|
|
|
The site home page highlights cases that seem to us particularly interesting—because they are being litigated right now, or because they involve large numbers of people and very consequential issues, or because of their historical importance. We change out those featured cases periodically, and this page is where we put the previous choices.
U. S. Census Bureau Sued for Hiring Discrimination :
Class Action complaint filed April 13, 2010
In the first case of its kind to be filed against a federal agency, applicants for jobs with the U. S. Census who were turned down because they have arrest records filed a class action alleging systematic discrimination against people of color.
The complaint, filed on April 13, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that the Census screens out applicants when their names show up in an FBI database, indicating a match with an arrest record. Applicants are then given 30 days to produce official documentation of any cases that show up on their record. Often this proves impossible, first, because the Census does not provide applicants with copies of the FBI reports, so they don’t know what they are looking for, or because the records have been sealed, expunged, or simply lost or destroyed due to age.
The plaintiffs also claim that because the Census does not distinguish among records of actual, recent, convictions for serious crimes, that might make someone unfit for the job, and records of long-ago, minor or even non-criminal conduct, the policy bears no relation to the job requirements.
Because the arrest and conviction rates of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans far exceed those of whites nationwide, the rejected applicants claim that the policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, and national origin.
More information about the lawsuit is available at www.censusdiscriminationlawsuit.com.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
ACORN v. Edgar
In this lawsuit in 1995-1996, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and several other plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the League of Women Voters brought suit against the State of Illinois, which was refusing to implement the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 1973gg, et seq., usually known as the Motor Voter law. The State argued that the Constitution did not authorize Congress to force state governments to administer federal programs, here a program for facilitating the registration of voters in federal elections. Both the district court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Act against this challenge, and Illinois proceeded to implement the statute.
This case has been the subject of a great deal of recent interest--including a large number of requests that it be featured in the Clearinghouse--because ACORN and several other plaintiffs were represented by Barack Obama. As a service to anyone interested, we've posted a great many documents and opinions in the case.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank
Many hundreds of people have come to this site in the past several weeks looking for this case, in which Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs' lawyers. Here's a summary. For more information on the case, click on its name, below. We've just (on 10/25) succeeded at getting public versions of most of the most important documents .
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
The case was certified as a class action in 1995, and settled three years later. The settlement is posted.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
Weinschenk v. State of Missouri
In this ongoing litigation in Missouri state court, plaintiffs argued that the Missouri Constitution's right to vote was violated by a state statute requiring would-be voters to present a state- or federal-issued photo id at the polls. In September 2006, the state circuit court held the statute unconstitutional and entered a declaratory judgment and injunction forbidding state and county officials from implementing the law.
In October 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. Over the sole dissent of Justice Limbaugh, the court held that the law burdened the fundamental right to vote and violated the equal protection provisions of the Missouri Constitution.
Relevant case(s) include:
|
|
|
|
The Clearinghouse has been generously supported by the National Science Foundation.
|
|
|
