PRACTITIONER BLOG
Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law
Impact Fund and Allies File Class Action Amicus Brief in Ninth Circuit On Behalf of Seniors and People With Disabilities
The amicus brief authored by the Impact Fund, Disability Rights Advocates, and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund argues that the district court’s decision ran afoul of existing case law and will undermine enforcement of ADA access laws in the precise cases where systemwide enforcement is most needed.
Ninth Circuit Panel Decertifies Class of Janitorial & Maintenance Workers: Impact Fund & Amici Urge Rehearing
A certified class of janitorial and maintenance workers survived two motions for decertification, successfully proved employer wrongdoing at summary judgment, and received significant damages in a jury bellwether trial before seeing their efforts undone by the Ninth Circuit. The recent panel opinion in Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc., 39 F.4th 652, 661-63 (9th Cir. 2022), reversed certification after over seven years of litigation as a certified class. In doing so, the panel blatantly ignored the district judge’s repeated conclusion that the case was best managed as a class action.
“With Friends Like These” - How Not to Write an Amicus Brief: More Lessons On Class Action Law From Mr. T v. Social Media
Prompted by former President Trump’s spate of class actions against Facebook, Twitter, and Google, we recently shared some best practice tips on filing class actions, a topic close to our hearts. A new court filing and order in Mr. Trump’s case against Twitter offers us yet another opportunity to weigh in on a different and important subject to the Impact Fund’s mission—writing effective amicus briefs. So what have we learned? Write an amicus brief that actually says what you say it says. Write an amicus brief that is about an issue actually in the case. Don’t include six-page footnotes. Don’t suggest that the judge needs something explained at a fifth-grade level. Don’t tell the judge to issue an edict that the legislature pass a better law than the one on the books.
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.
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 and Allies File Amicus Brief Defending Courts’ Role Protecting Workers During Litigation
Our brief highlights the role afforded to courts to intervene and address the conduct of counsel and parties in litigation. This historical role is especially important in litigation connected to the workplace, where the power imbalance between employers and employees presents unique threats to the rights of employees in the form of coercion and retaliation.
Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief In U.S. Supreme Court Transgender Case
On March 2, 2017, Impact Fund filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., which at the time was poised to be the first of the transgender access cases to be heard in the Supreme Court. Our brief supports Gavin Grimm, a 17-year old high school student in Gloucester County, Virginia. Gavin is challenging a local school board policy that prohibits transgender students from using the sex-segregated facilities (such as restrooms) that are consistent with their gender identity. The policy is similar to North Carolina’s notorious H.B. 2 legislation and equally discriminatory.
Speaking Out Against Unlawful Sex Stereotyping of Transgender People in North Carolina’s H.B. 2
Earlier this year, the North Carolina legislature passed a sweeping anti-LGBT bill, H.B. 2, which requires public schools and agencies to discriminate against transgender people by prohibiting them from using sex-segregated restrooms according to their gender identity. Plaintiffs Joaquín Carcaño, the ACLU of North Carolina, and others filed a lawsuitchallenging H.B. 2 as unlawful discrimination against transgender individuals under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
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.