for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and direct the district court , 983 F.2d 485, 489 (3d Cir.1992); Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. New Jersey, 772 F.2d 35, 41 (3d Cir.1985). Although count II of Smith’s complaint, which asserts a Title IX claim, states that "[t]his action is a request for a declaratory relief challenging sex discriminatory practices and policies of the NCAA ... in violation of Title IX,” her complaint also includes a clause which prays for additional relief including damages and any further relief which the court finds appropriate. App. at 5. In our view, a fair reading of the complaint establishes that it asserts an action for damages under Title IX. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The bylaw at issue provides that [a]
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 a claim for retaliation does not lie under title ix holding title ix does not support an action against official in an individual capacity holding that a claim for damages exists in an action to enforce title ix holding that the elements of a hostile environment claim under title vii equally apply under title ix