PRACTITIONER BLOG

Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law

Talking Turkey: Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief To Protect Catalyst Fees For Plaintiffs
Catalyst Attorneys Fees, Public Interest Law Teddy Basham-Witherington Catalyst Attorneys Fees, Public Interest Law Teddy Basham-Witherington

Talking Turkey: Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief To Protect Catalyst Fees For Plaintiffs

In Direct Action Everywhere v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, the plaintiff filed a false advertising lawsuit alleging that Diestel was deceiving customers about the condition in which it kept animals on its properties. Several days into the trial, Diestel voluntarily removed the allegedly false statements from its website as part of a “website refresh.” The trial court denied Direct Action’s motion for catalyst fees for multiple reasons, two of which stood out to the Impact Fund and its allies. First, the court scorned the plaintiff’s reason for bringing the lawsuit and, second, it criticized the plaintiff’s activities outside the courtroom.

Read More
Impact Fund Applauds California Supreme Court Decision to Adjust the Bar Exam Passing Score
California Bar Exam, Attorney Diversity Teddy Basham-Witherington California Bar Exam, Attorney Diversity Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund Applauds California Supreme Court Decision to Adjust the Bar Exam Passing Score

By adjusting the cut score, California is making a bold step toward ensuring that its community of lawyers reflects the diversity of the state. By the State Bar’s own estimates, setting the cut score at 1390 would allow 20% more test-takers overall to pass—including approximately 40% more Black, 26% Latino, 26% Asian and 27% other minority attorneys joining the bar’s ranks each testing session.

Read More
Racial Discrimination, Amicus Brief, Equal Employment Opps Teddy Basham-Witherington Racial Discrimination, Amicus Brief, Equal Employment Opps Teddy Basham-Witherington

Standing Up for the Full Promise of Equal Employment Opportunity

Victor Guerrero applied twice for employment as a Corrections Officer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Both of his applications were subject to a multi-step review process, one step of which was a background investigation questionnaire.  Since 2009, the background investigation questionnaire has included the following question: “Have you ever had or used a social security number other than the one you used on this questionnaire?” This question, known as Question 75, exclusively eliminated Latino applicants—including Mr. Guerrero—from the review process. Mr. Guerrero filed suit, alleging Question 75 has a disparate impact on Latino applicants.

Read More