News Release 02.21.25

Class Action Heroes Honored

Impact Fund Class Action Hall of Fame: 2025 Inductees Announced 

Berkeley, 02.21.25 – Sixteen heroes were today inducted into the Impact Fund Class Action Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame recognizes named plaintiffs in proposed and certified class actions whose commitment and determination has led to significant advances in economic, environmental, racial, and social justice.

Impact Fund Executive Director Lindsay Nako said:

“The 2025 Impact Fund Class Action Hall of Fame inductees stood up on behalf of thousands of others to protect students, children, veterans, and families facing discrimination, racism, and government abuses.Their courage and sacrifice has made the world a better place.”

The 2025 inductees are:

• Alexis Badis, Ashley Badis, Tatiana Troup, and Abby Pothier, named plaintiffs in the case A.B. v. Department of Education.

Alexis Badis and her fellow named plaintiffs served as class representatives in a class action alleging unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title IX at a high school in Ewa Beach, Hawai‘i. The case claimed the state Department of Education discriminated against female students by denying them equal treatment, benefits, and participation opportunities in athletic programs and retaliating against those who spoke up. The case resulted in material improvements for female athletes, including new facilities and other improvements. It also raised awareness about the harmful “boys first” mindset of the state Department of Education and the ongoing need for gender equity in student sports.

Alexis, Ashley, Tatiana, and Abby were high schoolers when they spoke out about discrimination at their school. Ashley engaged in extensive media advocacy and public education about Title IX, from winning an ESPY award to being honored at the state capitol and the minting of the Patsy Mink quarter. These young and brave advocates, along with their families, became inspirational voices for gender equity. Their advocacy will positively impact generations of student athletes to come.

Named plaintiff Ashley Badis said:

“For us, this was more than just a legal victory—it was a validation of our experiences and a step forward for every female athlete who had ever felt marginalized or overlooked.”

• Mayra Jimenez, named plaintiff in the case Padres Buscando el Cambio v Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation, Inc.

Mayra Jimenez represented a class of people with developmental disabilities and their families challenging systemic anti-Latinx racism in the administration of services at the Harbor Regional Center in California. The settlement improved the Center’s management of the cases of its Latinx clients, established monitoring and enforcement mechanisms informed by community input, and improved access to services and information for Spanish-speaking people. The class action also catalyzed the California Department of Developmental Services, the governing state agency, to address and prevent discrimination in all 21 regional centers across the state by better informing regional center clients -- who number over 450,000 statewide-- about the process for submitting complaints of discrimination, retaliation, or bias.

Mayra took a leadership role to inspire her community. She showed that individuals working together can overcome the stigma associated with disability and the vulnerability of being immigrants and people of color, and can demand respect and equal access to state services and supports. She endured the demands of the litigation with grace and humor and never flagged in her encouragement of other participants in the coalition she founded. Mayra refused to accept the status quo or find a work-around for her own family, so as not to leave others behind.

• Khi'Marria Marshall and Kristine Dadant, class representatives in the case M.B. by his Next Friend Erika Eggemeyer, et al. v. Jennifer Tidball et al.

Khi’Marria Marshall represented a statewide class challenging violations under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, alleging that the state of Missouri unlawfully deprived children in state foster care of their liberty interest by failing to provide adequate oversight in the administration of powerful psychotropic medications to class members. The case resulted in a court-enforceable order requiring the state of Missouri to reform its child welfare system to require: (a) a proper informed consent policy and procedure, (b) an adequate system for maintaining updated and accessible medical records for children in foster care, and (c) a system for conducting physicians' reviews to secure second opinions on outlier prescriptions of psychotropic medications before administering them.

It took courage for Khi, a child, to stand up to state actors from a vulnerable position as a young resident of a state-run institution. She risked retaliation in addition to the severe physical and psychological abuse she already faced. Fortunately, Kristine Dadant, Khi’s CASA (court appointed special advocate), was determined to stand up for Khi. While not a relative or in any way legally responsible for Khi’s health and safety, Kris took professional and legal risks to protect Khi. Even when a state official suggested that she was breaking the law by doing so, Kris was not scared off. Belittled, gaslit, and threatened, these two pushed forward. They stood up together and prevailed.

Khi’Marria said:

“There is a future of kids out there who don't have a Mrs. Kris who still haven't found their voice. I'm going to be a voice for as many kids as I can be in this lifetime.”

• Shirley and Daniel Freeman, named plaintiffs in the case Shirley Freeman v. County of Riverside.

Shirley and Daniel Freemen represented a class of parents and guardians of children charged juvenile detention fees after their children were detained by Riverside County. They fought the collection of these fees and sought reimbursement for fees paid, alleging Riverside County failed to follow state and federal law in assessing them. The case brought novel claims and is one of the first cases to reimburse families for illegally collected fees in the juvenile system. Ultimately, Riverside County discharged over $4.1 million in outstanding juvenile fees and a settlement between the parties created a fund of $540, 307 to reimburse over 1,200 families for fees previously paid.

The Freemans, who were in their 80s, took on their responsibilities as class representatives to serve other families. The Freemans already had the balance of their juvenile detention fees discharged before the lawsuit, yet they believed it was important to bring this case to advocate for parents and guardians who had experienced the same injustice and, hopefully, secure relief for those families. Participating in this case had personal risks for the Freemans, including publicly revisiting their grandson’s involvement in the juvenile system and exposing their financial hardships. They also worried about repercussions for suing the county where they lived. Nonetheless, they devoted their time to supporting the litigation, engaging in media, and participating in settlement negotiations so that they could tell their stories and the stories of so many other families.

• Joseph Fields, Lavon Johnson, Joshua Petit, Jeffrey Powers, Deavin Sessom, and Laurieann Wright named plaintiffs in the case Powers v. McDonough.

Joseph Fields and his fellow plaintiffs challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs' misuse of its 388-acre West LA Campus, which had been deeded to serve veterans. Instead of building the promised supportive housing, the VA leased land to private entities, leaving thousands of disabled veterans homeless on LA’s streets without the care they need. The case led to a landmark ruling requiring the VA to build thousands of housing units for disabled veterans on its West LA Campus, voiding unlawful leases and restoring the land to its intended purpose of serving our nation’s heroes, and redefining "area median income" calculations to make affordable housing more accessible for disabled veterans nationwide.

Jeffrey, Lavon, Joshua, Jeffrey, Deavin, and Laurieann served their country with honor, only to return home and face a new battle against homelessness, discrimination, and neglect by their own government. Despite these hardships, they stepped forward to share their stories and advocate for better conditions for themselves and their fellow veterans. By bravely sharing their stories in press conferences, media interviews, depositions, and in court, they gave voice to the needs of all veterans in the class. During a three-week trial, they and other veterans made the daily journey to downtown LA to show their presence and represent their class in court. Their powerful leadership and dedication to the case were instrumental in securing a historic ruling that upholds our nation’s duty to its veterans.

• Jaimaria Bodor, named plaintiff in the case, Bodor v. Maximus Federal Services, Inc.

Jaimaria Bodor represented a class of student loan borrowers alleging that Maximus Federal Services, Inc., violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mispresenting the status of borrowers’ debts to the U.S. Department of Treasury. Maximus is the primary student loan servicer for the U.S. Department of Education and its misrepresentations led to borrowers’ tax refunds being withheld in violation of their federal rights. The case recovered damages for 247 student loan borrowers who were delayed access to their federal tax refunds because of Maximus' alleged failures, while also demonstrating that the servicer potentially could be held responsible under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ms. Bodor, the sole class representative in the case, was thoroughly and responsibly engaged in the litigation process during the more than three years the action was pending. She reviewed case materials, produced documents, was deposed, and diligently served the interests of the absent class members in regular consultation with her counsel. Upon receiving an offer to settle individually for a substantial sum that far exceeded her own personal claims, she refused to abandon the class stating:

“Reject it. No explanation needed. They are trying to get off Scott-free and I'm not one to be bought. Nor be pushed around.”

The case ultimately settled successfully on behalf of the entire class. Ms. Bodor, who during the course of the litigation got married and gave birth to her first child, attended the final settlement approval hearing to personally represent the class while 8 months pregnant with her second child.

The Impact Fund Class Action Hall of Fame was conceived in 2016 as a way to acknowledge the exceptional courage and sacrifice of lead plaintiffs in civil rights class actions.

 “The benefits of class action litigation can only be realized with the leadership of ordinary individuals willing to stand up to power,” concluded Nako.

ENDS

For more information and photography, contact:

Teddy Basham-Witherington 415.845.1206 / twitherington@impactfund.org

About The Impact Fund

The Impact Fund was founded in December 1992 to help advance economic, environmental, racial, and social justice through the courts. Originally envisioned as a purely grantmaking organization, the Impact Fund has made 800 grants totaling $10,060,129. Click here for Grant Criteria and information about Grant Deadlines.  

Since its inception, the Impact Fund has grown to include both advocacy and education in its range of services. Today, the Impact Fund litigates a small number of cases directly, authors amicus briefs, and provides consulting to civil rights practitioners free of charge.

The Impact Fund also presents an annual conference for plaintiff-side class action practitioners, a training institute for budding public interest class action practitioners, and numerous seminars and webinars.  Its latest initiative, the Notice Project, creates solutions to improve class action notices. Click here for the 2024 Annual Report.  

www.impactfund.org 

What Is A Class Action?

A class action is a type of lawsuit in which one or more individuals sue on behalf of a larger group of people to obtain legal remedies like an injunction, a declaration that a law or practice is unconstitutional, or damages.