In a series of landmark sexual harassment decisions handed down this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that protection against sexual harassment in educational facilities are far weaker than protection against sexual harassment in the workplace.

In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, the Court determined that a victim can hold the school district liable for sexual harassment in an educational facility only if a school official knew about the misconduct and deliberately ignored it. In this case, Frank Waldrop, a high school teacher, initiated a sexual relationship with Alida Star Gebser, an eighth grade student, in the spring of 1991. Although Gebser realized the relationship was improper, she failed to report it to school officials because she was uncertain how to react. The relationship was discovered in 1993 by the police, and Waldrop was fired. Gebser and her mother filed a suit against the school district under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which prohibits gender discrimination in federally-funded education. The lawsuit alleges that Waldrop used his authority to seduce Gebser, and the school district did not inform Gebser about what sexual harassment is or how to complain about it.

Prior to this decision, the Department of Education made school districts liable for sexual harassment regardless of whether school officials were informed of the wrongdoing û which is similar to the way sexual harassment in employment is treated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. With this decision, the court shifted the burden of proof from the harasser to the victim.

In stark contrast, the Supreme Court issued a joint decision in the cases of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, ruling that an employer is potentially liable for harassment by a supervisor working for that employer, even if the employer did not know about the harassment. Both Beth Ann Faragher and Kimberly Ellerth sued under Title VII. Faragher claimed that while she was a lifeguard for the city of Boca Raton, her supervisors created a hostile work environment by touching her, making lewd remarks, and making derogatory comments about women. A federal appeals court had ruled that the city could be liable only if it had given the supervisor authority to harass. The Supreme Court disagreed, and sent the case back to the district court to be tried on it merits. The NOW Legal Defense Fund was co-counsel in the Faragher case. In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, the Supreme Court found that employers are liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor even when the employee does not suffer any tangible harm from the harassment, such as being fired or demoted. Kimberly Ellerth claimed that while she was a salesperson at a Burlington division, her supervisor, Ted Slowik, repeatedly made offensive sexual comments, sometimes implying that her job would suffer if she did not comply with him. Although Ellerth did not in fact suffer adverse job consequences that were threatened, the Supreme Court ruled that she could still file the lawsuit.

To remedy the weakness of Title IX, the Feminist Majority has led the drafting of a National Women's Equality Act (see related article).