The Impact Fund is currently involved in ground-breaking litigation, including the largest civil rights class action lawsuit in history, Dukes v. Wal-Mart. In addition, The Impact Fund maintains an active amicus docket on cases affecting civil and human rights, with a focus on key issues for employment discrimination class action cases.



LITIGATION

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(U.S. District Court, No. District of Cal.)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed United States District Judge Martin J. Jenkins's certification of this nationwide gender discrimination lawsuit as a class action on February 6, 2007. This is the largest civil rights class action lawsuit ever. The suit charges that Wal-Mart discriminates against its female retail employees in pay and promotions into management. The class includes more than 2 million current and former female employees of Wal-Mart retail stores in the U.S., including Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, and Sam's Club's. Wal-Mart has filed a request for review by the entire Ninth Circuit.

Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
(U.S District Court, No. District of Cal)
Filed in August 2004, this nationwide glass ceiling class action lawsuit charges Costco with failure to promote women to management positions in their retail warehouses. The proposed class consists of current and former female Costco workers across America who have been subjected to gender discrimination in promotion to warehouse manager and assistant manager positions. Only one in six Costco managers are women, yet its workforce is nearly 50% female.  United States District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on January 12th, 2007. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will consider Costco's appeal of this ruling.

Parra v. Bashas', Inc.
(U.S. District Court, Arizona)
This case alleges that the grocery store chain maintained a pay policy that discriminated against Latino workers in its Food City stores. From at least 1998, the written pay scale for Food City's predominantly Hispanic workers was lower in most job positions than the identical job positions in the Bashas' and A.J.'s stores, held by predominantly white workers. Statistical analysis also demonstrates that, within Food City Stores, Hispanic employees have consistently been paid less than their white counterparts in similar positions. The case also alleges that the working conditions (in terms of safety and sanitation) within Food City were inferior to those of Bashas' and A.J.'s stores. The court certified the working conditions claim but denied class certification of the unequal pay claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has accepted plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of class certification on the equal pay claim.

Moeller v. Taco Bell
(U.S. District Court, No. District of Cal.)
This disability class action against Taco Bell Corp. challenges accessibility barriers at California Taco Bell restaurants for persons who use wheelchairs or scooters. The barriers include, for example, queue lines that are too narrow for persons who use wheelchairs, inaccessible restrooms, service counters and dining areas, and insufficient accessible parking. The Impact Fund joined the litigation team for this case, which was originally filed by Tim Fox and Amy Robertson. The case has been certified as a class action. A motion for partial summary judgement was recently filed by the plaintiffs.

Glover v. Potter
(EEOC Administrative)
This nationwide disability class action challenged the U.S. Postal Service's practice of denying promotions to injured workers in so-called "rehabilitation" positions. A $61 million global settlement has been reached to resolve 7500 claims of discrimination. This is the largest disability discrimination settlement in history.

Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Opening, Reply
(9th Circuit Court of Appeals)
The Impact Fund is handling the appeal of a denial of class certification in this overtime class action, which alleges that assistant managers in California were improperly classified as exempt from overtime laws.



AMICUS BRIEFS

Mendez v. County of San Bernardino
(9th Circuit, Filed May 24, 2007)
The Impact Fund and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay area filed this amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' appeal from the district court's order denying fees.  The brief argues that the district court erred in denying all attorneys' fees because it believed the request was "excessive."

City of Santa Clarita v. U.S. Department of the Interior
(9th Circuit, Filed May 23, 2007)
The Impact Fund and Public Advocates, Inc., filed this amicus brief in support of plaintiff's petition for rehearing en banc.  The brief addresses the improper award of sanctions in the form of defendant attorneys' fees on the basis of plaintiff's ultimate lack of success on the merits and suspicion that plaintiff had improper motives in bringing the case.

Olson v. Auto Club of Southern California
(California Supreme Court, filed May 1, 2007)
This brief, written by The Impact Fund and 24 other civil liberties, civil rights, legal services, and environmental organizations, argues that expert fees should be recoverable as part of private attorney general attorneys fees.

Vasquez v. California Superior Court
(California Supreme Court filed February 15, 2007)
The 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.

Gunther v. Lin
(California Supreme Court, filed November 28, 2006)
The Impact Fund filed a request to “depublish” a court of appeal decision which held that intentional discrimination must be proven in a disability claim under California 's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Capitol People First v. Department of Developmental Services
(California Court of Appeal, filed September 27, 2006)
This brief, written by The 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.