PRACTITIONER BLOG
Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law
Real People, Real Checks! Class Members Tell Us What It Means To Them
Settlement checks can add up to a significant amount. Some of the regular viewers on our website, Top Class Actions, know this to be true. These awesome individuals, our biggest fans, write to tell us about how they were able to qualify for enough settlements to recoup $1,000 or $3000, $4,000 a year. That's a lot of money for most people. It reminds me that when we’re engaging with communities on social media, like our teachers who live paycheck to paycheck, we are saying to them: This is your money—submit your claim!
How COVID-19 is Changing the Class Action Landscape
Class actions are on the rise, and many class action practitioners predict that it will continue to grow because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, as of this past December, over 1,400 class actions related to losses tied to the pandemic were filed and the number will only continue to increase. Filed cases span the country with the most cases currently being filed in California, Illinois, New York, and Florida. The amount of class actions that may result from the pandemic are almost endless. It is certain that courts will see an increase in the ‘failure to refund’ cases, since this issue affected several different groups of consumers. However, other classes could pop up in the courts over the next year or so.
Impact Fund and NAACP Legal Defense Fund to SCOTUS: Don’t Rewrite Typicality
The Impact Fund and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of ourselves and twenty-four civil rights organizations. We argue that Ramirez indisputably satisfied typicality, as every class member in the case presented the same claims, were subject to the same conduct, and sought the same relief as Ramirez did. “TransUnion seeks to turn Rule 23 typicality on its head, asking the high court to rewrite the rule to protect defendants rather than absent class members,” declared Impact Fund’s Executive Director Jocelyn Larkin. “Nothing in the language or purpose of the rule supports TransUnion’s approach.”
Impact Fund & Amici Support State Efforts to Protect Vulnerable Workers During Deadly Pandemic
The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health has a duty to keep California workers safe. Our amicus briefs make clear that the state fulfilled its duty in this instance. The Emergency Temporary Standards provide basic, necessary workplace protections for all workers and serve as an important step toward mitigating the health, income, and racial inequities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Impact Fund and Legal Aid at Work Settle Workplace Harassment Claims of Transgender San Francisco Police Sergeant
Refusing to use a transgender worker’s chosen name and appropriate pronouns violates California law, which forbids harassment or discrimination against a transgender employee because of their gender identity. “The harmful misgendering that Sergeant Paul experienced created a hostile work environment and interfered with his ability to perform his job. That’s harassment, and it is illegal,” said Lindsay Nako, the Impact Fund’s Director of Litigation and Training.
Impact Fund Supports Groundbreaking Class Action Litigation For Colorado's Transgender Prisoners
In Colorado’s prisons, trans women have been fighting to survive and fighting for their rights for years. Kandice Raven lives with permanent injuries that she sustained in multiple severe beatings carried out by groups of transphobic men. Jane Gallentine has been trafficked, treated as property and repeatedly sexually abused, including by one man who tattooed his name on her neck to convey “ownership,” and by another man employed as a prison guard. Amber Miller has again and again requested officials’ help in escaping her abusers and found that the only way to get a response is to break prison rules or engage in self-harm to keep herself safe. In response to their fearless self-advocacy, the Colorado prisons have responded by transferring Kandice, Jane, and Amber to a series of more and more restrictive—and more and more dangerous—prisons and prison units.
Impact Fund & Amici to Eleventh Circuit: Eliminating Service Awards Endangers Class Actions
A recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stunned the class action and civil rights community. In Johnson v. NPAS Solutions., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244, a 2-1 majority ruled that service awards for class representatives in class actions are categorically unlawful.On October 29, the Impact Fund filed an amicus brief calling on the full Eleventh Circuit to review the decision en banc. Our amicus brief on behalf of civil rights groups argues that service payments and incentive awards appropriately compensate plaintiffs for the considerable responsibility they undertake in class action cases and on behalf of fellow class members.
Rural Pride Summit To Strengthen Advocacy Network for Underserved LGBTQ Californians
National estimates suggest that between 2.9 million and 3.8 million LGBTQ people, about 15-20% of the total U.S. LGBTQ population, live in rural areas. Rural LGBTQ people are often experience unique challenges that their counterparts in urban and suburban areas do not. For example, because jobs, healthcare providers, and adequate housing are already limited, LGBTQ people have fewer alternatives should they face discrimination. And with limited access to legal representation, discriminatory conduct can go unchallenged.
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.
Protect Nutrition Assistance for Vulnerable Low-Income Adults, Say Impact Fund and Others in Amicus Brief
Last Thursday, the Impact Fund, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLC filed an amicus brief on behalf of our organizations and 27 additional legal and advocacy organizations in California, including a number of anti-hunger groups, in support of the plaintiffs in the D.C. case. Our brief focuses specifically on discretionary exemptions, which will be critical to California’s economic recovery. We detail the legislative debates considering and ultimately rejecting the very same changes that USDA seeks to implement, the plain language and history of the statute, and the harm that California faces if it loses its reserve of over 850,000 exemptions. California uses discretionary exemptions to prevent hunger in communities that face special difficulties in finding work, such as people who are formerly incarcerated or young adults aging out of the foster care system. If USDA’s rule goes into effect, it will eliminate the State’s reserve and could cause thousands of Californians to go hungry.
SCOTUS Rules that Title VII Protects LGBTQ Employees from Discrimination
The effects of this decision for the LGBTQ community are sweeping. To date, twenty-five states and three territories still do not prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Meanwhile, 25% of LGBTQ workers report experiencing discrimination at work and 80% of transgender workers report experiencing discrimination or taking steps to avoid it. Because of Bostock v. Clayton County, LGBTQ workers in every state and territory are now protected from discrimination and harassment under federal law—meaning they can seek relief through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and federal courts. Other communities also stand to benefit from the decision’s unequivocal language declaring the breadth of Title VII’s protections.
SNAP! Impact Fund and Western Center on Law and Poverty File Class Action Lawsuit Against USDA For Denying Emergency Food Assistance To Californians With Greatest Need
On May 21, 2020, the Impact Fund and the Western Center on Law and Poverty filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco against USDA and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, alleging that USDA is illegally denying emergency food aid to the poorest households in California. We argue that USDA is misinterpreting the Families First Act in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. “The idea that people who were already struggling to get by before the crisis should not receive the additional help being granted to other SNAP recipients is cruel and absurd,” said Alexander Prieto, a senior litigator for Western Center on Law & Poverty. “It goes against the intent of the Families First Act, which is why we are seeking relief for our clients.”
Sixth Circuit Ruling Restricts Imposition of Arbitration
A recent Sixth Circuit decision, Taylor v. Pilot Corp, broadly reaffirms that an agreement to arbitrate must be just that—an agreement. It suggests that questions about the formation of that agreement must be decided by a court—not an arbitrator. And it reaffirms the courts’ power to supervise discovery going to the question of contract formation without interference from appellate courts or arbitrators.
Answering Question Left Open by SCOTUS, D.C. and Seventh Circuits Side With Plaintiffs on Specific Personal Jurisdiction in Class Actions
In quick succession last week, the D.C. and Seventh Circuits handed down two decisions favorable to class action plaintiffs on specific personal jurisdiction in federal court. So, good news for plaintiffs today, but these cases are not the last we will hear on this subject.
Ninth Circuit Rules on Article III Class Action Standing in Favor of Plaintiffs in Ramirez v. TransUnion
Given the issues, I expect the defendant will be filing en banc and cert petitions. While the buzz on the case is on punitive damages, I think the Article III standing issues will be the heart of future disputes. The first piece of good news is that the facts in the case are very sympathetic for the plaintiffs, which will be helpful going forward. In brief, TransUnion incorrectly placed terrorist alerts on the front page of consumer credit reports for approximately 8000 individuals.
Artificial Intelligence: How the Internet’s Gatekeeper Could Affect Your Civil Rights
Artificial intelligence prevents us from being inundated with irrelevant information – and that raises an important question. Who determines what is relevant or irrelevant? And how do they decide? If an artificial intelligence program delivers me Chopin instead of Lizzo, it would be surprising. But if an artificial intelligence program delivers me a job ad for administrative assistant and prevents me from seeing one for car mechanic, that could be illegal.
Impact Fund & Amici to Florida Court of Appeals: Local Non-Discrimination Ordinances Must Be Respected
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the Florida court of appeals along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality Florida, and civil rights firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. We were joined by eight additional organizations representing LGBTQ people, workers, women, and other concerned communities. Our brief documents the ongoing discrimination faced by LGBTQ people, people of color, people with disabilities, and older people in Florida. It also describes the diversity of local human rights ordinances across the state that prohibit discrimination against vulnerable groups that are not protected by state law, including LGBTQ people, elderly tenants, veterans, survivors of domestic violence, and workers at small businesses.
Impact Fund to Ben Carson: Don’t Eviscerate Disparate Impact Rule That Protects Against Housing Discrimination
The Trump Administration has proposed a revised regulation that eviscerates the Fair Housing Act’s protections and undermines the civil rights promises of the Fair Housing Act. HUD says that its proposal aligns the rule with judicial interpretations of disparate impact law, including Inclusive Communities, but it does nothing of the sort. Instead, the rule incorrectly twists the language of the Supreme Court and runs roughshod over settled case law on disparate impact. Should the rule come into effect, it would severely roll back these protections for our most vulnerable communities, and it would allow discriminatory conduct to flourish.
Impact Fund Applauds House Passage of FAIR Act Bill, Limiting Forced Arbitration
The FAIR Act would invalidate any agreements requiring arbitration of employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights claims. This means that a court could not order arbitration of any legal claim arising in those contexts; instead, plaintiffs could pursue their cases in court. The bill explicitly outlaws class or collective action waivers, thereby ensuring that group actions can remain powerful mechanisms to achieve justice.
Appeals Court: D.C. Must Better Integrate People with Disabilities into their Community, Upholds Class Action Remedy
Last month, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided Brown v. District of Columbia, 928 F.3d 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2019), in favor of a class of about 1,000 residents of D.C.-supported nursing facilities who are seeking transfers to community-based care. The class alleged that the District failed to transition them out of the public institutions in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities by programs receiving federal assistance (here, Medicaid, which helps fund the nursing facilities).