Margaret SPAULDING, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellee

Appellants appeal the district court’s order requiring them to pay for preparation of a transcript of proceedings before a magistrate in a suit alleging, inter alia, violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Appellants contend that the transcript was necessary to enable them to obtain the review by the district court to which they are entitled. 1 We hold that under the facts present in this case the district court should have had a transcript prepared without cost to the parties. Having failed to receive a stay of the review proceedings before the district court, appellants in this case paid for preparation of the transcript and obtained de novo review by the district court. Appellants seek reimbursement of the cost to appellants of having the transcript prepared. Under the circumstances of this case we deny the relief sought.

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Members of the faculty of the University of Washington School of Nursing filed a class action alleging sex discrimination in employment in violation of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The district court sua sponte referred the case to a United States magistrate sitting as a special master, pursuant…

concurring and dissenting:

I agree with Judge Sneed that, on this record, we should deny appellants the relief they seek in this interlocutory appeal. I do so for different reasons, set forth later in this statement.

I also agree with Judge Sneed’s statement (p. 1235, supra) that it is “within the district court’s discretion to choose which of these means will afford the parties adequate de novo review.” As will appear later, that discretion was properly exercised in this case in the only way possible.

In Part II, page 1235 of Judge Sneed’s opinion, he argues and concludes *1237 that for Title VII plaintiffs (presumably all and without regard to any showing of need or indigency), the transcript must “be provided by the district court” since the failure to do so “improperly deprives these litigants of their rightful access to such judges.” Respectfully, I cannot agree.

I must side with Judge Sneed in denying plaintiffs’ reimbursement of transcript costs from the University of Washington at this juncture. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with Judge Reinhardt’s reasons for now assessing costs against the University of Washington.

In my view, this court (panel) has been enticed…

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in Judge Sneed’s opinion except insofar as it concludes that this is a case in which there is a wrong without a remedy. I agree that appellants are entitled to a free transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate and that their rights were violated when they were required to pay over $8,000 in order to obtain a review by an Article III judge. I do not believe, however, that we are powerless to correct this injustice.

It is true that appellants may ultimately recover the costs of the transcript if they prevail on the merits of their Title VII action. That, however, is not the issue before us. This is an interlocutory appeal relating solely to the transcript issue. Since appellants may well lose on the merits of the underlying litigation (and the district court has already ruled against them), the question is who pays for the transcript in that event. The majority says that appellants must bear the cost of the transcript they should not have been required to pay for. I disagree.

When the district court denied appellants’ motion for a transcript, it provided in its order that unless appellants ordered the transcript by a particular date no…

676 F.2d 1232 28 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 995 , 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,683 Margaret SPAULDING, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellee. No. 80-3528. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 2, 1982. Decided April 13, 1982. Karen J. Vanderlaan, Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellants. John F. Aslin, Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen & Williams, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Western Washington. Before SNEED, ANDERSON, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. SNEED, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellants appeal the district court's order requiring them to pay for preparation of a transcript of proceedings before a magistrate in a suit alleging, inter alia, violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Appellants contend that the transcript was necessary to enable them to obtain the review by the district court to which they are entitled. 1 We hold that under the facts present in this case the district court should have had a transcript prepared without cost to the parties. Having failed to receive a stay…