31 F.3d 203, 207 (4th Cir.1994) (“Title VII, and the judicial interpretations of it, provide a persuasive body of standards to which we may look in shaping the contours of a private right of action under Title IX.”); Roberts v. Colorado State Bd. of Agric., 998 F.2d 824, 832 (10th Cir.1993) (“Title VII ... is ‘the most appropriate analogue when defining Title IX’s substantive standards _’ ”); Lipsett v. University of P.R., 864 F.2d 881, 896 (1st Cir.1988) (“Because Title VII prohibits the identical conduct prohibited by Title IX, i.e., sex discrimination” Title VII is “the most appropriate analogue when defining Title IX’s substantive standards ....”) (citation omitted); see also Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1037-38, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (<HOLDING>); H.R.Rep. No. 554 (1971) reprinted in 1972
holding title ix provides a private cause of action for damages arising from sexual harassment and relying on meritor sav bank v vinson 477 us 57 64 106 sct 2399 2404 91 led2d 49 1986 a title vii hostile environment ease to define discrimination 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 the elements of a hostile environment claim under title vii equally apply under title ix 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