Sue De La Cruz v. James Tormey

In this appeal we are called upon to determine whether a statutory and constitutional challenge to facially neutral but allegedly discriminatory official action may be resolved on the pleadings. The issues presented for review are narrow but significant, involving troublesome questions of legal interpretation and of the proper role of the federal judiciary in overseeing the decisions of local administrative bodies in the field of public education.

The plaintiffs are young women with low incomes burdened with the problems of child rearing, whose essential complaint is that the lack of campus child care facilities in the San Mateo Community College District (the District) has deprived them of an equal educational opportunity. They have brought this action on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) and (4).

The thrust of plaintiffs’ action is that defendants — the Board of Trustees and Chancellor of the District and the Presidents of the District’s three colleges — have followed a policy of opposing all efforts of students and community groups to establish child…

*65 WALLACE, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

De La Cruz and the other appellants in this case (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) claim that certain officers of the San Mateo Community College District (hereinafter defendants) have discriminated against them on the basis of sex by refusing to initiate or approve the establishment of day care facilities which would benefit female college students with child-rearing responsibilities. They have asked the district court to order the defendants to vote or decide contrary to what they have done in the past on this issue so that the desired day care facilities will be promptly set in operation.

The majority acknowledges that serious implications for the role of the federal judiciary arise when we undertake to mandate solutions to the social ills portrayed by the plaintiffs. The majority nevertheless feels constrained to allow the plaintiffs their cause of action, apparently anchoring its hopes that the federal courts will not thereby become regrettably enmeshed in the formulation of local educational policy on its belief that ultimate victory for the plaintiffs on the merits may never be realized or that, if it is, the relief…

582 F.2d 45 Sue DE LA CRUZ et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James TORMEY et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 76-2791, 76-3355. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 13, 1978. 1 Carol R. Golubock, Daly City, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants. 2 Thomas F. Casey, III, Deputy Dist. Atty., Redwood City, Cal., for defendants-appellees. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 4 Before KILKENNY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and PALMIERI, * District Judge. PALMIERI, District Judge: 5 In this appeal we are called upon to determine whether a statutory and constitutional challenge to facially neutral but allegedly discriminatory official action may be resolved on the pleadings. The issues presented for review are narrow but significant, involving troublesome questions of legal interpretation and of the proper role of the federal judiciary in overseeing the decisions of local administrative bodies in the field of public education. 6 The plaintiffs are young women with low incomes burdened with the problems of child rearing, whose essential complaint is that the lack of campus child care facilities in the San Mateo Community College…