Connection lost
Server error
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A student sued her school for sexual harassment under Title IX. The Supreme Court held that victims of intentional discrimination under a federally-funded education program can sue for monetary damages, even though the statute does not explicitly provide for that remedy.
Legal Significance: Established that monetary damages are an available remedy in private actions brought to enforce Title IX, affirming the federal courts’ traditional power to award any appropriate relief for the violation of a federal right where Congress has not expressly stated otherwise.
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Christine Franklin, a student at a public high school operated by respondent Gwinnett County Public Schools, was subjected to continuous sexual harassment and coercive intercourse by a teacher and coach. The complaint alleged that school officials were aware of the teacher’s conduct toward Franklin and other students but took no action to halt it and discouraged Franklin from pressing charges. The teacher resigned on the condition that all pending matters against him be dropped, and the school closed its investigation. Franklin filed suit seeking monetary damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program receiving federal financial assistance. The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Title IX does not authorize an award of damages. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, creating a circuit split on the issue.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
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 victim of intentional discrimination?
Yes. A damages remedy is available in a private action brought to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repreh
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal 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 victim of intentional discrimination?
Conclusion
This landmark decision solidified the enforcement power of Title IX by confirming Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re
Legal Rule
Absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, the federal courts have Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nost
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the traditional power of federal courts to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Supreme Court held that monetary damages are available for intentional