a hostile school environment based on Brzonkala's gender.” Brzonkala I, 935 F.Supp. at 778. We agree that Brzonkala has properly pled a hostile environment claim. All that Brzonkala was required to plead was " 'a short and plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.... Following the simple guide of Rule 8(f) that ‘all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice,' we have no doubt that petitioners’ complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the respondents fair notice of its basis.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 — 48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (footnote omitted). 5 . But see Smith v. Metro. Sch. Dist. Perry Township, 128 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 6 . After oral argument in this case, the
holding that the elements of a hostile environment claim under title vii equally apply under title ix holding that a claim for damages exists in an action to enforce title ix recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim holding that title vii principles govern retaliation claims arising under title ix and assuming that teachers have standing to raise retaliation claims under title ix based upon complaints raised on behalf of their students holding that a claim for retaliation does not lie under title ix