## Facts

- A class of low-income women who were current or prospective students in a community college district alleged they needed childcare to attend classes.
- Students and community groups repeatedly requested that the district establish on-campus childcare; the district did not do so.
- Plaintiffs formed an off-campus cooperative childcare program and sought district recognition or cooperation; the district refused.
- Plaintiffs secured preliminary approval for a federal grant and state funds for a childcare program that would not require district financing or facilities; the district declined to apply for or accept the funds.
- Plaintiffs alleged an ongoing district policy of refusing to allow childcare facilities on campuses, refusing to apply for or accept childcare-related funds, and refusing to use district funds for childcare.
- Plaintiffs alleged the policy’s effects fell overwhelmingly on women and effectively barred them from equal access to higher education.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the allegations plausibly stated a Title IX claim that a federally funded educational program discriminated on the basis of sex by refusing to allow or support childcare.
2. Whether the allegations plausibly stated an Equal Protection claim by pleading discriminatory impact plus an inference of discriminatory purpose (or arbitrary, irrational action).
3. Whether plaintiffs had standing and presented a justiciable controversy.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the complaint’s allegations, taken as true, were sufficient at the pleading stage to state claims under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
- The court held plaintiffs had standing because they alleged a direct, personal educational injury from the childcare policy.
- The court concluded the claims could not be resolved on the pleadings without factual development regarding impact and intent.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true, and dismissal is improper if the pleadings permit relief under any set of provable facts.
- Equal Protection challenges to facially neutral policies require allegations supporting discriminatory purpose; disparate impact allegations may contribute to an inference of intent when combined with contextual facts.
- Claims of discriminatory purpose may require a fact-intensive inquiry into direct and circumstantial evidence; such questions are generally not resolved at the pleadings stage when intent is plausibly inferable.
- Title IX broadly prohibits sex-based exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, or discrimination under federally funded educational programs; allegations that a policy disproportionately excludes women from educational access can state a claim sufficient to proceed beyond dismissal.
- Students directly affected by an alleged policy that burdens their ability to attend school have a sufficient personal stake to satisfy Article III standing.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that allegations of a categorical refusal to permit or support childcare—paired with claims that the burden fell primarily on women and facts supporting an inference of discriminatory purpose—were enough to proceed under Title IX and equal protection, requiring further factual development rather than dismissal at the pleading stage.


De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1978)