Related Materials

Jankey v. K&D Market

Adobe Acrobat document (447 KB)
Argues that defense attorneys\' fees should not be awarded when overlapping claims are made under California disability statutes and the ADA.

Lopez-Rodriguez v. SGLC, Inc.

Harris v. City of Santa Monica

Adobe Acrobat document (1.37 MB)
Argues that \"same-decision\" defense is inconsistent with the Fair Employment and Housing Act and should be rejected also on public policy grounds.

Magner v. Gallagher

This amicus brief supports the Eighth Circuit’s decision and argues that the Fair Housing Act may be enforced based upon a disparate impact theory.

MacKay v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Adobe Acrobat document (786 KB)
Urges court to depublish the lower court\'s decision that effectively immunizes a wide range of unlawful insurance industry practices from a civil suit under California\'s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

Delodder v. Aeortek, Inc.

Adobe Acrobat document (140 KB)
Urges court to uphold predominance balancing test for evaluating commonality for class certification.

Fox v. Vice

Adobe Acrobat document (121 KB)
Urges Court to hold that defendants cannot recover attorneys\' fees under §1988 where a plaintiff\'s frivolous claim is factually intertwined with non-frivolous claims.

Davis v. Cintas

Adobe Acrobat document (402 KB)
Argues that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard for evaluating pattern-or-practice claims and erroneously held that back pay and front pay remedies are inconsistent with class certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Adobe Acrobat document (148 KB)
Argues that California’s Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that Proposition 8’s classification scheme further stigmatizes gay and lesbian couples, deprives them of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples, and exposes them to increased discrimination.

Randall v. Rolls Royce Corp.

Adobe Acrobat document (460 KB)
Argues that in determining whether to certify a class of women employees, the district court abused its discretion when it conducted an analysis and comparison of the statistical evidence presented by the parties and decided that Defendant\'s expert was more convincing.

Dedinas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Adobe Acrobat document (752 KB)
Urges court to review refusal to accommodate plaintiff with disability in terms of a deposition location.

King v. City & County of San Francisco

Adobe Acrobat document (862 KB)
Objects to proposed settlement because of broad release of class claims for monetary and injunctive relief, while only providing limited equitable relief.

Turner v. AAMC

Adobe Acrobat document (594 KB)
Urges court to grant the petition for review to make clear that people with disabilities may seek reasonable accommodations under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Surrey v. TrueBeginnings

Adobe Acrobat document (285 KB)
Urges court to depublish the lower courts’ decision imposing a requirement that a claimant pay a discriminatory price in order to obtain standing.

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court

Adobe Acrobat document (386 KB)
Urges California Supreme Court to reaffirm the use of the pattern or practice theory in class certification.

Sabi v. Sterling

Adobe Acrobat document (167 KB)
Argues that discrimination based on receipt of federally subsidized Section 8 rental vouchers violated California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act.

Perdue v. Kenny A.

Adobe Acrobat document (271 KB)
Aruges that Congress intended to vest district courts with the discretion to enhance attorneys\' fees to ensure meaningful enforcement of the substantive provisions of the civil rights laws through private civil actions.

Lochren v. County of Suffolk

Adobe Acrobat document (403 KB)
Argues that recently adopted standards to determine the fees available to out-of-district counsel in civil rights cases in district courts in the Second Circuit should be reevaluated.

Brooks v. District Hospital Partners

Adobe Acrobat document (121 KB)
Agues that where applicants face similar discriminatory practices and the purposes of the exhaustion requirement have been fulfilled, plaintiffs can vicariously exhaust their remedies by piggybacking their claims on the charges brought by other similarly situated plaintiffs.

Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

Adobe Acrobat document (187 KB)
Argues that employing the \"substantial legitimate justification\" standard to an adverse impact claim under Govt. Code § 11135 will have the effect of immunizing practices that perpetuate discrimination.

Lewis v. City of Chicago

Adobe Acrobat document (307 KB)
Argues that the Seventh Circuit’s holding frustrates the statutory purposes underlying Title VII’s disparate impact provision by immunizing discriminatory employer practices from subsequent challenges where plaintiffs fail to object to a specific policy even though it has not yet adversely affected them.

Serrano v. Cintas

Adobe Acrobat document (921 KB)
Argues that the district court erroneously held that back pay and front pay remedies are inconsistent with class certification under Rule 23(b)(2)

Munson v. Del Taco

Adobe Acrobat document (4.51 MB)
Addresses whether plaintiffs seeking damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act in disability access cases must prove that the defendant intentionally discriminated against people with disabilities.

Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd.

Adobe Acrobat document (1.37 MB)
Argues that notice of an intrusion does not implicitly waive an individual’s right to privacy

Alch v. Superior Court

Adobe Acrobat document (1.53 MB)
Supports the right of discovery from third parties seeking data to prove their age discrimination claims.

Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Adobe Acrobat document (1.32 MB)
Argues that pattern and practice cases may be brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and that such cases should be tried using the framework of bifurcated liability.

Arias v. Superior Court

Adobe Acrobat document (1.56 MB)
Argues that class certification is not required under California\'s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) or the Unfair Competition Law

Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Services, Inc.

Adobe Acrobat document (802 KB)
Urges affirmance of court’s decision to order defendant to pay the costs of notifying class members after summary judgment has been granted against defendant.

Estrada v. FEDEX Ground Package System, Inc.

Adobe Acrobat document (252 KB)
Urges California Supreme Court to deny review of class action case in which workers successfully demonstrated that they were misclassified as independent contractors, thereby denying them overtime pay.

Vaira v. CA Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

Adobe Acrobat document (1.91 MB)
Argues that the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board awards violated Govt. Code § 11135 when it relied on causes that disproportionately affect protected classes to reduce disability compensation.

Mendez v. County of San Bernadino

Adobe Acrobat document (162 KB)
Argues that a verdict of police misconduct in a civil rights case did not permit district court to deny plaintiff attorneys’ fees.

Vasquez v. California Superior Courts

Adobe Acrobat document (2.9 MB)
Addresses whether a pre-litigation settlement demand must be made as a condition for recovering fees.

Capitol People First v. Department of Developmental Services

Adobe Acrobat document (1.11 MB)
Argues that class certification is appropriate in cases seeking system-wide injunctive relief regardless of the different needs of individual class members.

 

Amicus Briefs
Archived

Please use the links in right column to download the briefs.

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

 Harris v. City of Santa Monica

Supreme Court of California
Filed February 3, 2011
Reversed and Remanded on February 7, 2013

This case presents the question of whether, once an employee has shown that discrimination was a motivating factor in an employment decision, an employer may nonetheless avoid liability by showing that it would have made the same decision absent the discriminatory factor. Despite finding substantial evidence that supported a jury's finding that pregnancy was a motivating factor in an employment termination decision, a Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and ordered a retrial, holding that the jury should have been instructed on a "same-decision" defense. Amici urge the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court holding because the "same-decision" defense is inconsistent with the plain meaning, policy, and historical meaning of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Amicifurther contend that the "same-decision" defense has proven unworkable and confusing in practice and thus, should be rejected on public policy grounds. 

On February 7, 2013, The California Supreme Court decided to what extent a “mixed motive” defense is available to an employer under the Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”).  The decision is a mixed bag, with the following key holdings:  (1) FEHA requires proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that discrimination was “a substantial factor” that motivated the adverse employment action, not a “motivating factor” as argued by the plaintiff.  (2) If a plaintiff proves that discrimination was a “substantial factor,” the employer has the right to show that it would have made the same decision anyway for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. (3)  If the employer can show that it would have made the same decision for nondiscriminatory reasons, then the plaintiff cannot recover damages or back pay and the court cannot order reinstatement.  (4) However, even if the employer shows that it would have made the same decision absent the discrimination, “in appropriate cases” the plaintiff may obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

 Back to the Top

Magner v. Gallagher
U.S. Supreme Court
Filed January 31, 2012
The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful "[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the  making of a bona fide offer ... or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling  to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin."42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Respondents are owners of rental properties who argue that the City of Saint Paul violated the Fair Housing Act by "aggressively" enforcing the city’s housing code. The owners argue that, because a disproportionate number of renters are African-American, and Respondents rent to many African-Americans, requiring the owners to meet the housing code will increase their costs and decrease the number of units they can make available to rent to African-American tenants. Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment for the City, the Eighth Circuit held that the owners should be allowed to proceed to trial because they presented sufficient evidence of a "disparate impact" on African-Americans. This amicus brief supports the Eighth Circuit’s decision and argues that the Fair Housing Act may be enforced based upon a disparate impact theory.
Back to the Top
Delodder v. Aerotek, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed March 16, 2011
The Impact Fund, along with a host of nonprofit organizations, filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals aiming to stop an emerging trend among district courts wherein a "hierarchy of evidence" test is used to evaluate commonality for certification under Rule 23(b)(3) rather than the longstanding predominance approach. Courts have consistently weighed common and individual questions of a case to determine which is stronger, to determine which claims predominate given the practical realities of managing and trying those claims. As such, the predominance balancing approach has been well-supported by case law and recent precedents should not be construed as undermining it. In this case, the district court denied class certification, despite finding common issues supporting certification, based on the "hierarchy of evidence" approach. In the brief, amici explain the public policy goals of protecting worker's interests, describe the shortcomings of government and individual enforcement, and argue that the district court opinion should be reversed because the "hierarchy of evidence" approach generates more uncertainty in this previously well-settled area of law.
 
Davis v. Cintas
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed October 27, 2010
In partnership with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, the Impact Fund, on behalf of several civil rights organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit appealing a district court's decision to deny class certification in a Title VII gender discrimination class action. Amici argue that the district court erred in its analysis of class certification requirements, failing to apply the correct legal standard for evaluating pattern-or-practice claims. Amici further contend that the district court wrongly concluded that back pay is inconsistent with class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The court's back pay holding directly conflicts with a large and uniform body of case precedent, going back three decades, which permits back pay awards in Title VII injunctive relief class actions. Under the district court's erroneous ruling even a classic adverse impact challenge, seeking only injunctive relief and back pay, would not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2).
Back to the Top
Perry v. Schwarzenegger
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed October 25, 2010
Judge Ware of the Northern District of California denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of Judge Walker in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Judge Walker’s previous decision, which found Proposition 8 to be an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, was challenged by defendants after it was announced that Judge Walker had a same-sex partner. Defendants put forward a 22 U.S.C. §§ 455 motion to vacate his judgment, claiming that Judge Walker had been unable to give an impartial ruling in the case because of his sexual orientation. Disagreeing with the defendants, the Impact Fund joined an amicus brief against the motion to vacate. Responding to defendant’s motion, the District Court held that it is inappropriate to assume that a judge will make an impartial constitutional decision simply because they share some personal characteristics with other members of the general public who will be affected.
Back to the Top
Dedinas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Supreme Court of California
Filed June 2, 2010
The Impact Fund, along with a collective of nonprofit advocacy organizations, filed an amicus letter urging the California Supreme Court to review a trial court's refusal to accommodate a plaintiff with a disability in terms of a deposition location. The Court denied review June 23, 2010.
Back to the Top
Fox v. Vice
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed December 29, 2010
The Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision in Fox v. Vice. At issue was how to interpret a fee-shifting provision of § 1988, which permits an award of attorneys’ fees against plaintiffs, but only for claims that are found to be frivolous. In overturning the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Court held that in cases where plaintiffs bring frivolous claims that are intertwined with non-frivolous claims, reasonable attorney fees can only be awarded to defendants for expenses generated in litigating the frivolous claims. The Court noted that interpreting the fee-shifting provision more expansively would allow defendants to be unburdened of all litigation expenses even in cases where plaintiffs were pursuing legitimate claims. As argued in the amicus brief joined by the Impact Fund, this expansive interpretation of the § 1988 fee-shifting provision would have unnecessarily penalized civil rights plaintiffs by burdening them with excessive attorney’s fees. To avoid overburdening plaintiffs who have legitimate claims, the Supreme Court created a but-for standard, finding that attorney’s fees could only be awarded for litigation expenses that would not have been accrued but for the frivolous claims. This more limited interpretation of the § 1988 fee-shifting provision strikes an adequate balance between discouraging frivolous claims in lawsuits and protecting legitimate claims that will be brought forward by aggrieved parties. 
Back to the Top
MacKay v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Supreme Court of California
Filed November 15, 2010
The Impact Fund joined an amicus letter requesting that the Supreme Court of California depublish a Court of Appeal's advisory opinion concerning an alleged premium-setting practice in violation of Proposition 103. Amici argue that the lower court's decision effectively immunizes a wide range of unlawful insurance industry practices from a civil suit under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), running contrary to both Proposition 103's express authorization of civil enforcement actions and prior case precedent. Moreover, amici underscore the fact that the advisory opinion was issued after the case had already settled, precluding any direct review of the lower court's opinion.
Back to the Top
Randall v. Rolls Royce Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Filed June 3, 2010
The Impact Fund filed an amicus brief in this Seventh Circuit class action challenging gender discrimination at Rolls Royce. Amici argued that in determining whether to certify the class of women employees, the district court abused its discretion when it conducted an analysis and comparison of the statistical evidence presented by the parties and decided that Defendant’s expert was more convincing. Precedent has established that the district court’s assessment of statistical evidence at the class certification stage must be limited to the presence of common questions of law or fact. While this inquiry must be rigorous and may go beyond the pleadings to resolve legal and factual issues related to commonality, it should not determine which party’s statistics are more persuasive or which methodology is more effective. Such questions are merits issues, which must be resolved at trial. Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition was denied.
Back to the Top
King v. City and County of San Francisco
San Francisco Superior Court
Filed February 26, 2010
In this class action suit against San Francisco for its failure to maintain sidewalks and to provide an appropriate number of curb ramps, the parties reached a proposed settlement that provided for only limited equitable relief when compared to the broad release of class claims for monetary and injunctive relief. The Impact Fund and the Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center objected to the proposed settlement as organizations dedicated to advancing and protecting the civil rights of persons with disabilities, as well as on behalf of two individual class members. After reviewing the written objections and hearing testimony from several objectors at the fairness hearing, the court refused to approve the proposed settlement agreement and scheduled a case management conference for further litigation. The parties eventually submitted a joint request to dismiss the case without prejudice in light of class certification of a similar case against the City in federal court.
Back to the Top
 Lewis v. City of Chicago
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed November 30, 2009
Impact Fund joined an amicus brief along with other civil rights organizations, urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Seventh Circuit's decision in Lewis v. City of Chicago. In that decision, a Seventh Circuit panel held that, in order to challenge an allegedly discriminatory written examination for firefighter applicants, plaintiffs were required to file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the announcement of the test results, rather than from the date that the test was first used to make selection decisions. Amici argue that the Seventh Circuit’s holding frustrates the statutory purposes underlying Title VII’s disparate impact provision by immunizing discriminatory employer practices from subsequent challenges where plaintiffs fail to object to a specific policy even though it has not yet adversely affected them.
Back to the Top
 Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed November 24, 2009
Impact Fund filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit arguing that California legislative history and court precedent have long held that, in adverse impact cases, the defendant must establish a robust business necessity standard in order to justify the use of a policy that has a discriminatory impact. In Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the district court employed a watered-down "substantial legitimate justification" standard to an adverse impact claim under Govt. Code § 11135. Amici argue that this lesser burden of proof will have the effect of immunizing practices that perpetuate discrimination.
Back to the Top
Brooks v. District Hospital Partners
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed November 12, 2009
In this Title VII employment discrimination class action filed in the district court for the District of Columbia, plaintiffs appeal the decision of the district court denying class certification because plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The district court held that the plaintiffs, who were external applicants, could not "piggyback" their claims on the timely charges filed by a number of internal applicants, even though they alleged similar discrimination. The Impact Fund joined this amicusbrief to the D.C. Circuit, which argues that where applicants face similar discriminatory practices and the purposes of the exhaustion requirement, namely notice and the opportunity to conciliate, have been fulfilled, plaintiffs can vicariously exhaust their remedies by piggybacking their claims on the charges brought by other similarly situated plaintiffs.
Back to the Top
Lochren v. County of Suffolk
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Filed September 17, 2009
The Impact Fund joined an amicus brief along with 30 public interest and legal service organizations, civil rights law firms and bar associations, arguing that the standards recently adopted to determine the fees available to out-of-district counsel in civil rights cases in district courts in the Second Circuit unfairly bar victims of civil rights violations from accessing quality civil rights counsel from outside of the district. These new standards weaken plaintiffs' ability to bring civil rights cases or expand the public interest, and are thus contrary to the purposes of the civil rights fee shifting statutes. As such, amici argue that the standards should be reevaluated.
Back to the Top
 Perdue v. Kenny A.
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed August 28, 2009
Impact Fund filed an amicus brief maintaining that Congress intended to vest district courts with the discretion to enhance attorneys' fees to account for the quality of representation, the results of the case, and to ensure meaningful enforcement of the substantive provisions of the civil rights laws through private civil actions.
Back to the Top
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
Supreme Court of California
Filed August 17, 2009
The Impact Fund filed an amicus letter on September 22, 2008 on behalf of four civil rights organizations urging the Supreme Court of California to review a decision by the Court of Appeal denying class certification. The Court of Appeal determined that under California law, employers may be liable for failing to provide meal and rest periods only when they prevent employees from taking such breaks. The Court of Appeal then proceeded to ignore the import of statistical evidence that could have raised an inference that the employer in this case had a class-wide policy or practice of discouraging or preventing employees from taking meal and rest periods. The Impact Fund’samicus letter urged the Supreme Court to reaffirm its prior holding that pattern and practice evidence may support a finding that common questions predominate at the class certification stage. The letter also urged the Supreme Court to reaffirm that this determination should be made in the first instance by the trial court, which has discretion to draw inferences about class-wide policies or practices from statistical evidence. On October 24, 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. On August 17, 2009, Impact Fund filed a merits amicus brief.
Back to the Top
 
Sabi v. Sterling
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
Filed June 26, 2009
The Impact Fund joined an amicus brief that argued that discrimination based on receipt of federally subsidized Section 8 rental vouchers violated California's Fair Employment & Housing Act, which makes illegal housing discrimination based on "source of income."
Back to the Top
 
Surrey v. TrueBeginnings
Supreme Court of California
Filed January 8, 2009
The Impact Fund filed an amicus letter asking the court to depublish the lower courts' decision imposing a requirement that a claimant pay a discriminatory price in order to obtain standing. While the present case involves gender price differentials, the lower courts' opinion is not so limited. Theamicus letter argued that the decision would bar claims under the Unruh Act by those deterred by the most outrageous conduct. It would impose a new requirement under the Unruh Act that individuals must pay discriminatory prices, or otherwise engage in pointless and potentially humiliating gestures in order to obtain standing to sue for discrimination. The Supreme Court declined to depublish the opinion.
Back to the Top
 
Serrano v. Cintas
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed April 22, 2009
Impact Fund filed an amicus brief asking the Sixth Circuit to grant plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) motion for interlocutory review of a denial of class certification. The brief argued that the district court erroneously held that back pay and front pay remedies are inconsistent with class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The district court suggested that these equitable remedies were too "individualized" for class treatment. The holding directly conflicts with a large and uniform body of case precedent, going back three decades, which permits back pay awards in Title VII injunctive relief class actions. Under the district court's erroneous ruling even a classic adverse impact challenge seeking only injunctive relief and back pay would not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2). The court’s ruling would preclude a disparate impact class action, an important tool to combat employment discrimination. The Sixth Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for interlocutory review.
Back to the Top 
 
Turner v. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
Supreme Court of California
Filed January 8, 2009
Impact Fund filed an amicus letter on behalf of other civil rights and disability rights organizations. The letter asked the court to grant the petition for review to make clear that people with disabilities may seek reasonable accommodations under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Petition for review was denied. Additionally, the Impact Fund's Senior Counsel argued against a motion for an award of defense attorneys' fees. The motion was denied on August 24, 2009. Defendant appealed the attorneys' fees decision, and Impact Fund Senior Counsel argued the case on January 20, 2011.
Back to the Top
 
Munson v. Del Taco
Supreme Court of California
Filed December 19, 2008
Impact Fund filed an amicus brief arguing that damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act are available for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), without regard to defendant’s intent to discriminate. On June 11, 2009, the California Supreme Court unanimously answered the certified question in plaintiffs' favor. The court held that any violation of the ADA is also a violation of the Unruh Act; thus it is unnecessary for plaintiffs to show intentional discrimination in order to obtain damages.
Back to the Top
 
Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd.
Supreme Court of California
Filed June 6, 2008
This case presents the question of whether individuals may implicitly waive their right to privacy if they are given notice of an intrusion. The court of appeal determined that ticket holders waived their privacy rights when they had notice of a pat down procedure and subsequently purchased tickets for the next season. Impact Fund, on behalf of a coalition of employment and consumer advocacy organizations, submitted an amicus brief arguing that the court of appeal's holding that notice eliminates a privacy claim would vitiate the privacy rights of employees and consumers. On March 2, 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, holding that plaintiffs had adequately stated a claim for a constitutional violation.
Back to the Top
 
Alch v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
Filed May 2, 2008
Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of television writers asserted claims of age discrimination against studios, networks, production companies and talent agencies. Plaintiffs sought discovery from third parties seeking data to prepare a statistical analysis supporting their age discrimination claims, and several individuals objected to the disclosure on privacy grounds. The superior court sustained the objections and Plaintiffs sought a writ directing the trial court to vacate its order. Impact Fund filed an amicus brief on behalf of several civil rights organizations, arguing that the superior court order should be vacated because the court failed to appropriately evaluate the objectors’ privacy concerns and balance these interests with the plaintiffs’ interest in vindicating their civil rights. The Court of Appeal granted plaintiffs’ writ and vacated the lower court order.
Back to the Top
 
Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Filed May 2, 2008
Impact Fund filed an amicus brief arguing that pattern and practice cases may be brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and that such cases should be tried using the framework of bifurcated liability established by the Supreme Court in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States. The Third Circuit disagreed and issued an opinion reversing the district court’s certification of the class.
Back to the Top
 
Arias v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin
Supreme Court of California
Filed May 1, 2008
The Impact Fund joined an amicus brief which argued that class certification is not required under California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) or the Unfair Competition Law. On June 29, 2009, the California Supreme Court held that while class treatment was required under the Unfair Competition Law, it was not under PAGA.
Back to the Top
 
Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Services, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed March 28, 2008
Impact Fund signed an amicus brief, filed on behalf of consumer and civil rights organizations, urging the Ninth Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision to order the defendant to pay the costs of notifying class members after summary judgment has been granted against defendant. The Ninth Circuit upheld the imposition of costs.
Back to the Top
 
Estrada v. FEDEX Ground Package System, Inc.
Supreme Court of California
Filed October 30, 2007
Impact Fund filed an amicus letter urging the California Supreme Court to deny review of this class action case in which workers successfully demonstrated that they were misclassified as independent contractors, thereby denying them overtime pay. Review was denied.
Back to the Top
 
Vaira v. CA Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Filed September 27, 2007
The Worker's Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a decision below that reduced a compensation award to a female worker based upon her age and osteoporosis diagnosis,determining that these conditions were "non-industrial" causes of injury. This determination arguably violates Govt Code§ 11135, which prohibits discrimination by government entities on the basis of factors, such as age, race and gender. Impact Fund filed an amicus brief, on behalf a coalition of civil rights organizations, arguing that the Board awards violated Govt Code § 11135 when it relied on causes that disproportionately affect protected classes to reduce disability compensation. The Court of Appeals reversed the WCAB decision in an unpublished opinion.
Back to the Top
 
Mendez v. County of San Bernadino
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed May 24, 2007
Despite a favorable jury verdict in this police misconduct civil rights case, the district court denied plaintiff her attorneys’ fees and sanctioned her attorney without proper notice. Impact Fund, together with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, filed an amicus brief, highlighting that attorneys’ fees law requires an award in these circumstances and is necessary to ensure private enforcement of civil rights. The Ninth Circuit agreed and reversed on August 27, 2008.
Back to the Top
 
Vasquez v. California Superior Court
Supreme Court of California
Filed February 15, 2007
Impact Fund filed this amicus brief on behalf of civil rights and legal services groups in this private attorneys general attorneys-fees case addressing whether a pre-litigation settlement demand must be made as a condition for recovering fees. On November 11, 2008, the Supreme Court held that a pre-litigation demand was not required.
Back to the Top
 
Capitol People First v. Department of Developmental Services
California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
Filed September 27, 2006
This brief, written by Impact Fund, on behalf of itself and seven other civil rights organizations, argues that class certification is appropriate in cases seeking system-wide injunctive relief regardless of the different needs of individual class members. The Court of Appeal endorsed the amicus view and reversed the lower court's denial of class certification.
Back to the Top