274, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2293-94, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). To prevail on a sex discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show that the state discriminated against her because of her sex. Id. at 279, 99 S.Ct. at 2296. Both the district court and the dissent make the erroneous assumption that any inferior programs that NCW inmates receive are necessarily a result of intentional sex discrimination. Indeed, the district court made no findings on whether the plaintiffs carried their burden of proving intentional discrimination nor did it mention that the plaintiffs carried this burden. Rather, the court generally shifted the burden to the defendants to justify differences in prison programming on sex-neutral grounds and thus disprove discriminatory purpose. See, e.g., Klinger, 824 F.Supp. at 1419 (<HOLDING>). The district court’s analysis effectively
holding that equal protection violation existed where ncw lacked 24hour medical services even though defendants proffered evidence that neither the hastings correctional center nor the omaha correctional center  two allmale institutions in the nebraska system  had such services either holding that employers knowledge of employees injury followed by the employers failure to provide the necessary medical services sufficient to impose liability upon the employer for medical services selected by the employee recognizing that generally services that benefit debtor are services that facilitate completion of a case holding that juveniles form neither a suspect nor semisuspect class for equal protection purposes holding that legal services attorney lacked standing to challenge state court judges alleged retaliation against clients represented by legal services for using legal services relying upon article iii and younger comity