and enacts amendments that validate that holding without restricting the available remedies, Congress is presumed to have acted with the prevailing traditional rule in mind and not to have limited the remedies available under the statute. 503 U.S. at 72-73
  6. Constitutional Law — Separation of Powers The discretion to award appropriate relief does not expand judicial power into a sphere reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches, because unlike the finding of a cause of action, which authorizes a court to hear a case or controversy, awarding relief on a cognizable claim involves no such increase in judicial power; judicial authority to award appropriate relief historically has been thought necessary to safeguard against legislative and executive abuses and to ensure an independent judiciary, and selective refusal to award any remedy would harm separation of powers principles by giving judges power to render inutile causes of action authorized by Congress. 503 U.S. at 73-74
  7. Education Law — Spending Clause Statutes and Damages for Intentional Discrimination The presumption limiting remedies under Spending Clause statutes, grounded in the receiving entity's lack of notice that it will be liable for damages for an unintentional violation, does not bar monetary damages for an intentional violation of Title IX, because the notice problem does not arise where intentional discrimination is alleged and is proscribed by the statute. 503 U.S. at 74-75
  8. Remedies — Adequacy of Legal Relief Before Equitable Relief Courts should determine the adequacy of a remedy at law before resorting to equitable relief; where the equitable remedies of backpay and prospective relief would afford the plaintiff no relief, they are clearly inadequate and do not limit the remedies otherwise available. 503 U.S. at 75-76
  9. Education Law — Title IX A damages remedy is available for an action brought to enforce Title IX. 503 U.S. at 76
FRANKLIN v. GWINNETT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,503 U.S. 60(1992)
112 S.Ct. 1028
FRANKLINv. GWINNETT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
No. 90-918
Argued December 11, 1991
Decided February 26, 1992
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,interalia, 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.Cannonv. University of Chicago,441 U.S. 677. 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;Davis v. Passman,442 U.S. 228,246-247. Pp. 65-68.
(c) This Court's adherence to the general rule has not eroded sinceBell.See, e.g., J.I. Case Co. v. Borak,377 U.S. 426,433-435. 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, 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, seeid., at 239. Nor didGuardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm'n of New York City,463 U.S. 582, andConsolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone,465 U.S. 624, erode the traditional presumption. In fact, those cases support it, since a clear majority inGuardiansexpressed the view that damages were available in an action seeking remedies for an intentional violation of a statute closely analogous to Title IX,Page 61while a unanimous Court inDarroneheld 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 theCannonCourt inferred a cause of action upon concluding that Title IX supported no express right of action, the silence of the pre-Cannonstatutory text and legislative history on the issue of available remedies is neither surprising nor enlightening. Rather, the appropriate inquiry for the pre-Cannonperiod 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-Cannonperiod, 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 validatedCannon'sholding 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 inPennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman,451 U.S. 1,28-29, that remedies are limited under Spending Clause statutes when the alleged violation isunintentionalis based on the theory that an entity receiving federal funds lacks notice that it will be liable for damages for such a violation, seeid., at 17. 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 authorizePage 62monetary awards for intentional violations is belied by the unanimous holding inDarrone, supra, at 628. Pp. 74-75.
(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. 75-76.
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, post, p. 76.
Joel I. Kleinargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs wereRichard G. TarantoandMichael Weinstock.Albert M. Pearson IIIargued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief wereFrank C. BedingerIII and E.Victoria Sweeny.Stephen L. Nightingaleargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief wereSolicitor General Starr, Assistant AttorneyGeneral Gerson, Deputy Solicitor General Roberts, andJohnP. Schnitker.fn*
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. § 1681-1688Page 63(Title IX),1which this Court recognized inCannon v.University of Chicago,441 U.S. 677(1979), supports a claim for monetary damages.
I
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;2that 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 ¶¶ 25, 27, 32. The complaint further alleges that, though they became aware of andPage 64investigated 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 ¶¶ 23, 24, 35. On April 14, 1988, Hill resigned on the condition that all matters pending against him be dropped. Complaint ¶¶ 36, 37. The school thereupon closed its investigation. Complaint ¶ 37.

In this action,3the 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. § 2000det seq. (Title VI), has developed along similar lines. Citing as binding precedentDrayden 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 inGuardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm'n of New York City,463 U.S. 582(1983), to determine whether it implicitly overruledDrayden. 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,Page 65"[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."911 F.2d, at 621.4The 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. 1204(1991). We reverse.
II
InCannon v. University of Chicago,441 U.S. 677(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 whetherPage 66such a right exists in the first place.Davis v. Passman,442 U.S. 228,239(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(1979), we presume the availability of all appropriate remedies unless Congress has expressly indicated otherwise.Davis, supra, at 246-247. 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(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.

TheBellCourt'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. InMarbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (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,Page 671 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 . . .").

InKendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524 (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(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. InTexas Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby,241 U.S. 33(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. The foundation upon which theBell v. HoodCourt articulated this traditionalPage 68presumption, therefore, was well settled.See also Texas New OrleansR. Co. v. Railway Steamship Clerks,281 U.S. 548,569(1930).
B
Respondents and the United States asamicus curiae, however, maintain that whatever the traditional presumption may have been when the Court decidedBell v. Hood, it has disappeared in succeeding decades. We do not agree. InJ.I. Case Co. v. Borak,377 U.S. 426(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 onBellv. Hood, theBorakCourt 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. The Court concluded that the federal courts "have the power to grant all necessary remedial relief" for violations of the Act.Id., at 435. 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 powerto enforceimplies 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 (quotingDeckert v. Independence Shares Corp.,311 U.S. 282,288(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. Subsequent cases have been true to this position.Page 69See, e.g.,Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc.,396 U.S. 229,239(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(1978), upholding damages remedy under42 U.S.C. § 1983even 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 inDavis v. Passman,442 U.S. 228(1979), and that theBell v. Hoodrule was limited to actions claiming constitutional violations. The United States quotes language inDavisto the effect that "the question of who may enforce astatutoryright is fundamentally different from the question of who may enforce a right that is protected by the Constitution."Davis,442 U.S., at 241. 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 inDavis. 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.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 (contrastingBrown v. General Services Administration,425 U.S. 820(1976)).6Page 70

Contrary to arguments by respondents and the United States thatGuardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm'n of New York City,463 U.S. 582(1983), andConsolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone,465 U.S. 624(1984), eroded this traditional presumption, those cases in fact support it. Though the multiple opinions inGuardianssuggest 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(WHITE, J., joined by REHNQUIST, J.);id., at 607-611 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment, joined by Burger, C.J.);id., at 612, and n. 1 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment);id., at 624-628 (Marshall, J., dissenting);id., at 636 (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. InDarrone, the Court observed that a majority inGuardianshad "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. The general rule, therefore, is that, absent clear direction to thePage 71contrary 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. SeeBush v. Lucas,462 U.S. 367,378(1983);Wyandotte Transp. Co. v. United States,389 U.S. 191,200(1967). Because the cause of action was inferred by the Court inCannon, 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 inCannonconcluded 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 inCannon, the inquiry, in any event, isnot"`basically a matter of statutory construction,'" as the United States asserts. Brief for United States asAmicus Curiae8 (quotingTransamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis,444 U.S. 11,15(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(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 (footnote omitted). As we outlined in Part II, this has been the prevailing presumption in our federal courts since at least thePage 72early nineteenth century. InCannon, 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.7In three of those cases, the Court had approved a damages remedy.See, e.g., J.I. Case Co.,377 U.S., at 433;Wyandotte Transportation Co., supra, at 207;Sullivan v. LittleHunting Park, Inc.,396 U.S. 229(1969). Wholly apart from the wisdom of theCannonholding, 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 yearsafterthe announcement ofCannon, 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 afterCannonleads 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 Amendmentimmunity 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 ofCannon'sholding. 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 publicPage 73or private entity other than a State."42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(2). While it is true that this saving clause says nothing about the nature of those other available remedies, cf.Milwaukee v. Illinois,451 U.S. 304,329, n. 22 (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 inGrove City College v. Bell,465 U.S. 555(1984), Congress made no effort to restrict the right of action recognized inCannonand 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 awardPage 74appropriate 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 toabdicateour 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, 12 Pet. 524 (1838), as well as to insure an independent judiciary.See generallyKatz, The Jurisprudence of Remedies: Constitutional Legality and the Law of Torts inBell 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' 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. InPennhurst StateSchool and Hospital v. Halderman,451 U.S. 1,28-29(1981), the Court observed that remedies were limited under such Spending Clause statutes when the alleged violation wasunintentional. 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. This notice problem does not arise inPage 75a 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 SavingsBank, FSB v. Vinson,477 U.S. 57,64(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 inDarrone. See465 U.S., at 628. Respondents and the United States characterize the backpay remedy inDarroneas 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 determinePage 76the 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(1891).See generallyC. 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.So ordered.
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." SeeCannon v. University of Chicago,441 U.S. 677(1979). Quite obviously, the search for what was Congress'sremedialintent 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.Page 77

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(1946); seeante, at 72-73. This strikes me as question-begging. We can plausibly assume acquiescence in ourBell v. Hoodpresumption 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 inCannon, which charged Congress with knowledge of a court of appeals' creation of a cause of action under a similarly worded statute.See Cannon, supra, at 696-698. 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 ofBellv. Hood. Given the nature ofCannonand 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. Although we have abandoned the expansive rights-creating approach exemplified byCannon, seeTouche Ross Co. v. Redington,442 U.S. 560,575-576(1979);Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis,444 U.S. 11,18,23-24(1979) — and perhaps ought to abandon the notion of implied causes of action entirely, seeThompson v. Thompson,484 U.S. 174,191(1988)Page 78(SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) — causes of action that came into existence under theancien regimeshould 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 asAmicus Curiae12-13.

I nonetheless agree with the Court's disposition of this case. Because of legislation enacted subsequent toCannon, 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 ofCannon'sholding,"ante, at 72, but also as an implicit acknowledgment that damages are available. See42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1) (withdrawing the States'Eleventh Amendmentimmunity); § 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.Page 79
  1. Page 62 Briefs ofamici curiaeurging reversal were filed for the National Women's Law Center et al. byMarcia D. Greenberger;and for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law byWilliam T. Lake, WilliamH. Brown III, Herbert M. Wachtell, Norman Redlich, andThomas J.Henderson.Peter J. KadzikandArlene B. Mayersonfiled a brief for the American Council of the Blind et al. asamici curiae. ↩
  2. Page 63 This statute provides in pertinent part that "No person in the United States 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.20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). ↩
  3. Page 63 This exhibit is the report of the United States Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights based on that office's investigation of this case. Franklin incorporated this exhibit into her amended complaint. ↩
  4. Page 64 Prior to bringing this lawsuit, Franklin filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education (OCR) in August, 1988. After investigating these charges for several months, OCR concluded that the school district had violated Franklin's rights by subjecting her to physical and verbal sexual harassment and by interfering with her right to complain about conduct proscribed by Title IX. OCR determined, however, that, because of the resignations of Hill and respondent William Prescott and the implementation of a school grievance procedure, the district had come into compliance with Title IX. It then terminated its investigation. First Amended Complaint, Exh. A, pp. 7-9. ↩
  5. Page 65 The court also rejected an argument by Franklin that the terms of outright prohibition of Title VII,42 U.S.C. § 2000eto2000e-17, apply by analogy to Title IX's antidiscrimination provision, and that the remedies available under the two statutes should also be the same.Franklin,911 F.2d, at 622. Because Franklin does not pursue this contention here, we need not address whether it has merit. ↩
  6. Page 65 Judge Johnson concurred specially, writing that the result was controlled byDrayden v. Needville Independent School Dist.,642 F.2d 129(CA5 1981), and that there was no need to address whether Titles VI and IX are grounded solely in the Spending Clause and whether Title VII analysis should apply to an action under Titles VI or IX. See911 F.2d, at 622-623. ↩
  7. Page 69 Cases cited by respondents and the United States sinceDavisare inapposite, either because they involved holdings that plaintiffs had no right of action,see, e.g., Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg,501 U.S. 1083(1991);Karahalios v. National Federation of FedEmployees, Local 1263,489 U.S. 527(1989);Thompson v. Thompson,Page 70484 U.S. 174(1988);Texas Industries Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.,451 U.S. 630(1981);California v. Sierra Club,451 U.S. 287(1981);Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers,451 U.S. 77(1981);Touche Ross Co. v. Redington,442 U.S. 560(1979);SecuritiesInvestor Protection Corp. v. Barbour,421 U.S. 412(1975), or because the Court rejected a claim for damages under a statute that expressly enumerated the remedies available to plaintiffs.Massachusetts Mut.Life Ins. Co. v. Russell,473 U.S. 134(1985). ↩
  8. Page 72J.I. Case Co. v. Borak,377 U.S. 426(1964);Wyandotte Transp. Co.v. United States,389 U.S. 191(1967);Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.,392 U.S. 409(1968);Allen v. State Bd of Elections,393 U.S. 544(1969);Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc.,396 U.S. 229(1969); andSuperintendent of Ins. of New York v. Bankers Life Casualty Co.,404 U.S. 6(1971). ↩
  9. Page 75 Franklin argues that, in any event, Title IX should not be viewed solely as having been enacted under Congress' Spending Clause powers, and that it also rests on powers derived from § 5 of theFourteenth Amendment. See Brief for Petitioner 19, n. 10. Because we conclude that a money damages remedy is available under Title IX for an intentional violation irrespective of the constitutional source of Congress' power to enact the statute, we need not decide which power Congress utilized in enacting Title IX. ↩