Laura Keevan v. Donald Smith

KEEVAN; Jones; Laura Verna Mae Shei Gordon; Wagner;

la Ann Melissa Laver Goins; Goree; Tanya

na Carol Jean class,

Klaus, Appel on behalf of the

lants, SMITH, Superintendent

Donald of Fulton

Reception Diagnostic Center; Ron

Schmitz, Superintendent City of Kansas

Community Center; Release Janet

Schneider, Superintendent of St. Louis

Community Center; Release Thelma

Grandison, Superintendent of Chilli Center;

cothe Correctional Donna

Schriro, Director Appellees.

Corrections,

No. 95-1289. Appeals,

United States Court of

Eighth Circuit. May

Submitted

Decided Nov. HEANEY, BOWMAN,

Before WOLLMAN, Judges. Circuit BOWMAN, Judge. Circuit class of female in- Appellants, certified may in the are now or who mates who institutions, penal in Missouri confined future judgment of the Dis- appeal portion of the Court,1 in favor of Missouri trict (De- Human Resources of Corrections and inmates The women partment) officials. § brought 1983 ac- originally this U.S.C. alleging dis- against officials injunctive seeking criminatory treatment and been raised Only two issues have relief. prisoners contend appeal. The female this rejecting District Court erred discrimi- officials their claims gender in on the basis of against nated them by Clause of the violation (1) access failing provide them with programs and post-secondary educational (2)'to The Dis- industry employment. availability post- held that trict Court hinged fis- secondary educational courses by providers made the academic cal decisions by female inmates on lack of demand discriminatory action tak- any rather than on Knox, United States Wright, William A. of The Honorable United States Honorable Scott O. 1. The Judge Magistrate the Western District Mis- Judge of Mis- for the Western District District souri, Report adopting souri. and Recommendation classifications, Department. C5, custody en has C4 and are as- signed long- filed a motion dismiss as moot the female inmates with since regarding er appeal post-sec- sentences serve and to female inmates’ shorter-term genders ondary represent both who opportunities. educational We increased motion into risk. Female inmate cus- agreed to consideration take tody range levels hereby grant through and from Cl C3 at the of the case merits through Chillicothe and from C3 at Department’s motion to C5 Renz. por- the dismiss this extent, tion of the ease as moot. To that the Approximately 725 female inmates are in- order of the District Court is vacated. As to female-only carcerated in Department’s claim, industries the District prisons, 420 at some Chillicothe and some Court found insufficient evidence discrimi- 13,000 Approximately 305 at Renz.4 male in- natory Department part on the intent Department’s mates are incarcerated support equal protection officials to chal- male-only prisons, at Algoa some' 1200 Cor- lenge. Concluding that the District Court’s Center; Booneville; rectional at 1200 at discriminatory finding of no not intent Center; Central Missouri Correctional erroneous, clearly concluding and further Farmington Center; at Correctional 2000 at that inmates are female not City Center; Jefferson Correctional 1265 at for purposes situated to male inmates Center; Moberly Correctional 1100 at Mis- analysis, equal protection wé affirm the Dis- Center; souri Eastern Correctional 500 at dismissing trict order claim. Court’s Center; Potosí Correctional 2000 at Western Center;

Missouri Correctional and I. Ozark Correctional Center. in dispute.

The facts are case not Female inmates incarcerated at the Renz Male and female inmates incarcerated within and Chillicothe facilities have access to the prisons Missouri Corrections same adult basic education and G.E.D. segregated particular by grams are into facilities as male inmates. Both male and fe- gender.2 Department operates The fifteen male can advantage college- take .institutions, which, penal two of the Renz correspondence levél courses at their own (Renz) expense. Center3 and the Post-secondary Correctional courses conducted Chilli- , (Chillicothe), cothe Correctional Center within the confines of the facilities are solely by adult female inmates. community colleges, house offered Correct- state univer- Appellant’s sities, App. ed private colleges, by Joint and and Stipulations, majority popula- Department The vast of the total inmate itself. Educational institutions Missouri, approxi- tion in adult institutions in agreements enter into with the ninety-five Id. mately percent, is male. physical space access within both male 28. Both male and as- prisons are and female and for administrative signed custody ranging support, level classifications such as and assistance in Cl, security, from enrolling minimum to maximum se- the inmates. regarding Decisions C5, curity, designations and these in- variety affect the number and of post-secondary assignments housing gender- mate within the at particular prison offered a facili- Generally, segregated higher ty facilities. by are made institutions educational Appellants challenge (FRDC). do majority constitutionali Center of the females ty gender-based of this classification. See Wom from Renz were moved CMCC and will re- Dep't en Prisoners the Dist. Columbia during emergency main at that institution Columbia, Corrections v. District 926 by conditions created flood waters. Renz will (D.C.Cir.1996); Thornburgh, Pitts v. future, reopened all, not be in the immediate if at (D.C.Cir.1989). 1458-59 damage facility. due to considerable In- arrangements terim for educational classes and that, Judge Magistrate 3. The observed due implemented. industries have been flooding July which extensive occurred in August, Renz was evacuated and the fe- institution, originally 4.Renz was a male facility then male inmates were moved to facili- men, inmates, normally finally housed both ties that cluding women and house in- be- came Central Missouri Correctional Center women's December 1989. (CMCC) Reception Diagnostic and Fulton curiam) (1982) (per (quota- Department. The 70 L.Ed.2d 855 and not involved omitted) any uni- (holding that that requires that courses tions citations versity’s regulation of the same amendment of made choose offer be the schools Where, on- challenge regulations). the schools offer to their quality as those moot here, campus students. (1) it can be said with assurance there operated by Mis- enterprises

Prison expectation no ... (MCE), reasonable pri- Enterprises souri Correctional (2) recur, alleged interim violation will vate, profit-making self-supporting, enter- completely relief or and irre- events funding from the prise that not receive does the al- vocably eradicated the effects of Assembly. Twenty-one Missouri General leged may !.. violation be said enterprises are located at male institu- such party moot has a case is because neither Re- at female institutions. and three tions legally cognizable final interest de- at in- port 10. Male and Recommendation questions underlying of of termination range industry job of mates have a broader law. fact and at opportunities, are located but industries only at of facilities and some both women’s Davis, County Angeles v. 440 U.S. Los 1991, year facilities. Id. For fiscal the male 631, 625, 1379, 1383, 59 642 99 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d percent the total approximately thirteen omitted). (1979) (quotations citations employed in population was female initiate Here, prison officials have abandoned the industry programs. Corrected Joint programs about post-secondary educational 28, Stipulations, Appellant’s App. at prisoners complained.5 the women which only eight per- During period, time same Department is offi There no indication that population male inmate was cent the total pro will reinstate these educational cials Id. employed. so circumstances, request grams. In these equal programs by access such ed relief — II. male and female inmates —has become both Department’s motion first consider the We abstraction, aspect this of the case prisoners’ moot the women to dismiss as present, its character as a live has “lost Department purposely officials Schmid, 103, claim that controversy.” 455 U.S. at 102 against omitted). them on the basis discriminated result, (quotation at As a S.Ct. 869 management post-secondary gender in the prisoners’ that the women we conclude During pen- opportunities. educational concerning post-secondary protection claim dency appeal, Department officials of this grant programs is moot and we educational practice allowing terminated their former Department’s to dismiss this motion outside educators access male portions Those of the District Court’s claim. purposes providing prison facilities for the dealing this vacated. claim are order college-level to inmates. Affidavit of Inc., courses Munsingwear, v. 340 States United support Appellee’s Bell in Motion 104, 106-07, John J. 36, 39, L.Ed. 36 71 S.Ct. 95 U.S. Appeal Appellants’ I of as Dismiss Point Nix, 1210, (1950); F.3d 1211 v. 43 Cranford prisoners male nor female Moot. Neither (8th Cir.1995). a currently provided opportunity, III. not contest.' appellants fact do con turn now to the women’s properly A dismissed as We claim policy for present, its officials’ if it lost character as tention moot “has determining indus controversy placement kind if live of the that must exist in a manner that violates advisory opinions tries exercised we are to avoid abstract To Equal Protection Clause. establish questions of law.” Univ. v. Princeton 869, Schmid, 100, 103, 102 867, Equal Protee- gender-based claim under the 455 S.Ct. U.S. Department pris- programs argument, these at the Court that offered At oral counsel advised longer practice are able to secure federal that inmates no have elected to discontinue ons enrolling in edu- financial assistance for these economic reasons. Colleges programs. and universities cational 648 Clause, must, denied, appellants 819, 74, thresh 510 U.S. 114 S.Ct. 126 matter, they (1993).

old demonstrate have been L.Ed.2d 43 differently by a state than treated actor oth Klinger, In this Court was asked to deter- similarly simply ers who are situated because prisoners, mine whether female all of whom particular protected belong to a appellants were at incarcerated Center Nebraska See, e.g., Klinger v. class. (NCW), subjected for Women gender were (8th Corrections, 727, Cir.1994), F.3d 731 discrimination of Correc- — -, denied, 1177, cert. U.S. 115 S.Ct. tional Services in violation Equal of the Pro- (1995). general, 130 L.Ed.2d alleged tection inferiority Clause due to the requires Clause educational, vocational, employ- government per treat such situated opportunities ment offered to See, e.g., City sons alike. Cleburne v. in comparison to those offered to Inc., Ctr., 432, Living Cleburne U.S. incarcerated Nebraska 3249, (1985); 105 S.Ct. 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (NSP), Penitentiary State one of a number of 731; Klinger, Moreland United male-only prisons. 31 F.3d 729. This (en States, Cir.) banc), held, law, Court as a matter of that female denied, 1028, 113 675, 121 cert. 506 U.S. NCW and male inmates át NSP (1992). L.Ed.2d 598 Treatment of dissimilar similarly were not for purposes of situated ly persons in by situated a dissimilar manner prison programs and, therefore, and government services Equal the does violate the plaintiffs Klinger, 731; failed'to viola- establish a Clause. 31 F.3d at Barket, Fine, tion Levy of the see Inc. Protection Clause. Id. at & v. St. Louis 237, (8th Energy Corp., Thermal 21 F.3d 242 731. Cir.1994); Women Prisoners the Dist. In arriving at our conclusion that the male Dep’t. Columbia v. Corrections District and female in Klinger inmates were dissimi- Columbia, (D.C.Cir.1996). 910, F.3d 924 93 situated, larly we considered a number of Therefore, inquiry any equal the initial in including prison size, population factors aver protection plaintiff claim is whether has age sentence, length security classification, differently established that she was treated crimes, types of special and other character similarly than are others who situated to her. 731-32; istics. Id. at Pargo see also v. El 731; Klinger, 31 F.3d United States v. (S.D.Iowa liott, 1243, F.Supp. 1995), 894 1259 (8th Whiton, Cir.), 356, 48 F.3d 358 cert. — (8th aff'd, denied, Cir.), 69 F.3d 280 cert. — denied, -, 227, 116 U.S. S.Ct. 133 -, 117 U.S. 136 L.Ed.2d 53 (1995). L.Ed.2d 156 As we observed in (1996). comparison Because a of these fac Klinger, showing “Absent threshold tors between the male inmates at and NSP similarly alleged she situated to those who the female inmates NCW revealed a wide ly treatment, plaintiff receive favorable disparity in category, each this Court con equal protection does viable cluded “the at NSP and NCW claim.” 731. separate reflect sets of decisions based Thus, may before we entertain the entirely Klinger, different circumstances.” equal protec merits of female inmates’ Programming F.3d decisions re claim, must we first determine whether garding industry and education from differed by Depart women incarcerated the Missouri prison, “depending to on innumerable similarly situated, ment of Corrections are variables that officials must take into ac issue, purposes program in to men illegitimate, count” and not on discriminatory likewise incarcerated. Whether the female Analysis factors. Id. of the sort that we similarly inmates are situated to male in employed in Klinger us leads to the same requires focusing mates an inquiry on the present result in the case.

purposes challenged government of the ac tion, namely, assignment Initially, indus irrefutable differences be- try programs among facilities, female-only tween the various institutions Renz and Chillicothe, Department. controlled More and See the various institutions hous- Farrier, Cir.), ing cert. male inmates Missouri must ac- be pris- lengthier with classifications associated notably, because women knowledged. Most on sentences. proportion of a small for such account are their facilities prison population,

total apparent As is from above observa- any than of the necessarily in size smaller tions, and female incarcerated male inmates male-only prisons. similarly Department prisons are far from equal protection purposes situated for security Taking account classification into availability analysis. determining further population size levels addition services, prison programs location of offi- inmates are dissimilar- illustrates that female considerations, many cials “must balance example, male inmates. For ly situated from ranging of the from the characteristics in- of 430 female population has a Chillieothe institu- mates at that to the size of the lev- assigned the lowest classification tion, optimal mix of determine the through C3. Corrected ranging from Cl els Klinger, 31 F.3d at grams and services.” Stipulations, Appellant’s App. at Joint 78, 84-85, 732; Safley, Turner v. 482 U.S. see with comparable most male institution 2254, 2259-60, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 107 S.Ct. size, respect population Potosí Correction- (1987). are Because these considerations di- inmates, no resem- bears al Center with each verse and the circumstances of security respect to with blance Chillieothe different, group female inmates as a levels, houses as- group simply cannot male inmates as a classification, security C5. signed highest purposes of considered situated for compa- at 27. The male institutions most Id. variety availability comparing the respect rable Chillieothe prison programming. The size of institu- classification, Missouri Correctional Central tion, location, types of inmates its Western Missouri Correctional Center and necessarily will the num- housed there affeet Center, both inmates classified which confine ber, programs of type, length offered. C3, considerably larg- levels house at C2 prisoners urge The this Court'to namely, men at populations, inmate 1000 er comparison program-by-program conduct a men at Western Missouri and 1975 Central prisons housing solely Department between Id. Missouri. housing male female inmates and those length average for female The sentence gender the existence of inmates to confirm compared male inmates con- inmates as to reject approach to We that discrimination. groups are firms these two diverse not that protection analysis Department’s of equal the similarly Significantly fe- situated. fewer There can placement of industries. serving lengthy male inmates will be comparison equal meaningful be no such comparison to male inmates. in sentences of in- protection purposes between two sets by is the This observation evidenced vast- See, similarly mates are not situated. who of disparity in the number female inmates v. e.g., Residential Resources Association of security medium or maximum (8th classified as Gomez, Cir.1995); 137, F.3d 140-41 51 compared the number of male risks to 733; Klinger, F.3d at Women Prisoners 31 of inmates likewise classified. See' Corrected Columbia, at 93 F.3d the District of Stipulations, App. at 27-28. Appellant’s Joint discussed above The substantial differences. prisoners, approx- of prisoners A small number women demon- female between male and 305, imately highest securi- assigned are dissimilarity of the two distinct strate the classifications, thereby indicating they that ty any attempt groups irrelevance periods type compare will be incarcerated for extended or the number contrast, Furthermore, roughly male in- time. 6700 concluded offered. Court intér-prison pro- securi- assigned highest “using that an Klinger mates have been in therefore, will, likely analyze protection comparison equal ty gram classifications the Constitu- serving improperly This dis- assumes that lengthy sentences. claims prisons all to have similar requires that male also tends to establish tinction resources sim- gram priorities and allocate of more serious inmates have been convicted noted that ilarly.” 732. We álso crimes, 31 justifying higher thus 650

inter-prison program comparison gender-neutral “results in When a statute on its face challenged ground type court is on the precisely the of federal interfer- its effects upon disproportionately women are ad- ‘micro-management’ prisons ence with and verse, inquiry ... appropriate. a twofold is Klinger, that Turner condemned.” 31 F.3d question statutory is first whether the (following Safley, v. at 733 Turner U.S. 482 classification is indeed neutral in sense (1987)). 2254, 78, 96 64 107 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. gender not. it is based. If classifi- reasons, foregoing For we hold that itself, overt, cation or covert not based prisoners similarly male and female upon gender, question the second is wheth- purposes protection situated for an gen- er the adverse effect reflects invidious comparison prison industry programs. der-based discrimination. 2293; Village Id. at S.Ct. see IV. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing 252, 264-66, Corp., Dev. 429 U.S. 97 S.Ct. assuming, argu Even for the sake of 555, 562-64, (1977); 50 L.Ed.2d 450 Marshall ment, that male and female inmates were Kirkland, Cir. purposes Depart situated for 1979). impact facially If the adverse a industries, placement ment’s policy plausibly explained neutral cannot be equal protection review of deci ground, on a impact neutral would itself requires analysis. It sions further must be signal that the real classification made unequal whether the determined treatment policy Feeney, was fact not neutral.6 accessibility prison industry employ U.S. allegedly resulting gender ment from dis Here, the women do not crimination stems policy from challenge Department policy of segregat facially that, or policy neutral from a ing prisoners by gender. face, by gender. facially on its classifies A they challenge policy Rather gender-based subject classification is placement particu which determines the of a heightened, scrutiny Equal and violates the prison industry specific penal facility. lar at a if Clause classification is policy It is this appellants that the contend substantially related achievement disparate impact pris results on female important governmental objectives. United oners and constitutes violation — Virginia, U.S. -, -, States v. disparate Protection The impact, Clause. ac 2264, 2275, (1996); S.Ct. 135 L.Ed.2d 735 inmates, cording female is evidenced 256, Feeney, Personnel Adm’r 442 v. U.S. through placement stereotypieally of fe 273, 2282, 2293, 99 S.Ct. 60 L.Ed.2d 870 jobs male at the Renz and Chillicothe facili (1979); Mississippi Univ. v. Ho Women ties and the exclusion of female inmates from 718, 724, gan, 3331, 3336, 458 U.S. 102 S.Ct. jobs the more skilled and industrial located (1982). 73 1090 L.Ed.2d prisons. at male facially policy, A neutral the other Initially, we statutory provi- note that the hand, subject exacting is not to the same granting Department authority sions standard as does not categorize on the prison establish and monitor industries are If, however, quasi-suspect of a basis class. a gender-neutral See, e.g., on their face. Mo. policy employed by Department neutral (1994). Likewise, § Rev.Stat. 217.550 a re- disproportionately a upon has adverse effect Department view of testimony officials’ indi- women, it is unconstitutional under the cates that policy place- for the only impact if Clause that can be prison ment of industries is based on factors discriminatory Feeney, traced a purpose. size, population such as availability of a 272, 442 steady force, U.S. at 99 at S.Ct. 2292-93. work of location Columbia, City 6. As we impact signalled noted v. discriminatory Ricketts 36 has the a alone of "in 775, (8th Cir.1994), purpose. F.3d cases, a few Lightfoot, See v. Gomillion 364 U.S. 339, 125, facially (1960); a policy impacted where neutral 81 S.Ct. 5 L.Ed.2d 110 YickWo exclusively against 1064, suspect Hopkins, class that one 118 U.S. 6 S.Ct. 30 L.Ed. impact unexplainable (1886).” grounds, was on neutral inmates, data-entry industry industry do male purchasers of potential in relation facility, gender consid- criticized located at the Renz products, not on basis have coun- plaintiffs stereotypically occupa- officials a female as erations. allegations gender- tion, formerly appellants’ employed male inmates when tered a ex- plausible with motivated discrimination housed males. institution disparate impact. alleged planation for the that the location of officials testified such, appellants’ burden to establish As it is by stereotypes not industries was motivated Department poli- effect this that adverse by legitimate concerns such as work but result a cy has on women inmates stability proximity to clientele. force discriminatory purpose. Thus, found, the District Court the evi- as not a claim that support dence does scope that the Court found District Department’s prison industry placement provided to enterprise opportunities jobs intentionally discriminatory gen- or was “appears directly inmates male and female Klinger, 31 at der-motivated. See also prisons location of the related the size and 1280; 733-34; Pargo, F.Supp. at Women more inmates are recognition and a that male Columbia, jobs 93 F.3d long-term manufacturing Prisoners the Dist. available for 7 Report Recom- inmates.” at 925. than women at 10. mendation same, prisons no two are the it is Because challenged by policy ap Because the certainty that one virtual inmates face, its the female pellants is neutral on will have certain amenities not available to alleged must establish that the dis prisoners “Thus, inmates in another. female inmates discriminatory impact is the result parate ways always point certain in which can out agree the District Court purpose. We theirs, prisons just male are than as ‘better’ prove req appellants have failed to always point can out other discriminatory part on the uisite intent prisons ways in which are ‘better’ Assuming thresh Department officials. as a 732; at Klinger, than 31 F.3d see theirs.” old matter the Dist. Colum- also Women Prisoners of disparate impact, demonstrated their bia, “Differences be- 926-27. at protection claim will fail nonetheless without' challenged prisons ... programs tween discriminatory showing intent. See Fee many virtually vari- are irrelevant because so 2293-94; ney, 442 99 S.Ct. at U.S. programming that an affect the mix of ables Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. has_ short, comparing pro- institution “ ... im ‘Discriminatory purpose’ at 563. proverbial comparison grams ... is like the intent than intent as volition or plies more apples oranges.” Klinger, 31 F.3d at implies It consequences. awareness of compare attempts are made to 733. When ... selected or reaffirmed the decisionmaker housing in- at facilities offered part particular course of action least situated, “it mates who of,’ of,’ merely spite ‘in its ad ‘because hardly of dis- surprising, let alone evidence upon group.”, verse effects an identifiable crimination, that the smaller correctional fa- Feeney, 442 U.S. at larger cility programs than the offered fewer omitted). (citation and footnote Dist. Co- one.” Women Prisoners the of of findings show that The District Court’s lumbia, 93 F.3d at 925. industry jobs prison are located both only at facilities and certain male

women’s V. Report and Recommendation at facilities. stated, the we affirm Dis- of For the reasons proportionately larger A number fe- dismissing appellants’ jobs trict order prison industry have than Court’s male inmates centers in statutory bestowing and of the correctional mandate on De- convenience 7. The prison partment power establish industries centers to be to to the other con-ectional relation shall take into account: machinery presently instructs that the director supplied or served and the levels, custody "offender the number of offenders in each center.” Mo.Rev. contained correctional so the best service or in each correctional center 217,550(1) (1994). § Stat. secured, may labor be location distribution of protection demonstrates, equal respect prison ty artfully unlikely claim highly with is industry grant programs Depart- any and that two institutions a state’s appellants’ system as composi ment’s motion to dismiss moot will an have identical inmate - protection equal regarding post-sec- claim tion but for the fact that one houses men; ondary opportunities. specific educational order and the other houses differ Court impor the District is vacated insofar as it ences become more and tenuous less deals with the latter claim. tant challenge system-wide. when the is segregation by gender While of inmates HEANEY, Judge, concurring in Circuit constitutional, consequences natural part dissenting part. institutions, segregation e.g., that smaller — aggregate lengths stay, shorter broader agree I that the female inmates’ claim that ranges security ratings within institu purposefully officials discriminated per tions —must not used se bar to against management post- them in the respective our of the examination treatment secondary educational is rendered women and men receive while incarcerated. department’s moot the correction unfortu- equal protection inquiry If every our ended suspension nate of all with contracts local plaintiff showing time a fell short of different colleges post-second- and universities to offer mirror-image facility, treatment at a then ary and vocational courses either male or despite contrary, our admonition to the however, I disagree, female inmates. with Klinger proposition would “stand for the majority’s conclusion the class of women and men inmates can never be similarly female is not inmates situated to similarly purposes pro situated for purpose male inmates for the of challenging Elliott, analysis.” Pargo tection assignment organization 1355, 1356 Cir.1995). industry programs under the Equal Protec- also, disagree I Clause. that the female important It sight lose basic failed discriminatory to show justify commonalities that similar treat- part intent of the inmates, regardless gender, ment. All Therefore, I respectfully Corrections. dis- custody are under the control sent from III majority’s Parts and IV of the behaVior; state as a result of their criminal opinion. subject general all depart- to the same regulations policies; mental I and the quarrel majority’s do not cita- incarceration in all cases shares common tion to the party seeking basic rule that a goals, including the reform and gender-based for rehabilita- relief discrimination under tion of individual offenders. These com- Protection Clause demon- must mon provide characteristics basis strate that a state actor has treated her differently similarly design Corrections per- than other situated gram gives substantially equal oppor- gender. sons because of her I Nor do dis- corollary tunities women and men for pute rehabilita- may rule that a state treat Although gross tive work dissimilarly while confined. persons situated in a-dissimilar might view, however, institutional differences my sometimes manner. the court is provide finding groups basis for of inmates wrong adopt overly ap- formalistic situated, dissimilarly they do proach question to the threshold of whether General, legitimate case. concerns for se- male inmates are situat- curity, availability po- of inmates to fill ed. sitions, and the like more relevant in Klinger While the court v. Department examining whether dissimilar treatment of Corrections, 31 Cir. male supported and female can be 1994), compared populations,' length inmate on non-discriminatory grounds. sentences, and classifications in holding that Turning female inmates question, at one Iowa to that I further dis- prison were dissimilarly agree from majority’s situated with the conclusion that the institution, inmates at another such factors claim fail they female inmates’ must because should not rigidly applied. majori- proved part As the have not discrimination on the brought perform need for to and lesser The women have women prison officials. gender-based dis- enough to establish become skilled laborers. forth department women offers crimination. view, my women inmates have es- participate to in- opportunities three under the Equal tablished their case Protec- inmates have the dustry jobs, whereas male tion Clause that the Missouri twenty-one, on- participate in opportunity to against them Corrections discriminates on as well as an off-site ware- enterprises site assignment gender of their basis jobs operation. The housing trucking and organization and industries give the men require for men more skills throughout prison system. I the state’s advantage outside the a considerable market court would remand this case the district type op- setting. the same Where with directions instruct up at and women’s eration is set both men’s plan to establish remedial Corrections institution, facility significantly the men’s gender-based disparities. correct the than the sophisticated more and industrial counterpart. example, For while women’s Moberly printing industry in a work

men forms, layout equipped

that is to do work

letterhead, envelopes, Quick Print

operation is “closer to a for women at Renz very

copy App. at 281-32. With center.” opportunities exceptions,1

few the industrial prevail- fall within

offered to female inmates BINGMAN, ing stereotypes of “women’s work”: tele- James Dean entry; Plaintiff-Appellee, phone operators/telemarketers; data Depart- copying. The Missouri and office adequately. cannot ex- ment Corrections WARD, Dentist; Prison James Daniel disparities the industrial plain the between Warden; Gamble, Sullivan, Mickey Don opportunities for on neutral women men Infirmary Supervisor; Heim Wade and, explain important, grounds more cannot Infirmary, bough, Head Nurse Defen unwillingness expend its the effort dants-Appellants. opportunities vide with the same disagree district provides to men. I with the No. 95-36291. statement, adopted majority, court’s directly Appeals, treatment relat- the dissimilar States Court United prisons ed to size and location Ninth Circuit. availability greater long-term of male 9, 1996. Argued and Oct. Submitted oper- could inmates. Most the industries geographical loca- independent ate of their Nov. Decided Moreover, 1991, only a handful of tion. as of at the men’s institutions had the industries generate might be difficult to

staff sizes

at the The state has women’s institutions. non-discriminatory for de-

not shown reasons opportunities it

termining the industrial of- womén, in

fers to inmates. The con-

trast, enough produced evidence from infer of Correc-

which to industry placements are based ster-

tions’ jobs

eotypical what women can notions of place male in- example, was in when Renz housed two women at Renz what 1. For quite agri-business from and less skilled employed in mates and is different were what is called an farming crop perform work enterprise they than the traditional cattle where mainte- minor jobs currently at another Mis- repair offered to male inmates nance on small machines. This however, operation, version of souri institution. is a scaled-down

Case Details

Case Name: Laura Keevan v. Donald Smith

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 18, 1996

Citation: 100 F.3d 644

Docket Number: 95-1289

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.