Opinion ID: 562080
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: prison industry, trust fund payments, and prisoner wages

Text: 79 The court has found defendants in contempt for disobeying its order concerning the wage scale for female inmates. In 1981, the court ordered that two prison industries, license plate tabs and chair cushion manufacturing, be established at Huron Valley by January 1982, and that a trust fund be created to pay back wages to female inmates from January 1980 until the industry program became operational. The court also recommended that defendants review the wage scale paid prisoners to insure female and male inmates are paid equally for comparable work. 80 We can find no basis for holding defendants in contempt with regard to prison industry programs or trust fund payments. Three prison industry programs for female inmates are in operation: two at Huron Valley, chair cushions and license plate tabs; and one at Crane, data processing. The trust fund problem was also resolved. However, wage disparity remains because wage classifications are based on skill level and female inmates are provided a lower quality of training and have fewer skills than male counterparts. 81 In its 1981 order, the court required that the prison wage standard be reviewed to ensure that departmental wage policy is applied fairly to women inmates whose job functions are comparable to those performed by male prisoners at similarly-sized institutions. 510 F.Supp. at 1022-23. The court addressed the matter of wages in its 1989 opinion and found that female inmates were still being paid less than men because they are exposed to lower quality training and as a consequence have fewer skills and are eligible for lower wages. 721 F.Supp. at 840. The court concluded: 82 I have seen no evidence that the quality of programming has improved sufficiently to justify the inference that women now have the opportunity to earn equal wages for comparable work. 83 Id. The court found defendants in contempt. 84 There is no evidence suggesting that female inmates have job functions comparable to male inmates at similarly-sized institutions or that the departmental wage policy is being applied unfairly. Perhaps the existing wage disparity problem will be corrected once the violations of the court's order regarding apprenticeships are remedied and vocational programming is developed. We think, however, that the court was not justified in finding defendants in contempt for wage disparity and that, in doing so, the court abused its discretion. 85