strict liability.  It was between strict liability and the "knew or should have known" (negligence) standard the Court adopted.  Agency principles define the relationship between principals and their agents, as well as establish rules for a principal's liability to third parties.  Some of those rules create strict liability, and others create liability only for negligence.  In fact, the dissent itself applies some agency principles (abuse of authority and apparent authority) which create strict liability.  Thus, the choice presented is not between agency principles and strict liability, but between different agency principles, some of which result in strict liability and some of which result in liability only for negligence
This creates several problems.  While this theory disclaims strict liability, in fact some of theI shall refer to the plaintiff, Heather Smith, as "Smith" throughout the duration of this opinion


2
 With the exception of one incident in which he allegedly suggested fellatio


3
 When I refer to the language of Title VII and Title IX being "similar," I do so in a very general sense.  No one will dispute that the text of the two statutes differs with respect to the use of the term "agents" in Title VII and the absence thereof in Title IX


4
 The differences between the regulations promulgated under Title VII and Title IX, respectively, are also significant.  As the Rosa H. Court noted:
Title VII regulations state forthrightly that "an employer ... is responsible for its acts and those of its agents and supervisory employees with respect