PRACTITIONER BLOG
Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law
Tesla Trounced! Court Shreds Forced Arbitration Agreement & Reaffirms Workers’ Right to Fight for the Public Good Under FEHA in Racial Discrimination Case
For the first time, a California appellate court recently held that the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) authorizes plaintiffs to seek public injunctions, and any agreement purporting to waive that agreement is invalid. This decision expressly reaffirms that workers can fight for the public good under FEHA because the public suffers when employer discrimination and harassment go unchecked. California law ensures that workers can seek to protect the public from discrimination and harassment through injunctive relief, even if other types of claims are subject to mandatory individual arbitration.
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.
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.
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.