University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Here are all the additions to the Clearinghouse collection -- cases, summaries, case studies, etc. -- over the past 90 days:


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 17, 2017
Prison Legal News Homepage
Prison Legal News
By: Prison Legal News
Prison Legal News (PLN), a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center, is a 72-page monthly magazine that reports on criminal justice issues and prison and jail-related civil litigation, with an emphasis on prisoners' rights. PLN has published continuously since 1990 and covers a wide ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
January 13, 2017
EEOC v. Tanami Trading Corporation (d/b/a Left Lane Express)
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 5:06-cv-00252-JLH (E.D. Ark.)
EE-AR-0047
In 2006 the EEOC filed this in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs alleged a racially hostile work environment and constructive discharge. In 2008, a consent decree granted individual and injunctive damages to the defendants. Its effective period was three years, and there's nothing more on the docket - so presumably the matter ended in 2011.
View Case Detail (EE-AR-0047)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 13, 2017
EEOC v. Moreland Auto Group, LLP
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-01903-EWN-MEH (D. Colo.)
EE-CO-0038
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-CO-0038)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 8, 2017
Broussard v. First Tower Loan, LLC
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-01161 (E.D. La.)
EE-LA-0118
This is a civil law suit filed by Tristan Broussard, a woman who identifies as a transgender man. Plaintiff asserted that First Tower Loans, the formal employer, committed the sex discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Represented by undersigned counsel, plantiff filed the action in Eastern District of Louisiana on April 13th, 2015. In February 2013, plaintiff started to work at Tower Loan as a Manager Trainee in its Lake Charles, Louisiana branch. At the time that Tower Loan made that job offer, Mr. Broussard’s gender and gender expression were male. Shortly after that, Mr. Broussard’s supervisor noticed that the plaintiff's driver’s license listed his sex as female. Ms. Sparks asked Mr. Broussardabout it and Mr. Broussard responded that he is a transgender man. Less than a week, Tower Loan Vice President David Morgan traveled to Lake Charles to meet with Mr. Broussard and his supervisor. Mr. Morgan informed Mr. Broussard that he could continue working at Tower Loan only if Mr. Broussard signed a written statement agreeing to act and be treated as female rather than as male while working for Tower Loan, including by dressing as female. Mr. Broussard did not agree, and was terminated from his position at Tower Loan. On August 27, 2013, the plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” ), alleging that Mr. Broussard’s termination from Tower Loan constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of his sex, change of sex, sex stereotypes, and gender identity, in violation of Title VII and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law. On December 2, 2014, the EEOC issued its determination and concluded that the evidence supports a reasonable cause finding that the plaintiff was subjected to discrimination based on sex, transgender male. The plaintiff filed this action on April 13th, 2015 and requested the court to grant declaratory judgment, permanent injunction, back/front pay and other compensatory and punitive damages. On Sep 1st, 2015, EEOC filed a motion to intervene the case and the court later granted the motion. On Nov 5, 2015, based on the plaintiff's signed the employment agreement, the defendant filed a motion to Compel Arbitration and to stay the proceeding. The court agreed with the defendant that the enforcement of the arbitration provision does not violate plaintiff's Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury and granted the motion to compel the arbitration and to stay proceedings. On Sep 9th 2016, in response to EEOC's motion to stay its claim, the court ordered that EEOC's claims are stayed pending completion of the arbitration between Tristan Broussard and First Tower Loan, within six months from the date of this order, unless good cause be shown for an extension.
View Case Detail (EE-LA-0118)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 7, 2017
The Civil Rights Division’s Pattern and Practice Police Reform Work: 1994-Present
https://www.justice.gov/
Written: Jan. 4, 2017
By: U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice)
This report describes one of the United States Department of Justice’s central tools for accomplishing police reform, restoring police-community trust, and strengthening officer and public safety – the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement of the civil prohibition on a “pattern or practice” ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
January 7, 2017
An Interactive Guide to the Civil Rights Division’s Police Reforms
https://www.justice.gov/
Written: Jan. 4, 2017
By: U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (U.S. Department of Justice)
The Justice Department released a comprehensive report today that provides an overview of the Civil Rights Division’s police reform work under Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

The report, “The Civil Rights Division’s Pattern and Practice ...
View Link Detail  


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
December 30, 2016
This Deaf Immigrant Was Ignored in Jail. Now He Will Get $250,000.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/deaf-man-wins-250000-settlement-from-arlington-jail/2016/11/18/f44f6fce-adc9-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.b8bcbe19a309
Written: Nov. 19, 2016
By: Rachel Weiner (The Washington Post)
Rachel Weiner, This Deaf Immigrant Was Ignored in Jail. Now He Will Get $250,000., The Washington Post (Nov. 19, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/deaf-man-wins-250000-settlement-from-arlington-jail/2016/11/18/f44f6fce-adc9-11
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 30, 2016
Ramos v. SimplexGrinnell LP
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:07-cv-00981-SMG (E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0263
In February 2007, fifteen current and former employees of SimplexGrinnell LP, who performed electrical and sprinkler work on various public works projects throughout New York, filed this class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. They claimed that SimplexGrinnell failed to pay its employees in accordance with the Prevailing Wage Act, New York Labor Law § 220 which requires that public works contracts - i.e., contracts with state or local governmental agencies to perform construction, maintenance and repair of public buildings - must provide that all laborers will be paid prevailing wages. On March 7, 2007, SimplexGrinnell moved the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn Division. Chief Magistrate Steven M. Gold was assigned to the case. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the class of laborers here was granted class certification. After years of discovery, negotiations, and appeals, the parties came to an agreement in 2015 that provided for changes to the defendant's payment practices, and awarded the class $9,500,000 is damages, subject to deductions for fees and other expenses. We have not reason to believe this case is still ongoing.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0263)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 29, 2016
Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 04-1454 (State Court)
CJ-GA-0005
This case, brought in state court in Georgia, involved a constitutional challenge to a Georgia state law which placed restrictions on where sex offenders could live or work. The law, OCGA § 42-1-15, prohibited registered sex offenders from residing or working at a location that was within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or area where minors congregate.
View Case Detail (CJ-GA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 28, 2016
Rodriguez Alvarado v. United States
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-05028 (D.N.J.)
IM-NJ-0010
This is a civil rights lawsuit to redress the wrongful detention, unlawful conditions of confinement, and other inhumane treatment that allegedly suffered by Suny Rodriguez Alvarado and her minor child A.S.R.. Plaintiffs have faced multiple threats in their own country Honduras and decided to flee to the U.S. When they reached the U.S.-Mexico border on January 16, 2015, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents soon apprehended the family and placed them to a cold holding The conditions in the holding facilities were alleged as "inhumane". In addition, despite the fact that Ms. Rodriguez kept informing the CBP agent that she feared returning to Honduras, the agents kept pressuring her with threat to sign papers accepting removal to Honduras. Furthermore, ICE also attempted to separate A.S.R from his mother. On February 10, 2015, the asylum officer determined that Ms. Rodriguez had demonstrated a reasonable fear of torture if returned to Honduras and that A.S.R. had passed his credible fear interview. However, the agent concluded that no amount of bond or conditions of supervised release could ensure the boy's future appearance for removal proceedings. On or about May 14, 2015, Ms. Rodriguez won her withholding of removal case before Immigration Judge Lourdes Rodriguez De Jongh, who found that Ms. Rodriguez more likely than not would be persecuted if returned to Honduras. The plaintiffs then filed Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) administrative claims with DHS for all the tortious actions that alleged committed by ICE, CBP, and CCA officials acting under the supervision of DHS. DHS denied the Plaintiffs’ claims. After administratively exhausting their claims under the FTCA, plaintiffs filed a civil right lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, for the tortious acts of its employees. The lawsuit was represented by the public interest lawyers and filed in the District Court of New Jersey. Plaintiffs claimed defendants committed Abuse of Process, False Imprisonment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Supervision and Negligence under FTCA. They asked for the compensatory damages. The case is still ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-NJ-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 23, 2016
DOJ-COPS Assessment of the San Francisco Police Department
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: N/A (No Court)
PN-CA-0039
Following the shooting death of Mario Woods by five San Francisco Police Officers, public outcry and protest prompted the Mayor of San Francisco, Ed Lee, to request assistance from the Department of Justice to conduct a thorough review of the SFPD's policies and practices. On October 12, 2016, the DOJ COPS Office issued an assessment of the SFPD's activities and operations, and presented findings are recommendations on how to address the department's needs proactively in a long-term manner to improve trust between the department and the community it serves. This assessment is part of this case record for in the Clearinghouse.
View Case Detail (PN-CA-0039)


CASE STUDIES
December 23, 2016
"At Angola Prison, Getting Sick Can Be A Death Sentence "
http://inthesetimes.com/features/angola-prison-healthcare-abuse-investigation.html
Written: Dec. 20, 2016
By: Katie Rose Quant and James Ridgeway (In These Times)
Katie Rose Quant & James Ridgeway, At Angola Prison, Getting Sick Can Be A Death Sentence, In These Times (December 20, 2016).
A 6-month investigation into Louisiana’s Angola prison, the largest maximum-security state prison in the country, reveals substandard and inhumane healthcare—leading to extremely high death rates for prisoners. Does this amount to unconstitutional “cruel and unusual punishment”?*
View Case Study Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
December 22, 2016
Pitts v. District of Columbia
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:14-cv-01319 (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0010
A disabled African-American woman and her adult son sued the District of Columbia alleging that their rights were violated during an illegal search of their home on March 26, 2013. The plaintiffs alleged that they were at home when, without warning, at least ten Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") officers raided their home. The disabled plaintiff was handcuffed although she has difficulty walking without her cane, and her adult son was strip searched in front of the rest of his family. On August 4, 2014 the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under § 1983 claiming that the raid violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. After the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted in part, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. After proceedings held before Judge Chutkan, the parties were ordered to conduct discovery, however, the parties jointly moved to stay discovery. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to stay and set a deadline of November 21, 2016 for the parties to submit a status report. That status report stated that the parties were still in negotiations, and asked that the Court continue to stay the case for 30 more days.
View Case Detail (PN-DC-0010)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 20, 2016
League of Women Voters of Florida v. Browning
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 4:11-cv-00628-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla.)
VR-FL-0167
On December 15, 2011, the League of Women Voters of Florida, Florida Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, and Rock the Vote brought this lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. They sued relevant Florida officials to prevent the enforcement of a Florida Statutes § 97.0575, as amended in 2011, and an implementing rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 1S-2.042, which they claimed unconstitutionally and unlawfully burdens their efforts to encourage civil engagement and democratic participation by assisting Florida citizens in registering to vote and exercising their fundamental right to vote. The plaintiffs had all conducted and wish to continue to conduct voter-registration drives in Florida. The statute and rule regulate organizations that conduct voter-registration drives. After U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Hinkle granted the parties' joint motion for permanent injunction, the case was closed.
View Case Detail (VR-FL-0167)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 19, 2016
Balaban v. Rubin
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: (State Court)
SD-NY-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (SD-NY-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 17, 2016
Issa v. School District of Lancaster
Case Category: Immigration
Trial Docket: 5:16-cv-03881-EGS (E.D. Pa.)
IM-PA-0013
On July 19, 2016, limited-English-proficient ("LEP") immigrants who, while aged 17-21, were, are, or may be in the future denied their right to equal educational opportunities and meaningful public education, brought a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the School District of Lancaster. The plaintiffs sued under the Equal Education Opportunity Act and Section 601 of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that the defendant has a custom, practice, and policy of refusing to admit older immigrant LEP students into the District's regular high school, McCaskey, which has an International School specially tailored to the academic needs for new students in need of language supports and accommodations. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the District either refused to admit them altogether, or assigned them to an "alternative" school, Phoenix Academy, a school for underachieving students which runs more like a disciplinary school than a traditional public high school. Moreover, Phoenix Academy lacks adequate and appropriate supports of immigrant LEP students, and is academically inferior by all measures and offers no extra-curricular opportunities. U.S. District Court Judge has granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, in part, but has denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification without prejudice. This case is still ongoing and the Clearinghouse will continue to provide updates as they become available.
View Case Detail (IM-PA-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 15, 2016
Raimondo v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 3:13-cv-02295-JSC (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0020
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-CA-0020)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 15, 2016
Women's Liberation Front v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00915-WPL-KBM (D.N.M.)
ED-NM-0002
On August 11, 2016, the Women's Liberation Front ("WoLF") filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The plaintiff sued the Department of Justice alleging that the May 13 Guideline, which requires schools to provide restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of sex, but allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, Title IX of the Educational Amendments if 1872, as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the May 13 Guideline violates the express terms of Title XI, which provides women with their own facilities, by expanding the scope of the term "sex" beyond the biological definition of "sex" by equating "sex" with "gender identity." This case has been stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in Gloucester County School Board v. GG. The Clearinghouse will provide updates as they become available.
View Case Detail (ED-NM-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 12, 2016
United States v. Board of Education of Ben Hill County
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: No. 642 (M.D. Ga.)
SD-GA-0014
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (SD-GA-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 12, 2016
United Mine Workers of America v. Illinois State Bar Association
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: (district not recorded)
FA-IL-0015
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (FA-IL-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 12, 2016
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: (district not recorded)
EE-VA-0138
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-VA-0138)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 6, 2016
Hart v. Colvin
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:15-cv-00623-JST (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0046
On February 9, 2015, three individuals whose disability benefits had allegedly been denied or terminated based on consultative examinations (CEs) performed by a now disqualified doctor, filed this class action lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in her official capacity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that she wrongfully relied on CEs performed by a physician, who at the time of this complaint had been disqualified, in denying or terminating their disability benefits. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's policy and practice of relying on this disqualified doctor's defective CE reports in denying or terminating disability benefits was in violation of requirement that these determinations be based on evidence from acceptable medical sources. After the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied on July 17, 2015, the court set a number of settlement conferences. For months these conferences were unsuccessful, but the parties reached an agreement on September 19, 2016 by which the defendant agreed to provide relief to class members through procedural mechanisms that vary depending on the status of their claims and the amount of time since their examination by the disqualified doctor and pay $490,000 in attorneys fees. The parties' motion for preliminary approval of this settlement agreement was granted by Judge Tigar on November 9, 2016. Implementation is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0046)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 5, 2016
Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: (E.D. Va.)
SD-VA-0008
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (SD-VA-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 2, 2016
West v. City of Santa Fe
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-00309 (S.D. Tex.)
CJ-TX-0011
On November 3, 2016, three individuals who have been, or fear they will be, jailed for failure to pay their outstanding fines to the City of Santa Fe, filed this lawsuit in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. They sued the City of Santa Fe, the Municipal Judge, and the Chief of Police under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants run a modern-day debtors' prison to raise revenue for the City. They claimed that city officials have colluded on an unconstitutional two-tiered system of justice by which the City and Municipal Judge agreed to raise the costs of the traffic and other misdemeanor fines to boost revenue, and the City then uses multiple constitutional violations as leverage to extract payments from local residents. Police officers regularly jail people who fail to pay their fines without giving them access to a lawyer or the change to mount a legal defense, nor are they given the opportunity to see a judge for the constitutionally mandated hearing on their ability to pay. Moreover, the police chief makes jail intolerable, giving people he detains too little food to eat and depriving them of medical care. An initial conference has been set for February 10, 2017 before U.S. District Court Judge George C. Hanks Jr. The Clearinghouse will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available.
View Case Detail (CJ-TX-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 2, 2016
Levy v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-00542-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0004
On August 16, 2016, probationers and parolees who are deaf or have hearing impairments and who are under the control and supervision of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("LDPSC"), brought this class action in the District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs sued the LDPSC and its Secretary under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that the defendants failed to provide auxiliary aids and services to probationers and parolees who are deaf or have hearing impairments. Specifically, they alleged that the defendants, by denying them access to auxiliary aids, denied the plaintiffs an equal opportunity to successfully complete their probation and parole and to effectively participate in post-release rehabilitative programs which could (and for at least one plaintiff did) result in a finding that they had violated their probation or parole. As of December 2, 2016, the defendants had filed an answer to the plaintiffs complaint, and the court has set due dates by which the parties should submit expert reports. The Clearinghouse will continue to provide updates as new information becomes available.
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 1, 2016
Whitaker v. Perdue
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 4:06-cv-00140-WCO (N.D. Ga.)
CJ-GA-0004
This civil rights class action lawsuit was filed in 2006 against the State of Georgia in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs, six low-level sex offenders, challenged provisions of Georgia's then-new sex offender law that prevent sex offenders from living and working within one-thousand feet of school bus stops and churches. The plaintiffs, represented by the Southern Center for Human Rights and the ACLU of Georgia, had all committed their crimes when they were young, and they argued that the law violated their rights because it neither distinguished between low-level and high-level sex offenders, nor allowed them to seek an exemption. On March 30, 2009 the District Court certified a class of "all persons who are registered, are required to register, or in the future will be required to register as sex offenders pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12." Within the same order, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the sex offender law, insofar as it restricts registered sex offenders from engaging in volunteer activities at church. Yet, after the named plaintiffs were substituted and the case renamed Smiley v. Perdue, the plaintiffs' class action was dismissed on September 30, 2013. This case is closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-GA-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 1, 2016
Selden v. Airbnb, Inc.
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00933-CRC (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0014
On May 17, 2016, an African American man whose request for accommodations through Airbnb was rejected because of his race, brought this lawsuit on his behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He sued Airbnb under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that the defendant he, and all others similarly situated, had been injured by the pertinent discriminatory acts or practices committed by Airbnb's host agents, representatives, and servants. Represented by Emejuru & Nyomnbi L.L.C., he asked for judgment and damages including compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, and attorney's fees. On May 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which also alleged a violation of the Fair Housing Act. After the Court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay the case, the plaintiff appealed that decision which is still pending decision. This case is still open, and the Clearinghouse will continue to provide updates as they become available.
View Case Detail (FH-DC-0014)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 1, 2016
Encarnacion v. City of New York
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00156-DLC (S.D.N.Y.)
CJ-NY-0013
On January 8, 2016, an individual and The Bronx Defenders, which represented him during his criminal case, filed this lawsuit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover property seized by the NYPD after his arrest. Though his case had been dismissed, and the DA did not file for an appeal, his case was closed and he should have been able to recover his property. However, after numerous attempts by this individual, and The Bronx Defenders, they decided to bring this lawsuit against the city. In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs added two more individuals who had a similar experience to the original plaintiff, and five days later, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. However, on July 25, 2016, all the parties involved agreed to stay all proceedings through February 28, 2017 to work toward a possible agreement. This case is still ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-NY-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2016
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Case Category: Public Accomm./Contracting
Trial Docket: (D. Utah)
PA-UT-0001
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PA-UT-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2016
Brewer v. School Board of Norfolk
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: (E.D. Va.)
SD-VA-0007
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (SD-VA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2016
Chandler v. Garrison
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 67-1545 (E.D. La.)
FA-LA-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (FA-LA-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2016
Color of Change v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-08215 (S.D.N.Y.)
FA-NY-0007
After filing a FOIA request with the defendants, Color of Change and Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit civil rights advocacy and communications organization, brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of Homeland security ("DHS") and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), seeking declaratory, injunctive, and other appropriate relief to compel the defendants to produce records related to federal government surveillance and monitoring of protest activities related to the Movement for Black Lives ("MBL"). Specifically, the plaintiffs seek documents regarding surveillance of MBL demonstration and individual activists aligned with the movement, which they argue undermines the First Amendment's protection of political speech. To date, neither DHS nor the FBI have disclosed the requested documents. A pretrial conference has been scheduled for January 20, 2016, before before U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley III.
View Case Detail (FA-NY-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2016
Poitras v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:15-cv-01091 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0099
On July 13, 2015, Plaintiff--a documentary film-maker and journalist who focuses on post-9/11 United States--filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (Defendants) improperly withheld documents requested under FOIA relating to the systematic, targeted treatment experienced by Plaintiff in airport security between 2006 and 2012. The case is still open, and in the pre-trial stage.
View Case Detail (NS-DC-0099)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 27, 2016
Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company & EEOC
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 66-315 (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0129
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-AL-0129)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 27, 2016
United States v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 67-243 (E.D. Mo.)
EE-MO-0117
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-MO-0117)


CLEARINGHOUSE LINKS TO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
November 22, 2016
Philadelphia Forfeiture
http://ij.org/case/philadelphia-forfeiture/
By: Institute for Justice (Institute for Justice)
This website maintained by counsel for the plaintiffs contains detailed information and documents regarding the background and progress of the case.

Property owners who have their cash, cars or homes seized must go to Courtroom 478. But Courtroom 478 isn’t a courtroom at all: there ...
View Link Detail  


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2016
Garcia v. Tucker
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:07-CV-474 (N.D. Fla.)
PC-FL-0022
On November 7, 2007, a hearing-impaired inmate at Polk Correctional Institution in Polk City, FL, filed this lawsuit, pro se, in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. He sued four corrections officials responsible for organizing and providing accommodations for disabled inmates in his lawsuit under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, alleging that the defendants had discriminated against him because of his disability. Representing himself, the plaintiff asked the court for injunctive relief. The plaintiff also sought class certification. The parties eventually settled, and allowed the plaintiff to have electronic equipment, approved by the facility, that he could use with his hearing aid to hear the television transmissions and radio signals. This case is closed.
View Case Detail (PC-FL-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2016
Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphia
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:14-cv-04687-ER (E.D. Pa.)
CJ-PA-0002
On August 11, 2014, four individuals filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of themselves and others similarly situation. The plaintiffs sued the City of Philadelphia, the Mayor, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, the District Attorney, and the Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants’ policies and practices with regard to civil forfeitures, which are authorized by Pennsylvania law: (1) violated the plaintiffs’ rights to notice or a hearing prior to the seizure, (2) compelled the plaintiffs to give up constitutional and statutory rights, (3) prevented the plaintiffs from receiving a timely hearing, (4) required the plaintiffs to return to court multiple times by re-listing the property in question, (5) inserted an institutional and personal interest in forfeiture proceedings by allowing the defendants to retain the property’s proceeds, and (6) violated due process by allowing the defendants to run the forfeiture courtroom proceedings. The plaintiffs sought an injunction and declaratory judgment on these six claims. The court ordered approval of a settlement and class certification only with regard to two of the plaintiffs’ claims. The class for the first claim of relief was “all persons holding legal title to or otherwise having a legal interest in real property against which an ex parte “seize and seal” order is presently in effect, or will in the future be in effect.” The class for the second claim of relief was “all persons holding legal title to or otherwise having a legal interest in real or personal property against which a civil-forfeiture petition has been filed, or will in the future be filed, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and who entered into an unsealing agreement or a settlement agreement.” Per the settlement agreement, the defendants were prohibited from seeking ex parte “seize and seal” orders under the Controlled Substances Forfeiture Act unless certain conditions were met. Additionally, any existing ex parte “seize and seal” orders were to be removed. The settlement also provided that notice would be given to civil forfeiture respondents that entered into unsealing or settlement agreements that specific conditions of their agreements are now void. The case is still ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-PA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2016
Independent Living Center v. City of Los Angeles
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW (C.D. Cal.)
FH-CA-0025
On January 13, 2012, three non-profit organizations that advocate for independent living for individuals with disabilities, filed this civil rights lawsuit in the District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs sued the City of Los Angeles, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles ("CRA"), and 34 owners of CRA-funded apartment complexes for failure to ensure that housing is accessible to people with disabilities. After years of battling over discovery issues, the parties finally came to an agreement in 2016 which provided that over the following 10 years, the City of Los Angeles would ensure that at least 4,000 of its affordable housing units meet the highly accessible standards required by federal law, and would enforce policies to ensure that those units are inhabited by people who need the specific accessibility features provided. The city will spend at least $200 million during the life of the agreement. Over the 10 years of the agreement, the plaintiffs were to assist people with disabilities to transition into the newly-accessible units.
View Case Detail (FH-CA-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2016
Woodall v. American Airlines, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:06-cv-00072 (N.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0434
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-TX-0434)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2016
Rucker v. Spokane County
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:12-cv-05157 (E.D. Wash.)
CJ-WA-0003
A class of plaintiffs who had been jailed for failure to pay legal debts sued Spokane County, Washington for violating their Constitutional due process rights. They successfully settled the case and obtained upwards of $300,000 in damages.
View Case Detail (CJ-WA-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2016
Roberts v. Black
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-11024 (E.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0005
On June 21, 2016, individuals who had been forced to pay a $50 "extension fee" for inability to pay their monetary penalties in full, or go to gail for non-payment of court fines and costs, brought a putative class action lawsuit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs sued the Bogalusa City Court and the sole judge who sits on the Bogalusa City Court, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants (1) systematically jail and threaten to jail individuals who cannot pay fines and court costs that fund the city court; and (2) have created an illegal extension fee to generate additional revenue. Shortly after U.S. District Court Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, and held their request for a preliminary injunction in abeyance, the parties decided to explore settlement options. They filed a stipulated agreement with the District Court, which was granted. A final pretrial conference has been set for September 28,2017 before Judge Lemelle and all discovery must be completed by August 29, 2017.
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2016
Stinnie v. Holcomb
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-00044-NKM (W.D. Va.)
PB-VA-0007
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PB-VA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2016
EEOC v. Creative Networks, L.L.C.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:05-cv-03032-SMM (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0033
On September 30, 2005, the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs sued Creative Networks, LLC and its parent company, Res-Care, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs claimed that two employees had been retaliated against after they had opposed unlawful discrimination in the workplace. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that one employee had been terminated in retaliation and the other employee had been threatened with termination. On May 24, 2010, Judge McNamee signed and approved a consent decree. The decree's effective period was 18 months, and there is nothing more on the docket - so presumably the matter ended in 2011.
View Case Detail (EE-AZ-0033)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2016
United States v. Firestack-Harvey
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:13-cr-00024-FVS (E.D. Wash.)
CJ-WA-0002
Five criminal defendants challenged the constitutionality of enforcing the federal Controlled Substances Act in the state of Washington, where marijuana use is legalized through state statute. The defendants were eventually convicted and sentenced from 16 to 33 months.
View Case Detail (CJ-WA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2016
2002 DOJ Investigation of Cleveland Division of Police
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: No Court Case (No Court)
PN-OH-0003
In 2000, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §14141 of the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) into allegations of a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct. In 2004, the parties settled. A spreadsheet describing all of the DOJ 14141 investigations shows this case as closed as of March 15, 2005. When the DOJ opened a new investigation into policing in Cleveland (See U.S. v. Cleveland, PN-OH-0008>/a> in this Clearinghouse), the "background" section of its report doesn't mention this one. We conclude that it closed.
View Case Detail (PN-OH-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2016
North Baton Rouge Matters v. City of Baton Rouge
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-00463-JWD-RLB (M.D. La.)
PN-LA-0005
On July 13, 2016, organizations whose members have participated in and witnessed protests in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in response to the death of Alton Sterling, filed this civil rights lawsuit in the District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs sued the City of Baton Rouge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants and their high-ranking policymaking officials intentionally developed and implemented customs, practices, and/or policies under which protestors are detained, harassed, threatened, dispersed, and charged for allegedly obstructing vehicular traffic on public streets, even when the protestors are engaged in no actual obstruction and create no risk to pedestrian or traffic safety. Other than a dismissal of the claims as to East Baton Rouge Paris District Attorney, there has not been much movement on this case. The Clearinghouse will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available.
View Case Detail (PN-LA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2016
Thompson v. Alabama
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-00783-WKW-CSC (M.D. Ala.)
CJ-AL-0015
On September 26, 2016, a class of would-be Alabama voters brought this case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, challenging the voting disqualification of people convicted of crimes of "moral turpitude." The case is assigned to Chief Judge William Keith Watkins.
View Case Detail (CJ-AL-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2016
Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 2-03-cv-01577 (E.D. Pa.)
DR-PA-0001
After years of litigation, the Third Circuit found in 2011 that SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Tranportation Authority) had violated the ADA by failing to make several subway stations accessible for people with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs. The parties settled a few months later for a consent decree that provided that SEPTA would install several elevators at the relevant stations, make fare lines accessible, and pay attorneys fees of about $500,000. It also required SEPTA to provide status reports to plaintiffs counsel, quarterly.
View Case Detail (DR-PA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2016
Brown v. Free Library of Philadelphia
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 2:12-cv-02373 (E.D. Pa.)
DR-PA-0002
Four blind or visually impaired library patrons sued the Free Library of Philadelphia in in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking relief under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the ADA. They alleged that the Library's new program to lend e-reading devices was discriminatory, because the Nook Simple Touch devices the library had procured were inaccessible to visually impaired users, and because accessible alternative devices were available. The parties entered a settlement and the case was dismissed. The library agreed to transition to the exclusive use of accessible devices within four years, and to add ten accessible e-readers within 60 days of the settlement date.
View Case Detail (DR-PA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2016
EEOC v. AutoZone, INC.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:06-cv-00926-SMM (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0009
On March 30, 2016, the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiff sued the automobile repairer AutoZone, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff, representing a female employee of AutoZone Inc., asked the court for monetary relief for the complainant and injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from future discrimination on the basis of sex. The plaintiff claimed that she had faced discrimination on the basis of her sex. The fury found AutoZone Inc. liable to the complainant for $15,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. On June 25, 2009, Judge McNamee partially granted the EEOC's motion to amend the judgment to include equitable relief.
View Case Detail (EE-AZ-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 14, 2016
Cruz v. Dollar Tree Stores
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:07-cv-02050-SC (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0345
On April 11, 2007, two individuals, both store managers of Dollar Tree Stores, filed this class action lawsuit against Dollar Tree in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that they were improperly classified as exempt managers and denied wages for ...
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0345)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2016
Stokes v. Realpage
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-01520 (E.D. Pa.)
CJ-PA-0003
On March 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consumer class action on behalf of consumers nationwide who had been the subject of misleading and inaccurate background reports sold by the defendant, RealPage, Inc. to landlords. The plaintiffs sued in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging that the defendant, RealPage, Inc., adopted and maintained a policy and practice of failing to timely update the criminal record information it maintains so as to eliminate records of cases that have been expunged, thus not accurately reflecting the final disposition of these cases. Moreover, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant systematically violated FCRA by failing to provide complete and accurate disclosures of all information the defendant maintains about consumers to these consumers upon request. After the case was stayed and put in suspense pending a Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, it was put back on the docket on June 20, 2016. Shortly thereafter the defendant's filed a motion to dismiss count two of the plaintiffs' complaint, but that motion was denied on October 18, 2016. This case is still ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-PA-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2016
Tonn and Blank Construction v. Sebelius
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:12-cv-00325-JD-RBC (N.D. Ind.)
FA-IN-0006
On September 20, 2012, a limited liability corporation that provides health insurance for its employees filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, asking the court to issue an injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act extending universal contraception coverage to employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the District Court granted a permanent injunction for the plaintiffs against the version of the mandate challenged in that case, which would have required them to include contraception as part of their insurance package for their employees.
View Case Detail (FA-IN-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2016
Ozinga v. Sebelius
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-03292 (N.D. Ill.)
FA-IL-0005
In 2013, the Christian owners of a corporation filed this lawsuit seeking an exemption from the ACA's contraception mandate under the APA, RFRA, and First Amendment. On July 16, 2013, the Northern District of the U.S. District of Illinois granted a preliminary injunction in this case. On September 30, 2015, the District Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, following the Court's decision in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. Plaintiff had requested an injunction of any regulation related to the ACA's contraception mandate, but the Court limited the injunction to the regulations implementing the mandate, that were at issue in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and plaintiff's complaint. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Zubik v. Burwell [II] to remand the relevant cases to the lower courts so plaintiffs and the government could try to come to accord, the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on this case on November 1, 2016
View Case Detail (FA-IL-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2016
Cerda v. Restaurant Associates
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:04-cv-03394 (E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0247
On August 9, 2004, the plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all Hispanic and/or non-white refreshment concession personnel who were hired, employed or offered employment by the defendants, Restaurant Associates and RA Tennis Corp. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of national origin and race respecting the assignment of positions and locations to food vendors employed at the U.S. Open Tennis Tournament. Specifically, they alleged that the defendants were deliberately and overwhelmingly assigning beer wagons to non-Hispanic white people over other demographics. The parties soon reached a settlement which was approved by U.S. District Court Judge Robert M. Levy, and Restaurant Associates agreed to pay damages. This case is closed.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0247)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 10, 2016
Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:06-cv-03903-TEH (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0334
Female financial advisors working for Morgan Stanley filed a Title VII class action alleging gender discrimination. Amended complaints added plaintiffs and claims for racial discrimination. The gender action was stayed and was resolved in another lawsuit. The parties settled the racial discrimination claims, with Morgan Stanley agreeing to injunctive relief and to pay $16m to class members. After several modifications, the settlement is set to expire September 30, 2017.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0334)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 10, 2016
The Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, Inc.
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: Case 1:11-cv-06351-HB (S.D.N.Y.)
DR-NY-0004
A group of universities, led by the University of Michigan, organized the HathiTrust, which collaborated with Google to digitally scan the contents of their libraries and make their collections available online to researchers and library patrons. On September 12, 2011, the Authors Guild and several other groups representing the interests of publishers and authors filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against the HathiTrust and several affiliated universities, alleging copyright violation. The National Federation for the Blind joined the case as an intervening defendant, arguing that the HathiTrust provided a resource essential to making libraries accessible to blind patrons, and that its actions were permissible under the fair use exceptions of the Copyright Act and under the ADA. The court ruled in favor of the defendants and intervening defendants on summary judgment, but denied their motions for attorneys' fees.
View Case Detail (DR-NY-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 10, 2016
EEOC v. Catholic Healthcare West (d/b/a Northridge Medical Hospital Center)
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:06-cv-01915-DDP-SS (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0153
The Los Angeles District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Catholic Healthcare West dba Northridge Hospital Medical Center in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in March 2006. The complaint alleged sex discrimination in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. A consent decree including monetary and injunctive relief was filed for this case on August 28th, 2008. Its effective period was 33 months, and there is nothing more on the docket - so presumably the matter ended in 2011.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0153)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 10, 2016
Ambat v. City and County of San Francisco
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:07-cv-03622 (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0310
This federal lawsuit in the Northern District of California involves a fair employment challenge to the San Francisco Sheriff Department's policy of staffing its women's jail with only female deputies. It was filed in 2007 and settled in 2010 for updated policies in the City of San Francisco and individually tailored settlements for each plaintiff with retaliation claims. The Ninth Circuit found that the county was not entitled to summary judgment based on its policy, but also found that the county met its burden of establishing that their policy and justification of job qualifications were reasonably necessary to operating the county jails, but found fact issues as to whether the policy of excluding male deputies was a legitimate proxy.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0310)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 10, 2016
Barry v. Corrigan
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 13-cv-13185 (E.D. Mich.)
PB-MI-0006
On July 24, 2013, a group of individuals who had been denied Food Assistance without proper notification due to a "criminal justice disqualification," filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Michigan Department of Human Services (MDHS). On January 9, 2015 U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy granted class certification and summary judgement for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs continue to work with MDHS to implement all ordered changes to their administration of FAP benefits. In Fall 2013, both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment, but no decision on either Motion has yet been made. The case is ongoing as of September 25, 2014.
View Case Detail (PB-MI-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 10, 2016
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:01-cv-02252 (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0303
In 2001, a female Wal-Mart employee filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of California under Title VII, specifically alleging gender discrimination. Two named Plaintiffs also brought claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act for racial discrimination. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2010 to determine the class certification standard. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs had not shown a common question of fact, as required for class certification under Rule 23(a)(2), and further that the evidence presented of Wal-Mart's alleged discriminatory policies was insufficient to warrant class certification. The court enunciated a "significant proof" standard that it held the Plaintiffs had not met. The majority additionally held that Plaintiffs' statistical and anecdotal evidence did not point to a "single common question." The aggrieved female employees may sue Wal-Mart individually if they so choose. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on October 27, 2011, seeking class certification in line with different standards since the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case. The court denied class certification, and the plaintiffs' subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit was denied. After two more years of discovery, six new women moved to intervene as plaintiffs. The next day, the parties moved to voluntarily and jointly dismiss the case as they had reached a confidential settlement agreement, leading the Court to order the intervenor's motion moot. On August 16, 2016, the parties wishing to intervene appealed to the Ninth Circuit, whose decision to review is pending.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0303)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 9, 2016
B.H. v. Johnson
Case Category: Child Welfare
Trial Docket: 1:88-cv-5599 (N.D. Ill.)
CW-IL-0003
The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in 1988 against the state of Illinois on behalf of all children in the custody of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) who have been placed somewhere other than with their parents. The plaintiffs alleged that DCFS assigned too many cases to caseworkers, placed children in inappropriate institutions, and failed to respond to reports of child abuse. The parties entered a consent agreement under the supervision of a court monitor in 1991. The parties modified the consent decree in 1997, and again in 2003. As of August, 2012, DCFS was still out of compliance because investigator caseloads were too high. The parties negotiated an implementation plan to address investigation caseloads. Litigation resumed in February, 2015 to bring DCFS back in compliance again, resulting in an amended implementation plan incorporating expert recommendations.
View Case Detail (CW-IL-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 9, 2016
Hill v. Snyder
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 5:10-cv-14568-JCO-RSW (E.D. Mich.)
CJ-MI-0003
In November of 2010, juvenile prisoners filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the State of Michigan, challenging the state law that prohibited the Michigan Parole Board from considering for parole those sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder. On January 30, 2013, the Court held that plaintiffs are entitled to a fair and meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that they are appropriate parole candidates, and ordered both parties to provide briefs on what would constitute a "fair and meaningful" opportunity. The defendants appealed the orders from the District Court. On May 11, 2016 the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case, urging the District Court to consider new Supreme Court cases and new Michigan Law. On August 3, 2016 the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, to prevent re-sentencing of juvenile offenders. The case is still pending.
View Case Detail (CJ-MI-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2016
Wynne v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaraunts Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 4:06-cv-03153 (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0305
This case was brought by African American employees of McCormick and Schmick's Restaurants seeking equitable relief and damages to remedy alleged discrimination based on race. The case was settled in August 2008, resulting in more than $2 million for Plaintiffs, as well as injunctive relief relating to hiring, promotion, training, and reporting.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0305)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2016
Stone v. Boone
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 73-1083 (D. Mass.)
PC-MA-0013
In October 1974, prisoners at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Walpole, Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Massachusetts Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The prisoners alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by a lack of books in the law library at the prison. A consent decree was issued in 1974 for the creation of a law library. Plaintiff, Andrew Kilburn, again brought suit for a violation of that consent decree which was dismissed. In 2014, Charles E. Kaine filed a complaint for the enforcement of the consent decree. The defendants motioned to terminate it. The Court granted the defendants' motion finding the consent decree no longer equitable.
View Case Detail (PC-MA-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2016
EEOC v. Ceisel Masonry, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-02075 (N.D. Ill.)
EE-IL-0041
On April 13, 2006, the Chicago District Office of the EEOC brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff sued Ceisel Masonry under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S. Code § 1981. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had created a hostile work environment. On May 22, 2009 the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber approved a consent decree between the two parties.
View Case Detail (EE-IL-0041)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2016
EEOC v. Leo Palace Resort
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-00028 (D. Guam)
EE-GU-0001
On September 29, 2006, the Los Angeles District Office of the EEOC brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam. The plaintiff sued Leo Palace Resort under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices by subjecting female employees to sexual harassment and by retaliating against employees for complaining of discrimination. On March 21, 2008 Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood approved a consent decree between the two parties. The consent decree required the defendant to pay the complainants a total of $243,000. It also required the defendant to create an anti-discrimination policy; institute a complaint procedure; hire an outside consultant to ensure compliance with the decree; post and distribute a notice of equal opportunity employment rights; and conduct annual training for all employees.
View Case Detail (EE-GU-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2016
EEOC v. Benni's, LLC (d/b/a Bennigan's)
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:06-cv-01287-WWE (D. Conn.)
EE-CT-0004
On August 17, 2006 the Boston Area Office and New York District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs sued Benni's LLC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant subjected the complaining parties to a sexually hostile work environment, leading to one employee's constructive discharge. On March 28, 2008, Judge Warren W. Eginton granted a motion for default judgment. The default judgment damages included injunctive relief in the form of postings, anti-discriminatory policies, trainings, and monitoring. It also required the defendant to pay a total of $190,000 to the two employees and to pay their attorney fees.
View Case Detail (EE-CT-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2016
EEOC v. Beall Concrete Enterprises, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3-06CV1779-M (N.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0062
On September 28, 2006, The Dallas District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff sued Beall Concrete Enterprises, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Concrete, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. On April 3, 2008, Judge Reed O'Connor approved a consent decree over the remaining claim that the defendant had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The consent decree required the defendant to pay the complainant $50,000 in backpay, conduct ADEA training for its employees for two years, and post a notice about federal anti-discrimination employment laws.
View Case Detail (EE-TX-0062)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2016
EEOC v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:05-cv-05445 (N.D. Ill.)
EE-IL-0030
On September 21, 2005 the Chicago District Office of the EEOC filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff sued Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire LLC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff claimed that African American and Hispanic employees were subjected to different terms and conditions of employment and were subjected to a hostile work environment because of their race and national origin. The plaintiff also alleged that one employee was discharged in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. On May 21, 2008 the Honorable Arlander Keys signed the consent decree. The decree included injunctive and monetary relief.
View Case Detail (EE-IL-0030)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2016
Stapleton v. Singletary Jr.
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 88-14178 (S.D. Fla.)
PC-FL-0025
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PC-FL-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 6, 2016
EEOC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS (D. Colo.)
EE-CO-0024
On September 29, 2006, the Denver Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs sued Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. under Title VII. The plaintiff claimed that Home Depot retaliated against the former employee when it terminated her employment five weeks after it issued her a settlement check for a previous suit resolving charges of discrimination. On July 29, 2009, Judge Lewis T. Babcock approved a settlement agreement. The agreement included injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from retaliating against employees who complain about violations of Title VII and monetary relief of $84,750. The agreement's effective period was two years, and there is nothing further in the docket - so presumably the matter ended in 2011.
View Case Detail (EE-CO-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 6, 2016
Duling v. Gristede's Operating Corp.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-10197 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0253
On October 23, 2006 a class action lawsuit was brought against Gristede's Operating Corp., a retail chain of grocery stores under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other Federal and state laws. The plaintiffs, former female cashiers, claimed the Defendant engaged in discriminatory practices of placing, promoting and compensating women with the effect of denying the equal opportunities. The court eventually certified the class in 2010, and approved a settlement in 2013 that included $1,450,000 in monetary award, and corrective measures to be enforced by a compliance officer. The case was closed on August 14, 2013 with the parties still negotiating attorneys' fees.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0253)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 6, 2016
United States v. East Haven
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 3:12-cv-1652-AWT (D. Conn.)
PN-CT-0001
On November 20, 2012, the United States of America filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 against the Town of East Haven and the East Haven Board of Police Commissioners, alleging the East Haven Police Department enforced traffic and immigration laws against Latinos in a discriminatory fashion. The parties entered into an Agreement for Effective and Constitutional Policing and the Court conditionally dismissed the case on December 21, 2012. Since then, the parties have been jointly modifying the agreement, and filing compliance reports, the most recent being filed in September 2016. This leads us to believe the reporting is still ongoing.
View Case Detail (PN-CT-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 5, 2016
Jensen v. Solvay America, Inc.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:06-cv-273 (D. Wyo.)
EE-WY-0008
On November 15, 2006, current and former employees of Solvay Chemicals, Inc. filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. The plaintiffs sued Solvay America, Inc., Solvay Chemicals, Inc., and Solvay America Companies Pension Plan under the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), claiming that the defendants violated the ERISA and the ADEA by converting the Solvay America Comapanies Pension Plan from a final average pay formula to a cash balance formula. On February 8, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and approved the plaintiffs' ADEA claims. After granting some of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, and a brief trial, U.S. District Court Judge Johnson ordered that the plaintiffs would not recover from the defendants and that the defendants would recover their costs. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and certiorari was denied. After the defendants filed receipts for exhibits in May and June of 2015, there has been no further movement on the case and there is no reason to believe it is still active.
View Case Detail (EE-WY-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 4, 2016
Small v. Martin
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 5:85-cv-00987 (E.D.N.C.)
PC-NC-0005
On July 8, 1985, prisoners filed a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs, represented by North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services and private counsel, sought relief from living conditions alleged to be unconstitutional at 49 minimum and medium security prisons in North Carolina that utilized dormitory-style housing where prisoners slept on bunks in large rooms. On December 28, 1988, a settlement agreement was reached, and on April 3, 1989 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina approved the settlement agreement. However, the state's efforts to comply with the terms of the consent decree were frustrated by unexpected increases in prison admissions - from a level of 17,000 admissions per year in 1988 to almost 31,000 per year by 1992 - so on October 13, 1993, the state petitioned to modify the consent decree. On June 28, 1994, U.S. District Court Judge William Earl Britt granted the requested modification of the decree. On 20 February 1997, the court determined that all provisions of the settlement agreement had been fully implemented and the court’s supervisory jurisdiction was terminated at that time. The case was closed.
View Case Detail (PC-NC-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 4, 2016
Jewett v. California Forensic Medical Group
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0126
This case was filed in 2013 by an inmate at Shasta County Jail claiming that the prison had inflicted on his rights as a prisoner with a mobility disability. The case is currently in the pretrial phase, awaiting a court date.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0126)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2016
Aref v. Holder
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:10-cv-00539-RMU (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0023
Five inmates in the custody of the BOP filed suit in April, 2010 in the District Court for the District of Columbia alleging violations of their First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights as well as a violation of the APA's notice and comment rulemaking requirement. The inmates had been transferred to experimental "Communications Management Units," (CMUs) which restricted their ability to communicate and banned physical contact with visitors. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in part.
View Case Detail (PC-DC-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 3, 2016
Investigation of Multnomah County Jails By Multnomah DA's office
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: No Court Case (No Court)
JC-OR-0007
On June 15, 2006, the Multnomah County, Oregon Board of Commissioners passed a resolution granting the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office the authority to conduct a full investigation into the policies and procedures of the corrections facilities operated by the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. Based on this investigation, the D.A. issued a 136-page comprehensive report, detailing his findings and recommendations regarding several areas of concern.
View Case Detail (JC-OR-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 1, 2016
J.H. v. Hinds County
Case Category: Juvenile Institution
Trial Docket: 3:11-cv-00327-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss.)
JI-MS-0008
On June 1, 2011, a juvenile detainee filed a class action suit against Hinds County, Mississippi for cruel and unusual punishment, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. After amending the complaint to include new plaintiffs and a class of disabled plaintiffs, as well as charges of violating Protection and Advocacy statutes, the parties submitted a settlement agreement the was signed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on May 27, 2012. On April 25, 2014, because of the defendant's lack of compliance with the agreement, the Court extended the agreement beyond the original 2 year period upon which the parties agreed - the extension is until March 28, 2016.
View Case Detail (JI-MS-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2016
EEOC v. Paragary's Management Group
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:05-cv-01983-MCE-DAD (E.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0161
On September 29, 2005 the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiff sued Paragary's Management Group, Paramoor, Inc., and PDK Partnership under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC represented claimants who alleged the defendants had subjected them to a hostile work environment and disparate treatment. On April 29, 2009 Judge Morrison C. England approved and ordered a consent decree to be in effect for three years. The decree granted permanent injunctive relief and $60,000 in monetary damages. There is nothing more in the docket, so presumably the matter ended in 2012.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0161)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2016
EEOC v. Foam Works, LLC
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:06-cv-02146-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0087
On September 27, 2006, The EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Easter District of California. The plaintiff sued Foam Works, LLC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. On October 12, 2007, District Judge Morrison C. England approved and ordered a proposed consent decree. The consent decree required the Defendant to pay the complainant $21,500 in compensatory damages. The Defendant was also required to conduct annual training on harassment, institute a confidential complaint procedure, retain pertinent records, and allow the EEOC to inspect documents with twenty days notice.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0087)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2016
Jones v. Murphy
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:05-cv-01287-CCB (D. Md.)
JC-MD-0007
This class action lawsuit was filed on May 12, 2005 by two male arrestees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that they and all male arrestees taken to Central Booking were subjected to unconstitutional strip searches and many were subjected to "over detentions" in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The District Court (District Judge Catherine C. Blake) partially granted the defendant motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary judgment and a motion to certify the case as a class action. The defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. On July 11, 2008, the district court (Judge Blake) granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue and denied the defendants' motion.

On March 19, 2009, the district court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. As of the date of this summary, litigation and discovery in the case continued.
View Case Detail (JC-MD-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2016
EEOC v. Corrections Corporation of America
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW (D. Colo.)
EE-CO-0015
In September 2006, the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, against Crowley County Correctional Facility, a Colorado prison, and related corporate entities. The complaint was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that the defendant allowed female employees to be sexually harassed by their co-workers and retaliated against these employees when they complained. On October 1, 2009, Judge Kathryn H. Vratil ordered a consent decree. The decree granted plaintiffs $1,300,000 and enjoined the defendants from future discriminatory practices. The decree's effective period was three years, and there is nothing more in the docket - so presumably the matter ended in 2012.
View Case Detail (EE-CO-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2016
EEOC v. Kovacevich 5 Farms
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:06-CV-00165 REC (E.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0119
On February 13, 2006, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs sued Kovacevich 5 farms for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1946. The EEOC represented six female applicants who alleged that Kovavevich 5 Farms had refused to hire them because of their sex. On November 26, 2008 District Court Judge Oliver W. Wagner approved the proposed consent decree. The consent decree was set to last for five years and included both injunctive relief and $1,680,000 in monetary relief. Its effective period was five years, and there is nothing further on the docket - so presumably the matter ended in 2013.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0119)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2016
Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs.
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 12-cv-00092 (E.D. Mo.)
FA-MO-0003
In 2012, a for-profit general business corporation and its owners filed this lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri against the Federal Government challenging the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. In 2014, the plaintiffs added three additional plaintiffs including two non-profit corporations. In 2015, the for-profit plaintiffs won a permanent injunction against the mandate. The non-profit plaintiffs' case is ongoing following the Supreme Court's decision in Zubik v. Burwell [II].
View Case Detail (FA-MO-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2016
EEOC v. Hometown Buffet
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 3:06-cv-02150-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0101
On September 29, 2006, the Los Angeles District Office of the EEOC filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs sued Hometown Buffet Inc. under for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. On July 22, 2009, Judge Michael M. Anello approved the proposed consent decree put forth by the parties. Its effective period was two years, and there is nothing more on the docket - so presumably the matter ended in 2011.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0101)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2016
Hilgert v. May
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 7:07-CV-00094 (S.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0450
This case was brought by an employee of George S. May International Company against his employer seeking damages as a result of age discrimination and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in May 2007. Court-order mediation failed to resolve the case. In October 2009, Judge Ricardo Hinojosa of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim and hostile work environment claim. The Court allowed discovery on the plaintiff's age discrimination claim. Discovery continued for several years. In March 2012, the plaintiff filed motion for summary judgment. The defendants failed to reply to this motion, and failed to act in the case generally for a year. On September 28, 2012, Judge Hinojosa granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding $30,873 is total damages to the plaintiff.
View Case Detail (EE-TX-0450)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 30, 2016
Liddell v. Board of Education for the City of St. Louis
Case Category: School Desegregation
Trial Docket: No. 72-100C(1) (E.D. Mo.)
SD-MO-0001
On February 18, 1972, five Black parents and their minor children filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs sued Board of Education of the City of St. Louis and a number of its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants operated city schools in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed racial discrimination in the operation of the St. Louis Public Schools. On October 3, 1973, after discovery proceedings by the parties, U.S. District Court Judge James H. Meredith allowed the case to proceed as a class action. On October 30, 1973, Judge Meredith denied the defendants' motion to direct the plaintiffs to add the state of Missouri and various of its' agencies and officials, as well as twenty school districts in St. Louis County (a separate entity from the city) and the county's board of education as defendants in the case. More than twenty-five years of litigation followed, which included the design, approval, and adoption of the nation's first voluntary interdistrict student transfer program used to settle a school desegregation case.
View Case Detail (SD-MO-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 28, 2016
In re: Delaware County Prison
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 94-5209 (E.D. Pa.)
JC-PA-0012
In 1994, Muslim inmates of Delaware County Prison filed a class action suit, pro se, alleging that the prison refused to allow them to engage in mandatory religious service. The court appointed private counsel to the plaintiffs and a settlement was reached. The settlement established a procedure for claims of noncompliance and set up a religious service for Muslims, limited to 100 people a week. In 1996, a letter was filed complaining of noncompliance. The Court treated this as a motion to enforce the agreement and ended up denying it.
View Case Detail (JC-PA-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 28, 2016
Prisoner A v. State of Vermont
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-00221 (D. Vt.)
PC-VT-0006
In 2015, the plaintiff filed this in the U.S. District Court of Vermont alleging disability-based discrimination while incarcerated. The plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive, compensatory, and punitive relief and the judge dismissed the matter after the parties reached a full settlement.
View Case Detail (PC-VT-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 27, 2016
Cliett v. City of Philadelphia
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 85-1846 (E.D. Pa.)
PN-PA-0008
The plaintiffs, individuals who were stopped by the police during "Operation Cold Turkey," which was carried out in an attempt to reduce drug-related activity in certain areas of the city, brought a lawsuit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sued the City and the Police Commissioner alleging that "Operation Cold Turkey" was unconstitutional because it caused them to be stopped based solely on their presence in the targeted high-crime areas. On April 10, 1985 U.S. District Court Judge Donald W. VanArtsdalen approved a consent decree which ordered the police to observe all constitutional requirements in carrying out "Operation Cold Turkey" and to refrain from stopping individuals based solely on their presence in the target areas. On November 13, 1986, the court ordered a settlement agreement, by which the City of Philadelphia was to pay the members of the class $500,000 and counsel fees.
View Case Detail (PN-PA-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 27, 2016
Campaign for Southern Equality v. Mississippi Department of Human Services
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:15-cv-00578-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss.)
PB-MS-0005
Same-sex couples and advocate organizations brought lawsuit against the Mississippi Department of Human Services, the Governor of Mississippi, the Mississippi DOJ, and the Mississippi judiciary under 42 U.S § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of the Mississippi ban on same-sex adoptions in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell. The district judge issued preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Mississippi Department of Human services and affirmed plaintiff's contention that the ban was unconstitutional.
View Case Detail (PB-MS-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 27, 2016
Sardakowski v. Clements
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:12-cv-01326-RBJ-KLM (D. Colo.)
PC-CO-0024
The plaintiff, an inmate who suffers from severe mental illness and has a mental disability, sued the Colorado Department of Corrections pro se. Later, while represented by the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement center, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, by placing him in solitary confinement, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment and discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. In April 2014, the parties began negotiations for settlement, and on July 24, 2015, they agreed to a private settlement. On July 27, 2015, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. This case is closed.
View Case Detail (PC-CO-0024)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 27, 2016
ACLU v. US Department of Justice
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 2:09-cv-00642-RSL (W.D. Wash.)
NS-WA-0002
On May 8, 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") of Washington filed this lawsuit in the District Court for the Western District of Washington. The ACLU sued the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). The ACLU asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the DOJ to disclose and release records it was improperly withholding from the ACLU regarding the National Crime Information Center Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File ("CVGTOF"), which contains entries on suspected terrorist organizations and individuals. Though the DOJ moved to dismiss the case, on March 10, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Robert S. Lasnik only granted the motion to dismiss in part, and ordered the DOJ to edit any inappropriate redactions and provide the Court with more facts that would justify a claimed exemption. After some back and forth regarding the confidentiality of the requested documents, the DOJ was required to release certain documents and on March 7, 2013 the parties came to an agreement whereby the United States was to pay the ACLU $50,000 within 60 days via wire transfer, as full settlement for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the ACLU in this lawsuit. This case is closed.
View Case Detail (NS-WA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 27, 2016
Johnson v. Shaffer
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0017
This civil rights class action was filed in 2012 in the Eastern District of California; it alleged due process violations when the state arbitrarily denied parole to nearly all lifers who had served their minimum sentence. On October 2, 2015, the parties entered into an agreement by which the defendants agreed to make changes to the psychological risk assessment processes used by the parole board. The Court approved the settlement in May 2016, and retained jurisdiction over the case until January 1, 2017, with the plaintiffs' able to get an extension of the Court's jurisdiction if the defendants fail to abide by the agreed upon terms.
View Case Detail (CJ-CA-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 25, 2016
Doe v. Ashcroft
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:04-cv-02614 (S.D.N.Y.)
NS-NY-0004
In April 2004, an internet access and consulting corporation filed suit in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the United States and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after the FBI directed it to disclose names, addresses, and records of communications relating to one of its clients pursuant to a National Security Letter (NSL). The complaint claimed that NSLs issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2709 violated the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. The District Court ordered the United States to alter several portions of the NSL and in July 2010, dismissed the lawsuit.
View Case Detail (NS-NY-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
October 24, 2016
Bailey v. City of Philadelphia
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 2:10-cv-05952 (E.D. Pa.)
PN-PA-0013
On November 4, 2010, eight African American male residents of Philadelphia filled a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Pennsylvania state law in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia division. The Plaintiffs sued the City of Philadelphia and individual police officers claiming that as a result of the defendants' policies, customs, and procedures, members of the Plaintiff class had been subject to unconstitutional searches, seizures, frisks and detentions by the defendants, and at times those stops were accompanied by unreasonable levels of force. On June 21, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Galzell entered an order accepting a binding settlement agreement, class certification, and consent decree between the parties and appointing a monitor. The agreement was to stay in place until the Court, upon motion of a party, determined it was no longer needed to ensure that the PPD stop and frisk policies and practices are consistent with constitutional standards. As of March 22, 2016, the plaintiffs were still submitting status reports to the Court, and there was also a status conference held on that day which leads us to believe the case is still active.
View Case Detail (PN-PA-0013)