PRACTITIONER BLOG
Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law
Impact Fund and Western Center on Law and Poverty Reach Settlement with USDA to Provide Emergency Food (SNAP) Assistance to Californians with Greatest Need
Over one million California households will soon be eligible to receive emergency COVID-19 related nutrition assistance, thanks in part to a settlement agreement reached yesterday by the Impact Fund, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This important victory comes after ten months of litigation in Hall v. USDA, which challenged the Department’s interpretation of the March 2020 law authorizing emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments—otherwise known as food stamps—to current SNAP recipients. Within hours of the settlement, USDA issued new guidance announcing a policy change that will provide at minimum $95 a month in emergency assistance to all households participating in SNAP on top of their regular monthly benefits. This updated policy will ensure the lowest-income Californians will have access to vital nutrition assistance while continuing to deal with the severe economic and public health consequences of 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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).
Fifth Circuit Reinforces Intolerance of LGBTQ Workers With Title VII Outlier
While Wittmer does not change the federal law protecting LGBTQ people, it stands as an outlier among many recent decisions that have found that discriminating against them in the workplace is “because of sex.” The Fifth Circuit covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, all states that lack statewide protections for LGBTQ workers, and LGBTQ people in the South face higher rates of prejudice and intolerance than other parts of the country. Wittmer makes the conflict among the states and federal circuits even stronger, where LGBTQ workers can be protected in one part of our country but not in another.
Toothless Rights: How Forced Arbitration and Class Action Waivers Undermine Civil Rights at Work
Class and collective action empowers those that share the same experiences and injuries to stand together and assert their rights as a group, and they are critical to achieving widespread, systemic change. Class action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements can erase all of these benefits, requiring employees to pursue their claims through individual arbitration.
But a series of Supreme Court decisions since the early 1980’s has largely sanctioned and accelerated the propagation of forced arbitration, including agreements that prohibit class litigation.
Introducing Impact LGBTQ: Impact Fund’s Newest Initiative for Social Justice
Our twenty-five years of litigating civil rights cases, training plaintiffs’ attorneys in complex and impact litigation, and supporting innovative social justice cases have given us a unique understanding of what it will entail to enforce the laws protecting LGBTQ people. That’s why we are launching Impact LGBTQ.
REFUSING TRANS PEOPLE HEALTHCARE SERVICES IS SEX DISCRIMINATION, SAY IMPACT FUND AND ALLES IN AMICUS BRIEF TO IOWA SUPREME COURT
EerieAnna (27) and Carol (42) have identified as female since they were young children, and they have both undergone hormone therapy, psychological care, and the legal processes to change their names and genders. When they tried to undertake sex reassignment surgery, however, their health insurance carriers, managed by Iowa’s state Medicaid program, denied them coverage