PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10734 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10734 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10734 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10734 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would set rules for holding schools and other covered education providers responsible for sex-based harassment that affects someone’s access to education, even when it happens elsewhere. Responsibility would depend on who committed the harassment, their authority, and—in some cases—what the provider knew and how it responded. People subjected to prohibited discrimination could seek court orders, compensation, damages intended to punish wrongdoing, and legal fees.
If an agent or an employee of a covered entity engages in harassment, regardless of where the harassment occurs, on the basis of sex, which is enabled or assisted by the authority exercised as an employee or agent of the covered entity, against a person who is participating in or receiving benefits, services, or opportunities from an education program or activity, or who is attempting to do so, and the harassment alters the aggrieved person’s ability to do so, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment, the covered entity is liable for sex discrimination.
and the covered entity knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the harassment, then the covered entity is liable for sex discrimination unless it can demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care to promptly prevent and correct the effects of any harassment based on sex.
In an action brought against a covered entity by (including on behalf of) an aggrieved person who has been subjected to discrimination prohibited under this title (including its implementing regulations), the plaintiff may recover equitable and legal relief (including compensatory and punitive damages), and attorney’s fees (including expert fees).
Section 1 would name the legislation the Title IX Take Responsibility Act of 2026.
This Act may be cited as the Title IX Take Responsibility Act of 2026.
The proposed findings describe Title IX as protecting people of any gender from sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. They state Congress’s rationale for reversing Gebser and other court decisions to expand remedies for harassment; these are the bill’s stated positions, not independently established legal conclusions or effects.
Title IX protects persons, of any gender, from discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities that receive Federal funding.
Legislative action is necessary and appropriate to reverse Gebser and other court opinions and restore the availability of a full range of remedies for harassment based on sex.
A covered provider would be liable when an employee or agent uses authority that enables or assists sex-based harassment and the harassment alters someone’s ability to participate in, benefit from, or seek access to an education program. This rule would apply wherever the harassment occurs and would not state a knowledge requirement or reasonable-care defense.
(1) If an agent or an employee of a covered entity engages in harassment, regardless of where the harassment occurs, on the basis of sex, which is enabled or assisted by the authority exercised as an employee or agent of the covered entity, against a person who is participating in or receiving benefits, services, or opportunities from an education program or activity, or who is attempting to do so, and the harassment alters the aggrieved person’s ability to do so, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment, the covered entity is liable for sex discrimination.
When an employee’s or agent’s authority does not enable or assist the harassment, liability would require an effect on educational participation or access and that the provider knew or reasonably should have known about it. The provider could avoid liability by demonstrating reasonable care to promptly prevent and correct the harassment’s effects. The rule would apply regardless of location.
(2) (A) If a person who is an agent or employee of a covered entity engages in harassment, regardless of where the harassment occurs, on the basis of sex against a person who is participating in or receiving benefits, services, or opportunities from an education program or activity or who is attempting to do so— (i) the harassment is not enabled or assisted by the authority exercised as an employee or agent of the covered entity; (ii) the harassment alters the aggrieved person’s ability to participate in or receive benefits, services, or opportunities from an education program or activity, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment; and (iii) the covered entity knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the harassment, then the covered entity is liable for sex discrimination unless it can demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care to promptly prevent and correct the effects of any harassment based on sex.
Harassment by someone who is not an employee or agent would follow the same knowledge and reasonable-care framework. It would have to alter the affected person’s educational participation or access, including attempted access, but could occur anywhere.
(B) If a person who is not an agent or employee of a covered entity engages in harassment, regardless of where the harassment occurs, on the basis of sex against a person who is participating in or receiving benefits, services, or opportunities from an education program or activity or who is attempting to do so, and the harassment alters the aggrieved person’s ability to do so, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment, and the covered entity knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the harassment, then the covered entity is liable for sex discrimination unless it can demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care to promptly prevent and correct the effects of any harassment based on sex.
A provider would have to respond with reasonable care when certain people knew or reasonably should have known about harassment: employees or agents authorized to address it, employees or agents required to report harassment or other misconduct to an administrator, or someone the victim or reporting person could reasonably believe has that authority or responsibility.
(C) A covered entity shall exercise reasonable care in response to harassment based on sex if any of the following individuals knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, about the harassment: (i) An agent or employee who has the authority to take action to redress the harassment. (ii) An agent or employee who has the duty to report to an administrator harassment or any other misconduct by others. (iii) An individual who a harassment victim or reporting party could reasonably believe has this authority or responsibility.
To demonstrate reasonable care, a provider would need an effective, comprehensive harassment prevention policy and complaint process that it established, adequately publicized, and enforced. The process would need to be likely to remedy harm without imposing undue risk, effort, or expense on the person harassed.
(D) A showing that the covered entity has exercised reasonable care to promptly prevent and correct the effects of any harassment based on sex includes a demonstration by the covered entity that it has— (i) established, adequately publicized, and enforced an effective and comprehensive harassment prevention policy and complaint procedure that is likely to provide redress and avoid harm without exposing the person subjected to the harassment to undue risk, effort, or expense;
The reasonable-care showing would also require a prompt, thorough, impartial investigation when the affected person requests one or an investigation is otherwise deemed necessary to protect that person or others in the program from a significant ongoing threat. Clearly frivolous allegations would be an exception.
(D) A showing that the covered entity has exercised reasonable care to promptly prevent and correct the effects of any harassment based on sex includes a demonstration by the covered entity that it has—
(ii) if requested by the aggrieved person or otherwise deemed necessary to protect the aggrieved person or other persons within the program or activity from a significant ongoing threat, undertaken a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation, unless the allegations are patently frivolous;
Demonstrating reasonable care would require supportive measures that actually preserve and restore the affected person’s equal educational access, whether or not that person requested an investigation.
(D) A showing that the covered entity has exercised reasonable care to promptly prevent and correct the effects of any harassment based on sex includes a demonstration by the covered entity that it has—
(iii) provided supportive measures that had the purpose and effect of preserving and restoring the aggrieved person’s equal access to the education program or activity, regardless of whether the aggrieved person requested an investigation;
After notice, the reasonable-care showing would require other necessary, immediate, appropriate action designed to stop the harassment and correct its effects. This requirement would apply even if the affected person experienced no subsequent harassment.
(D) A showing that the covered entity has exercised reasonable care to promptly prevent and correct the effects of any harassment based on sex includes a demonstration by the covered entity that it has—
(iv) after receiving notice, taken other necessary, immediate, and appropriate corrective action designed to stop the harassment that occurred and correct its effects, regardless of whether the aggrieved person experienced subsequent harassment.
A person harmed by a covered provider’s failure to comply with Title IX or its regulations could bring a civil lawsuit to enforce their rights in a court authorized to hear the case. The proposed right to sue is phrased broadly and is not limited to harassment.
Any person aggrieved by the failure of a covered entity to comply with this title, including any regulation promulgated pursuant to this title, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such person’s rights.
In lawsuits brought by or on behalf of someone subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title IX or its regulations, the plaintiff could obtain court orders and monetary relief. Available remedies would include compensation for harm, punitive damages intended to punish wrongdoing, attorney’s fees, and expert fees; the text would permit these remedies rather than guarantee an award.
In an action brought against a covered entity by (including on behalf of) an aggrieved person who has been subjected to discrimination prohibited under this title (including its implementing regulations), the plaintiff may recover equitable and legal relief (including compensatory and punitive damages), and attorney’s fees (including expert fees).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on October 5, 2026. It does not establish what happened after that snapshot.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T20:36:36Z. 2026-10-05: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-10-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what other versions or accompanying materials contain.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and committee or conference materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Generally available discrimination remedies and protections for equal educational access do not constitute preferential treatment under this review. The conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI