Heidi Sargent Jeldness, Jenny Costa, Helen Jodi Bedell, Gretchen M. Schumacher, and v. Fred B. Pearce, And

Opinion by Judge LEGGE; Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD.

A class of women prisoners incarcerated in Oregon state prison allege that the Oregon State Department of Corrections discriminates against women inmates in providing educational and vocational opportunities, in violation of Title IX and its regulations, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., 45 C.F.R. §§ 86.1 et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Following trial, the district court ruled against plaintiffs on all but one of their claims. Plaintiffs appeal, claiming that the district court erred in holding that: (1) Title IX requires only “parity” rather than “equality” in prison educational programs; (2) Title IX violations are subject to the defense of “penological necessity”; and (3) gender discrimination in prisons does not violate the Equal Protection Clause when it is “reasonably related to a legitimate penological goal.” Plaintiffs ask that the case be remanded to the district court for further factual findings using the correct legal standards.

Defendants cross-appeal from the district court’s holding that plaintiffs were not required to prove “discriminatory intent”…

dissenting:

The majority creates a new body of prison law. I fear that it will generate continuing prison supervision by district judges, instead *1232 of by prison administrators, in an attempt to assure compliance with a standard lacking any objective meaning.

Title IX does, as the majority says, apply to educational programs in institutions receiving federal money. The statute has no prison exception. The district court correctly held that paying male and female prisoners differently for the same training discriminated by sex in violation of Title IX. So far, we agree.

We diverge on what Title IX means. The briefs lead the majority astray. Neither side asks us to decide this particular case. They both want us to construe the statute generally. Plaintiffs want us to say that “no discrimination” means “equality.” Defendants want “parity.” The district court, after trial, made careful and precise findings of fact. Not a single finding is challenged on appeal. The appellants challenged only the legal principles applied to the facts by the district court. But the appellants do not show how “equality” rather than “parity” would change the outcome of this particular case, given the…

30 F.3d 1220 63 USLW 2090 , 93 Ed. Law Rep. 146 Heidi Sargent JELDNESS, Jenny Costa, Helen Jodi Bedell, Gretchen M. Schumacher, Plaintiffs, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees, v. Fred B. PEARCE, et al., Defendants, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants. Nos. 91-36271, 93-36350. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 4, 1993. Decided July 28, 1994. 1 Martha C. Evans, Susan R. Pease, Evans Harrison Pease, Springfield, OR, for plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees. 2 Rives Kistler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, OR, for defendants-appellees-cross-appellants. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. 4 Before: PREGERSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges; LEGGE * , District Judge. 5 Opinion by Judge LEGGE; Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD. LEGGE, District Judge: 6 A class of women prisoners incarcerated in Oregon state prison allege that the Oregon State Department of Corrections discriminates against women inmates in providing educational and vocational opportunities, in violation of Title IX and its regulations, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq., 45 C.F.R. Secs. 86.1 et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United…