(citing Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 25, 114 S.Ct. 367, 372, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)) (Ginsburg, J., concurring). We see no reason to apply a different standard under Title IX. The uncontroverted evidence shows that McDougall targeted Kinman because she was a woman. McDougall directed no similar attentions toward male students. Thus, defendants’ argument regarding the third element is without merit. Finally, defendants claim that Kinman has failed to offer evidence to support liability against the district and school officials for McDougall’s actions. The courts that have discussed the standard of liability for school districts under Title IX have failed to reach a consensus regarding the appropriate standard. Compare, Bolon v. Rolla, 917 F.Supp. 1423 (E.D.Mo.1996) (<HOLDING>) with Rosa H. v. San Elizario Indep. Sch.
holding school district strictly hable for sexual harassment by its employees holding school hable for sexual harassment by its employees only if the district knew or should have known and neghgently failed to take prompt effective remedial action holding school district hable for teachers sexual harassment of student only upon knowing failure to act holding employer may be hable for sexual harassment of employee by independent contractor holding employer could be hable for sexual harassment of employees by nonemployees including employers customers