University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Here are the cases added to the Clearinghouse, or updated, over the past 90 days:


CASE ADDITIONS
January 26, 2020
Thuraissigiam v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:18–cv–00135 (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0153
On January 19, 2018, a Sri Lankan citizen--arrested after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without documentation and placed in expedited deportation proceedings--filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Homeland ...
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0153)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 20, 2020
Does, 1-104 v. Wasden
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00429 (D. Idaho)
CJ-ID-0003
More than 100 sex offenders are challenging Idaho’s laws that require registration and community notification of sex offenders, saying the laws violate an array of constitutional rights, from the prohibition on double jeopardy to freedom of religion. The lawsuit seeks a permanent order to stop the state and its counties from enforcing some portions of the law. On April 5, 2019, Judge Nye dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice because the plaintiffs failed to tie facts to specific constitutional violations. On May 5, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As of January 20, 2020, this case is pending in the Court of Appeals.
View Case Detail (CJ-ID-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 20, 2020
State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-07777 (S.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0069
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (IM-NY-0069)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 20, 2020
Justice Network v. Craighead County
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-00169 (E.D. Ark.)
CJ-AR-0005
In 2017, the plaintiff, a private probation company, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Plaintiff alleged that two defendant-judges unlawfully forgave fees owed by probation clients to the plaintiff. The district court granted each defendant’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case. The case is now presumed to be closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-AR-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 20, 2020
Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. City of LaGrange
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-00067-TCB (N.D. Ga.)
PB-GA-0009
The Georgia NAACP and other plaintiffs challenged policies in place in the City of LaGrange, GA, limiting provision of utility service to individuals with outstanding court debt and to individuals who lack photo identification and valid social security numbers. The case was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. On October 10, 2019, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s decision and remand the case for further proceedings. The case is pending discovery.
View Case Detail (PB-GA-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 19, 2020
Kennicott v. Sandia Corporation
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-00188-JB-GJF (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0065
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-NM-0065)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 19, 2020
Long v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-01991-PBT (E.D. Pa.)
EE-PA-0251
In 2016, three individuals who had applied for jobs at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed this class action complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (SEPTA). The plaintiffs alleged that SEPTA had violated federal fair credit law and state law regarding anti-discrimination in hiring. The case was dismissed for lack of standing, and the named parties appealed in 2017. On October 16, 2018, the third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim based on SEPTA’s failure to provide them with notice of their FCRA rights, but reversed the dismissal of the claim based on SEPTA’s failure to provide them with copies of their consumer reports and remanded for further proceedings. On August 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (EE-PA-0251)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 19, 2020
Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council v. City of Maplewood
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 4:17-cv-00886-PLC (E.D. Mo.)
FH-MO-0006
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (FH-MO-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 18, 2020
Little v. Frederick
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 6:17-cv-00724 (W.D. La.)
CJ-LA-0007
The plaintiff filed a class action on behalf of all arrestees who are or will be detained for any amount of time after an arrest because they are unable to pay money bail. Under a § 1983 action, he claimed that a wealth-based post-arrest detention policy violates equal protection and due process under the 14th amendment by jailing the poor for no reason other than their poverty.
View Case Detail (CJ-LA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 18, 2020
Staples Accessible Web Site and Point of Sale Settlement Agreement
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: NA (No Court)
DR-CA-0007
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (DR-CA-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 18, 2020
Hayden v. Keller
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 5:10-ct-3123-BO (E.D.N.C.)
CJ-NC-0006
In 2010, an inmate serving a life sentence in North Carolina for a juvenile offense filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The plaintiff alleged that he had been deprived of a meaningful opportunity for parole in violation of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The court held that the parole review process employed by the Parole Commission for offenders convicted as juveniles and serving life sentences violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Both parties submitted proposed plans to bring the parole review process into compliance. On Nov. 2, 2017, the court granted the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and adopted the defendant's proposed plan. The defendant appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which was later voluntarily dismissed.
View Case Detail (CJ-NC-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 18, 2020
M.B. v. Tidball
Case Category: Child Welfare
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-04102-NKL (W.D. Mo.)
CW-MO-0003
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (CW-MO-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 16, 2020
Lippert v. Godinez
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:10-cv-04603 (N.D. Ill.)
PC-IL-0032
In 2010, a prisoner from the Stateville Correction Center filed this case in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case certified a class of all prisoners in Illinois who receive medical or dental care. The plaintiffs alleged long-standing, systemic violations of Eighth Amendment rights in the failure to properly follow prescribe procedures for prisoners' medical treatment. After lengthy litigation, the parties settled on the eve of trial in 2019. The defendants are currently under a consent decree to reform medical care in the Illinois prisons. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-IL-0032)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 15, 2020
Dowl v. Williams
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-00119-HRH (D. Alaska)
PC-AK-0002
Two practicing Muslim prisoners at the Anchorage Correctional Complex filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in May 2018. They alleged that the prison instituted a "Ramadan Policy" during the Ramadan seasons of 2017 and 2018 that provided them with meals that were less in number and nutritional content than that which was legally required, and in some cases included pork, which their faith forbids them from eating. Plaintiffs alleged that this "Ramadan Policy" violated their rights under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. On May 23, 2018, they obtained a temporary restraining order compelling the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide them with legally adequate meals that met their religious needs through the end of Ramadan that year. In September 2019, the parties settled for injunctive and monetary relief.
View Case Detail (PC-AK-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 15, 2020
Georgia Advocacy Office v. Jackson
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-01634-WMR-JFK (N.D. Ga.)
JC-GA-0034
In April 2019, two female detainees in the South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail and the Georgia Advocacy Office filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and the Americans with Disabilities Act by placing detainees with mental disabilities in prolonged solitary confinement, maintaining conditions of confinement that deprived the plaintiffs of basic human needs, excluding plaintiffs and other women from the competency restoration program on the basis of sex, and denying plaintiffs’ access to important services and programs solely by reason of their disabilities. The court granted a preliminary injunction in July 2019, which the defendants appeals. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-GA-0034)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 14, 2020
Horse v. District of Columbia
Case Category: Policing
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-01216 (D.D.C.)
PN-DC-0013
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (PN-DC-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 14, 2020
Graves v. Arpaio
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:77-cv-00479 (D. Ariz.)
JC-AZ-0008
In 1977, a group of pretrial detainees incarcerated in Maricopa County Jail filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office denied them constitutional rights related to overcrowding, insufficient medical care, and lack of access to courts. In 1981, the parties entered into a Consent Decree which remained in force until it was superseded by a stipulated Amended Judgment entered on January 10, 1995. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued its Fourth Amended Judgment, which terminated part of the prior judgments, but which kept some of the previous injunctive rulings in effect. The parties continued to litigate compliance until September 2019, when Judge Wake terminated the case. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (JC-AZ-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 14, 2020
Center for Independence of the Disabled v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:17-cv-02990-KBF (S.D.N.Y.)
DR-NY-0012
On April 25th, 2017, a group of New York City disability rights organizations and three individual disabled New York City residents who use wheelchairs and have frequently encountered subway outages filed this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the interim executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the New York City Transit Authority, the acting president of the New York City Transit Authority, and the City of New York, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ failure to maintain the limited number of elevators in the subway caused the systematic discriminatory exclusion of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers with mobility disabilities from New York City’s subway system in violation of state and federal law. After extensive discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment on August 9, 2019. An oral argument was held on October 24 but Judge George B. Daniels reserved a decision on the motions. The case is still ongoing.
View Case Detail (DR-NY-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 13, 2020
Al-Mowafak v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-00557 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0088
This class action was filed on Feb. 2, 2017 in response to President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO) ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU of Northern California and private counsel, also challenged the Department of State's Jan. 27 letter "provisionally revoking all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas" of nationals of these nations. The action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. On Mar. 6, 2017, prompted by adverse developments in the Washington v. Trump litigation in the 9th Circuit, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780. The plaintiffs quickly responded to the new EO. On Mar. 13, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, arguing that the new EO resolved "none of [the] fatal flaws" of the first EO. In addition to the violations stated in the first complaint, the amended complaint added that the EO violated the separation of powers "because it is contrary to Congress’s establishment of uniform rules of naturalization, as expressed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and because it exceeds the President’s constitutional authority at the expense of Congress’s power to legislate." On Mar. 16, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, to which defendants responded in opposition on Mar. 30. In the meantime, other litigation against the second EO proceeded across the country, with some rulings ultimately having nationwide effects. On Mar. 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii enjoined the second EO in Hawaii v. Trump. Across the country in Maryland, the District Court also granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against portions of the EO in the IRAP v. Trump case. The government appealed in both cases. On Jun. 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to review both cases. In response to the Hawaii ruling, the U.S. filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome of that 9th Circuit appeal. Judge Orrick set the preliminary injunction hearing for May 31, after oral arguments took place in the 9th Circuit. However, in light of the 4th Circuit's ruling in IRAP v. Trump, the court vacated the preliminary injunction hearing. On Jun. 19, the court approved the parties' stipulation to stay most of the proceedings while the nationwide injunction from Hawaii v. Trump remains in effect. This case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0088)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 13, 2020
Hammock v. City of Auburn
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 87-V-680-E (M.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0104
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-AL-0104)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 13, 2020
In re. Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation (Martin v. Wilks)
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 84-00903-CV-P-S (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0109
White firefighters brought suit against the City of Birmingham, Alabama and the Jefferson County Personnel Board in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. They alleged that the defendants engaged in racially discriminatory hiring and promotion practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment. A trial was held in 1991 and upheld the discriminatory practice of the defendant. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the holdings of the district court and concluded that the promotion provision of the City’s affirmative action plan unnecessarily trammels the rights of non-black firefighters, and that the City did not properly consider efficacy of alternatives to race-based promotional quota system. The individual claims of the plaintiffs were ultimately dismissed from 1998 to 2004 pursuant to a settlement agreement.
View Case Detail (EE-AL-0109)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 13, 2020
City of El Cenizo v. State of Texas
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-00404 (W.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0045
This suit challenges Texas's "Sanctuary City" legislation, Senate Bill 4 (SB4), which requires local Texas law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials and punishes them if they do not. Unlike the other suits in this special collection, this suit does not challenge President Trump's "Sanctuary City" Executive Order. In this consolidated action, the district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting SB4 from going into effect on its projected start date. The Fifth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction and affirmed in a rehearing en banc, stating that the ordinance was facially constitutional. Some of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims on remand. Others filed amended complaints in December 2019 and the case is alive again.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0045)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 12, 2020
Sims v. Montgomery County
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: C.A. No. 3708-N (M.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0092
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (EE-AL-0092)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 12, 2020
EEOC v. CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:98-cv-02889-RBP (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0019
On November 18, 1998, the EEOC commenced an action against the Clay County Board of Education in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The parties settled this case on February 29, 2000 and Judge Propst dismissed the case without prejudice. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (EE-AL-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
January 6, 2020
Jones et al. v. City of Faribault
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 0:18-cv-01643 (D. Minn.)
FH-MN-0002
On June 13, 2018, a resettlement non-profit for the Somali community and six Black and Somali residents of Faribault, Minnesota, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs alleged that a Faribault ordinance violated the Fair Housing Act and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and Minnesota Constitution. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (FH-MN-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 7, 2019
Latino Officers Ass'n of New York v. City of New York
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:99-cv-09568 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0208
On September 9, 1999, Latino and African-American police officers brought this putitive class action against the City of New York and the New York Police Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and state and local law, seeking an injunction to abolish discrimination. On September 15, 2004, Judge Kaplan approved a settlement agreement between the parties, and NYPD agreed to pay the plaintiffs $20 million and pay class counsel $4.8 million for attorneys’ fees and costs. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0208)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 6, 2019
Raymond v. The City of New York
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:15-cv-06885 (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0285
On August 31,2015, a group of minority New York City police officers who had been disciplined or fired filed a class action suit against the New York City Police Department in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs are alleging the police department mandates an unofficial quota policy and that minority officers within the department have been discriminated against for complaining about and not following this unofficial policy. After resubmitting a new complaint, discovery progressed and a settlement conference occurred on December 4, 2019. The parties did not settle. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (EE-NY-0285)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 5, 2019
American Council of the Blind v. O'Neill
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:02-cv-00864-JR (D.D.C.)
DR-DC-0001
The American Council of the Blind sued the Treasury Department in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia in 2002 to get paper currency redesigned so that persons with visual impairments can recognize the denominations without having to rely on sighted people or scanners for help. In 2006, Judge James Robertson declared that the Department of the Treasury was violating section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to make banknotes accessible to the line and visually impaired. In 2008, the court also ordered the government to make prioritize accessibility design changes and to report on its progress towards full accessibility every six months until full compliance is reached. After Treasury indicated that full compliance would not be reached until sometime between 2026 and 2038 (instead of 2018, as initially projected), the plaintiffs moved to modify the 2008 injunction to require a hard deadline of 2026 for accessible $5, $10, $20, and $50 bills. Judge Beryl Howell denied this motion, leaving the deadline of the injunction open-ended. The plaintiffs appealed in 2017, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that Judge Howell had not based her denial on a sufficient factual record. Judge Howell again denied the plaintiffs' motion to modify in 2019, and the plaintiffs again appealed the court's decision. As of December 5, 2019, the appeal is still ongoing and no oral argument has been scheduled. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (DR-DC-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 3, 2019
Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:19-cv-01546 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0147
In August 2019, 15 individuals who are currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs, as well as two nonprofit groups who advocate for immigrant rights, filed a class action suit against U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for violating their Fifth Amendment rights, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is ongoing and is in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and immigration reform.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0147)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 3, 2019
Nappier v. Snyder
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 1:16-cv-00636 (W.D. Mich.)
PB-MI-0028
On March 23, 2016, a resident of Flint, Michigan filed this class action lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims against state officials involved with the Flint water crisis. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants were grossly negligent because they continued to “falsely reassure the public” that the water was safe despite evidence to the contrary. The defendants removed the case, but the district court and Sixth Circuit found that neither federal officer nor federal question jurisdiction existed. The case returned to state court, where litigation over the scope of an officer's governmental immunity continues.
View Case Detail (PB-MI-0028)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 2, 2019
Baker v. DesLauriers
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 6:14-cv-01356 (D. Kan.)
MH-KS-0001
In 2014, various former prisoners who were forced to enroll in Kansas’s Sexual Predator Treatment Program (SPTP) after their release filed this Lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the District of Kansas. The Plaintiffs alleged that the program is punitive rather than therapeutic, and that it thus violates constitutional rights against ex post facto punishment and double jeopardy in addition to rights guaranteed under the American's Disability Act (ADA), the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act (PAIR), Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), and Kansas state law. After counsel was appointed for the plaintiffs, an amended complaint was filed that alleged due process violations under SPTP. On July 17, 2017, Judge Thomas Marten dismissed the case for failure to state a claim and denied a motion to certify the class as moot. On November 14, 2017, Judge Marten denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case with prejudice.
View Case Detail (MH-KS-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 2, 2019
Reynolds v. Alabama Department of Transportation
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:85-cv-00665 (M.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0101
In 1985, a group of African American employees eligible for promotion to merit positions at the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) filed suit against ALDOT and other state agencies in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in a variety of discriminatory practices, specifically by manipulating the hiring and promotion procedures to exclude African Americans from all but menial jobs. As such, plaintiffs alleged that defendants had violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981, §1983, §2000e, and Title VII, and sought injunctive relief and damages. The case has been ongoing for more than 30 years. Although the court issued a consent decree in 1994, in which the defendants were later found in civil contempt in 1998 and in 2000 resulting in up to $59.6 million settlement, litigation regarding the defendants' civil contempt continued as well as the numerous objections raised by prospective intervenors. The hiring class was decertified in 2015, and the intervenors withdrew in March 2017 with their contempt claims being settled in June 2017.
View Case Detail (EE-AL-0101)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 2, 2019
Center for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:18-cv-00044-KAW (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0111
On Jan. 3, 2018, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) and brought this suit in N.D.Cal, suing DHS under FOIA. Plaintiff sought information on on the United States' land acquisition and expenses at the southern border for construction of a wall. The FOIA request was completed and on Mar. 29, 2019, the case was settled with the defendant paying plaintiff's attorney fees. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0111)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 1, 2019
Prince v. Aiellos
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:09-cv-05429 (D.N.J.)
PC-NJ-0023
On October 23, 2009, an individual plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Hackensack Police Department, Hackensack Municipal Court, Bergen County Jail in the City of Hackensack, Bergen County Municipal Court, and Bergen County Prosecutor. The plaintiff, bringing suit pro se, sought compensatory and punitive damages plus special damages for future legal fees. The plaintiff specifically claimed that the defendants violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by attempting to break in and enter his home, threatening to imprison him, fabricating stories to have him incarcerated, and asserting false criminal charges, which led to plaintiff spending three months and five days in county jail. The district court denied the defendant’s and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. In Dec. 2014, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny summary judgment. Settlement discussions have since been unsuccessful and the case is ongoing in the district court.
View Case Detail (PC-NJ-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 1, 2019
Doe v. Meachum
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 88-562 (D. Conn.)
PC-CT-0005
On August 15, 1988, prisoners brought a class action suing the Connecticut Department of Corrections for the quality of care and confidentiality provided to inmates coping with AIDS. The prisoners were granted class action status and then were granted a consent judgment in 1990 which provided for an Agreement Monitoring Panel to ensure compliance with the consent judgment. Monitoring of compliance may continue, but there has been no recent activity on the docket as of December 2019.
View Case Detail (PC-CT-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 1, 2019
Aref v. Holder
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:10-cv-00539-RMU (D.D.C.)
PC-DC-0023
Five prisoners 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 prisoners 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. As of December 2019, the district court dismissed the claim of one plaintiff who was deported upon release from BOP custody and continues to consider the remaining claim in light of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
View Case Detail (PC-DC-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
December 1, 2019
U.S. v. Alabama
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-00368-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala.)
PC-AL-0034
In 2013, the DOJ Civil Rights Division investigated the Julia Tutwiler Prison in Alabama. After sending the state Department of Corrections a findings letter in January 2014, the DOJ filed this suit against the state of Alabama and Department of Corrections in 2015 for heinous sexual abuse committed by the ADOC's male officers the prison. The parties reached a settlement agreement approved by the court in an enforceable consent decree, which required the ADOC and Tutwiler to make recommended changes and file compliance reports every six months. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-AL-0034)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 30, 2019
Ave Maria University v. Sebelius
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 2:13−cv−00630 (M.D. Fla.)
FA-FL-0003
In 2012, a Catholic liberal arts college filed a RFRA challenge to rules adopted under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, arguing that the rules infringed on its religious freedom by requiring it to provide coverage for contraception through its group health insurance plan. In Oct. 2014, the Court granted the university a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the HHS contraception mandate. In Dec. 2014, this injunction was appealed by the defendants to the 11th Circuit where it was stayed pending rulings on similar litigation. In May 2016 the Supreme Court issued a decision in Zubik v. Burwell, recognizing the need for government policy to balance religious objections to the ACA contraceptive mandate with providing full access to healthcare for coverage. The case was relatively dormant until the Trump Administration changed government policy removing the contraception coverage requirement for employers. Following this change in policy the defendants dismissed their appeal. On June 22, 2018, the plaintiffs filed for permanent injunction and declaratory relief. The court granted this motion on July 11, 2018 and issued a permanent injunction. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (FA-FL-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 30, 2019
Frank v. Walker
Case Category: Election/Voting Rights
Trial Docket: 2:11-cv-01128-LA (E.D. Wis.)
VR-WI-0017
In 2011 voters in Wisconsin filed this lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs alleged that their fundamental right to vote had been violated by Act 23, Wisconsin's law implementing a voter ID requirement. After much litigation, in 2016 a judge granted a preliminary injunction allowing voters without IDs to sign an affidavit in place of the ID requirement for the 2016 presidential election. The state appealed the injunction to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction pending the appeal. As of December 2019, the appeal remained pending in the Seventh Circuit.
View Case Detail (VR-WI-0017)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 30, 2019
Louisiana College v. Sebelius
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 12-cv-00463 (W.D. La.)
FA-LA-0002
On February 18, 2012, Louisiana College filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Louisiana against the Federal Government, seeking to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. On August 14, 2014, the court granted, in part, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff's rights granted by the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act had been violated. After the defendant appealed to the 5th Circuit, an order was issued identical to that issued in Zubik v. Burwell, instructing the parties to reach an agreement that accommodated plaintiff's religious exercise while insuring coverage for affected employees. The case sat without any meaningful action until January 5, 2018 when the appeal was voluntarily dismissed by the defendants, ostensibly due to ongoing similar litigation. The plaintiffs then filed for a permanent injunction and court declaration essentially reaffirming the court's August 13th, 2014 ruling. The courts denied the motions on March 13, 2019, as they found their previous ruling final, and any repetition of it unnecessary.
View Case Detail (FA-LA-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 30, 2019
Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:17-cv-01707-JLR (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0036
This action challenged the Trump Administration's third attempt since taking office at suspending the United States Refugee Admissions Program (the USRAP). On Nov. 29, 2017, this case was consolidated with Doe v. Trump. Further updates on this case may be found on the Doe page, available here.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0036)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 30, 2019
Novoa v. GEO Group
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 5:17-cv-02514 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0142
In 2017, an immigrant who had been detained at the Adelanto Detention Center, a civil immigration detention facility, filed this putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff alleged the defendant, GEO Group, had a practice of wage theft, unjust enrichment, and forced labor: all violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and California state law. A class was certified in September 2019. As of November 2019, the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0142)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 28, 2019
United States v. Indigo Investments, LLC
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 1:09-cv-00376-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.)
FH-MS-0003
This fair housing case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi was brought in June 2009 by the United States, against the owner and managers of a 98-lot mobile home park located in Gulfport, Mississpppi. The defendants had leased lots to the the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to house persons displaced by Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiff claimed that the site's management applied various park rules more harshly against African-American tenants, openly made racial slurs, declared that they didn't want any African-American residents living at the park, and generally harassed and intimidated black tenants. After District Judge Louis Guirola denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, the parties agreed to a three-year settlement. The agreement contained detailed provisions regulating the conduct of the defendant owner in the event it re-entered the rental real estate business, including notice to the Plaintiff, fair housing training, notice provisions, non-discrimination policies, detailed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to allow the plaintiff to monitor its compliance, and consent to periodic compliance testing. The agreement also awarded $45,000 in monetary damages to 12 named aggrieved persons, $45,000 to the plaintiff, and a $5,000 civil penalty. The case closed on January 18, 2011.
View Case Detail (FH-MS-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 27, 2019
Clark v. California
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:96-cv-01486-CRB (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0005
In 1996, two prisoners with developmental disabilities, incarcerated in California Department of Corrections (CDC) facilities, filed a class action lawsuit n the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), against the CDC. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants discriminated against them because of their disabilities, that their living conditions constituted cruel and unusual punishment and that the defendants had deprived them of due process. The parties agreed to settlements in 1998 and 2002 in which the defendants agreed to improve conditions. The defendants are still working to comply with the settlement.
View Case Detail (PC-CA-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 27, 2019
United States v. Mississippi
Case Category: Mental Health (Facility)
Trial Docket: 3:16-cv-00622-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss.)
MH-MS-0001
The U.S. sued the State of Mississippi under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The U.S. alleged that the State knowingly failed to provide adequate mental health programs for adults with mental illness and segregated adults with disabilities in their State-run hospitals. After a four-week bench trial, the court found that the health system violated the ADA and required a special master to determine and oversee the remedial process. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (MH-MS-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 27, 2019
Timberlake v. Buss [Donahue]
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 06-1859 (S.D. Ind.)
CJ-IN-0002
On December 26, 2006, a prisoner at the Indiana State Prison filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Indiana Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were threatened by the defendants' use of the combination of three chemicals during lethal injection, which he believed would allow him to be conscious and subject to extreme pain and torture in violation of this Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. After two plaintiffs joined the action, the defendants were awarded summary judgement on August 16, 2007. The plaintiff appealed the decision, however, the Circuit Court remanded the case with the direction to dismiss after the plaintiff died. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (CJ-IN-0002)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 26, 2019
Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:03-cv-90074-RP-TJS (S.D. Iowa)
PC-IA-0025
In February 2003, prisoners sued the Iowa Department of Corrections (DOC) and the State of Iowa in the Southern District of Iowa for violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs alleged that the DOC paid pre-release rehabilitation services based on Evangelical Christianity. Suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs sought declarative and injunctive relief as well as damages. Proceeding amended complaints set out numerous specific practices in which Christian teachings and beliefs were explicitly a part of the rehabilitative services, asserted that participation in the program was pre-conditioned upon acceptance of Christian teachings, and noted that parole recommendations were made with input from the operators of the overtly Christian rehabilitative program. The plaintiffs sought a complete prohibition on state funding of this religious-based program or, alternatively, establishment of equivalently funded rehabilitation programs available to prisoners not participating in the InnerChange program. The plaintiffs prevailed at a bench trial but defendants appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Circuit court's opinion affirmed the district court's ruling in all but two respects: (1) the non-prisoner contributors to the prisoners' telephone fund lacked standing to sue, and (2) it had been an abuse of discretion for the lower court to grant recoupment for services rendered prior to its June 2, 2006 order. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. Back in district court, Judge Pratt granted a joint motion on August 22, 2008 requiring the defendants to pay $20,000 in a settlement agreement plus attorney's fees. The court retained jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement through September 2008 and the case has since closed.
View Case Detail (PC-IA-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 25, 2019
Haldane v. Hammond
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ-MAT (W.D. Wash.)
PC-WA-0026
Washington state prisoners with serious medical problems sued the Washington Department of Corrections for failing to provide adequate medical care. The plaintiffs believed that the DOC applied the term "medically necessary" too narrowly and denied immediate care and that decisions to provide outside treatment are decided arbitrarily, without medical justification. The plaintiffs sought class action certification but Judge Richard A. Jones denied the certification on September 18, 2017 on the grounds that the proposed class lacked commonality. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an appeal by the plaintiffs later that year. Between June 2018 and March 2019, each remaining plaintiff filed to dismiss himself as a party. As a result, the court closed the case on March 27, 2019 when no plaintiffs remained.
View Case Detail (PC-WA-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 24, 2019
Zaborowski v. Sheriff of Cook County
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:08-cv-06946 (N.D. Ill.)
JC-IL-0046
A group of pregnant women previously incarcerated at the Cook County jail in Chicago, Illinois at the time they gave birth filed this class action against Cook County in December of 2008. The plaintiffs claimed that the policy of shackling women to an obstetric table before and during labor, as well as for days after they have given birth, with no allowance for breaks to walk or use the bathroom violated their constitutional rights. The case settled in May 2012 for 4.1 million dollars. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (JC-IL-0046)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 24, 2019
Willis v. Indiana Dept. of Correction
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0022
In 2009, an Orthodox Jewish prisoner filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiffs alleged that the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC)'s denial of kosher meals to prisoners whose religion requires them to keep kosher violated their First Amendment rights and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). In 2010, injunctive and declaratory relief was granted in favor of the plaintiff on summary judgment, requiring that the DOC provide certified kosher meals to all inmates requesting them for religious reasons. When ongoing violations occurred, a contempt motion was brought against the DOC in 2016, but the parties reached a private settlement agreement. The court continued to receive letters in 2017 from prisoners alleging noncompliance, but the court did not reopen the case. The terms of the agreement ended in July 2019 and the case closed.
View Case Detail (PC-IN-0022)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 24, 2019
Paszko v. O'Brien
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:15-cv-12298 (D. Mass.)
PC-MA-0042
In 2015, Massachusetts prisoners infected with the Hepatitis C virus filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs sued Massachusetts Department of Correction and the Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Healthcare, LLC under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment, claiming that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of plaintiffs and members of the class infected with the Hepatitis C virus. The parties announced their intent to settle on February 9, 2018 and submitted an agreement the following month. Judge Groton approved the settlement on June 28, 2018. The court will continue to enforce the settlement agreement until December 2020.
View Case Detail (PC-MA-0042)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 24, 2019
Ashker v. Brown
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 4:09-cv-05796 (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0054
In 2009, California prisoners in solitary confinement filed this class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs alleged that being held in solitary confinement for more than a decade violates the Eighth Amendment, and that the assignment procedures lack sufficient due process. In 2015, the parties settled the case, and the CDC agreed to significant changes in solitary confinement policies. The settlement is ongoing with continued litigation over its extensions.
View Case Detail (PC-CA-0054)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 24, 2019
Lewis v. City of Chicago
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:98-CV-05596 (N.D. Ill.)
EE-IL-0268
In 1998, a group of African-American applicants for positions as firefighter filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, against the City of Chicago in U.S. District Court in the N.D. of Illinois. The plaintiffs contended that a 1995 written examination in the application process discriminated against and had a disparate impact on African-American applicants and could not be justified as a business necessity. In 1999, District Court granted class certification. In April 2007, the Court (Judge Gottschall) ordered injunctive relief for the plaintiffs and mandated the defendant to place all class members in the database to have the opportunity to go through the hiring process again, to compensate the appropriate class members for back-pay and lost benefits, and to pay for plaintiff's attorney's fees. The defendants appealed and the case closed momentarily pending an appeal from the Seventh Circuit. In September 2008, the Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment because the plaintiff's suit was untimely but the Supreme Court reversed this in May 2010 because the plaintiff could file a Title VII disparate impact claim after the employer executed the allegedly unlawful practice as long as the plaintiff alleged each of the elements of a disparate impact claim. Following this Supreme Court ruling, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and in August 2011, the district court issued an injunctive order of relief against the defendant.
View Case Detail (EE-IL-0268)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 24, 2019
EEOC v. Sharp Manufacturing Company of America
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:06-cv-02611-JDB-dkv (W.D. Tenn.)
EE-TN-0103
In 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Sharp Manufacturing Company in the U.S. District for the Western District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged that Sharp violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide the complainant with reasonable accommodation and discharged her because of her disability. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief as well as punitive damages against the defendant. In 2009, the court approved the parties’ consent decree. This decree had a duration of one year and instructed the defendant to: refrain from unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation; report to the EEOC on compliance with Title VII; revise its policies on reasonable accommodations; post notices of this agreement in their offices; pay $30,000.00 to the plaintiff. The case is closed.
View Case Detail (EE-TN-0103)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 23, 2019
Issa v. School District of Lancaster
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
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. The court approved a consent decree in 2017, which expired in June 2019.
View Case Detail (IM-PA-0013)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 23, 2019
San Jose v. Ross
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-02279 (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0051
Plaintiffs sued the US Department of Commerce to prevent the Census Bureau from including a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. After trial, Judge Seeborg enjoined the defendants from including the citizenship question on the 2020 Census. The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit and filed a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment. The Supreme Court issued its opinion in another case about the census, Department of Commerce v. New York, and affirmed the district court's judgment that the citizenship question violated the APA. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its decision in Department of Commerce v. New York. Back in the district court, Judge Seeborg permanently enjoined the defendants from including the citizenship question and retained jurisdiction over the matter until the 2020 Census results are reported to the President by December 31, 2020.
View Case Detail (PB-CA-0051)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2019
Samuel v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00323 (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0035
On May 21, 2013, 17 Indian guestworkers filed suit in E.D. Tx. for harm suffered as a result of an allegedly fraudulent and coercive employment recruitment scheme. In July 2015, the Court ordered to stay the case due to Signal's bankruptcy, with status reports on the proceedings due every 120 days. On February 5, 2019, the bankruptcy proceedings closed and the parties are still submitting status reports as to when the funds will be disbursed.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0035)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2019
Meganathan v. Signal International, LLC
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00497 (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0037
On August 7, 2013, four Indian guestworkers filed suit in E.D. Tx. for harm suffered as a result of an allegedly fraudulent and coercive employment recruitment scheme. In July 2015, the Court ordered to stay the case due to Signal's bankruptcy, with status reports on the proceedings due every 120 days. The bankruptcy case closed on February 5, 2019, but the case remains open with no updates.
View Case Detail (IM-TX-0037)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2019
State of California v. U.S. Department of Justice
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-00805-JCS (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0114
The State of California filed this suit on February 7, 2018, seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to produce records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The State sought records related to DOJ's recent decision to impose certain immigration enforcement related conditions that local jurisdictions must meet to receive federal funding. On August 13, 2019, the case settled.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0114)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin
Case Category: Presidential Authority
Trial Docket: 1:19-cv-00969 (D.D.C.)
PR-DC-0015
On April 5, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives filed suit against the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Interior, and their respective departments, for allocating more funds than they were approved in order to build the Trump Administration's border wall. The House of Representatives sought a preliminary injunction but this was denied by the D.C. District Court and on appeal. The case continues in the appeals court and is still active as of November 8, 2019.
View Case Detail (PR-DC-0015)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2019
Al Otro Lado v. Kelly
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0092
In 2017, asylum seekers from Mexico and Honduras filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Central District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that they arrived at a port of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum but were prevented from accessing the U.S. asylum process by CBP officials. On November 21, 2017, the case was transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of California. On September 26, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to provisionally certify the class, which was granted on November 19, 2019. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0092)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 22, 2019
NAACP v. Merrill
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 3:18-cv-01094 (D. Conn.)
CJ-CT-0001
In 2018, the NAACP, the Connecticut State Conference of the NAACP, and several private citizens of Hamden and New Haven filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' 2011 Redistricting Plan, which is expected to be used in the 2018 and 2020 elections, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied and then appealed to the Second Circuit. On appeal, the denial was affirmed but the case was remanded to be heard by a three-judge panel. The case is still ongoing.
View Case Detail (CJ-CT-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2019
United States v. Rhode Island and City of Providence
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 1:13-cv-00442 (D.R.I.)
DR-RI-0004
On June 13, 2013, the Disability Rights Section of the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island lawsuit against the State of Rhode Island and City of Providence, Rhode Island including the Providence Public School Department, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134. The United States asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants violated Title II of the ADA by unnecessarily segregating 90 individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and placing 85 individuals with I/DD at risk of the same unnecessary segregation in sheltered workshops and adult day programs. On the same day, the parties entered into an eight-year interim settlement agreement where the defendants agreed to stop funding new admissions to sheltered workshop and segregated day programs, agreed to provide services to transition both students and those individuals in segregated settings to more integrated employment and non-employment settings, agreed to provide students with all opportunities to earn high school diplomas and participate in state employment services after their 18th birthday, agreed to appoint a monitor and agreed that the City of Providence would stop using sheltered workshops as part of its high school curriculum for students with I/DD. As of November 21, 2019, monitoring is ongoing.
View Case Detail (DR-RI-0004)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 21, 2019
Yourke v. City & County of San Francisco
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 3:03-cv-03105-CRB (N.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0051
In July 2003, Plaintiff filed this §1983 action against San Francisco in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Represented by private counsel, plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to false arrest and transported to the County Jail, where he was subjected to a strip search in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and California state law. The Court (Judge Charles R. Breyer) eventually found for Defendants. This was a companion case to Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C 03-1840 CRB (N.D. Cal.) [see JC-CA-0007].
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0051)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2019
ACLU of Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-00575-HZ (D. Or.)
NS-OR-0005
On April 12, 2017, the ACLUs Oregon, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, and Wyoming filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and the court approved the dismissal on February 26, 2019. This case is closed.
View Case Detail (NS-OR-0005)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2019
Cantu v. United States
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 1:11-cv-00541-RBW-JMF (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0011
On March 15, 2011, a group of Hispanic farmers and ranchers brought suit against the United States and the U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that they were being treated unequally compared to other minority and women farmers who have settled with the USDA regarding discriminatory lending practices. In December 2012, the District Court dismissed the case for lack of ripeness and redressability. The plaintiffs appealed the judgment on February 15, 2013 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings on the grounds that while the court could not compel settlement, the district court could have issued an injunction ordering the defendant to not act on unlawful racial grounds. On remand, the defendant filed a status report in October 2015 regarding the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program established for the parties to work out settlement terms. While the ADR resulted in a vast majority of claims being paid, around 130 were processing. In addition, the defendant filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case in November 2015. Judge Walton granted the motion on March 1, 2016. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (FH-DC-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 20, 2019
T.H. v. Dudek
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 0:12-cv-60460-CI (S.D. Fla.)
PB-FL-0007
On March 13, 2012, plaintiffs (represented by private counsel and by the FSU College of Law Public Interest Law Center, and the North Florida Center For Equal Justice) filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida, seeking to compel the state to provide services that will allow them to live in their homes and communities, rather than institutionalizing them in geriatric nursing homes. They also demanded the state cease the practice of denying or reducing Plaintiffs' services at recertification where there has been no change in the medical necessity of such services, and to award compensatory services to the Plaintiffs to remediate conditions that have resulted from past failures to provide medically necessary services. The case was consolidated with a DOJ case against Florida alleging they had violated the ADA when they unnecessarily segregated and institutionalized disabled children. The Plaintiffs against sought class certification due their claims becoming moot once they aged out of the Medicaid program, but this certification was dismissed. Plaintiffs were slowly dismissed for mootness due to this with the court finally fully dismissing the remaining Plaintiffs for mootness on June 9, 2017. The Plaintiffs appealed to the 11th Circuit which affirmed the District Court's ruling on May 16, 2019. Concurrently, in the consolidated DOJ case the United States was dismissed due to the District Court finding that the Attorney General could not sue under Title II of the ADA. However, the United States appealed to the 11th Circuit and on September 17, 2019, the court reversed the dismissal finding that the United States was privy to all legal means of enforcement and remanded the case for further proceedings.
View Case Detail (PB-FL-0007)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 19, 2019
Moussouris v. Microsoft Corporation
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:15-cv-01483 (W.D. Wash.)
EE-WA-0132
On September 16, 2015, the plaintiff, a former female technical employee, filed this class action against the defendant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e). The plaintiff alleged that as a result of defendant’s policies, patterns, and practices, female technical employees received less compensation and were promoted less frequently than their male counterparts. The court eventually denied class certification, and on July 11, 2018 partially granted the defendants summary judgement motion on the issue of state punitive damages. The plaintiffs have appealed both orders to the 9th Circuit and the case is ongoing as of November 19, 2019.
View Case Detail (EE-WA-0132)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 19, 2019
United States v. Luther Burbank Savings
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 2:12-cv-07809-JAK-FMO (C.D. Cal.)
FH-CA-0009
On September 12, 2012, the United States sued Luther Burbank Savings, alleging the bank's minimum loan amount policy had a disparate impact on African-American and Latino borrowers in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The United States also filed a proposed consent order. The order, entered in October 2012, prohibits Luther from having future policies similar to the minimum loan amount policy, and requires Luther to invest in the markets it had previously neglected. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (FH-CA-0009)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 19, 2019
United States v. TK Properties
Case Category: Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Trial Docket: 4:09-cv-04153-KES (D.S.D.)
FH-SD-0003
The United States filed a lawsuit in the District of South Dakota on October 15, 2009 under the Fair Housing Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§3601-3631, against the owner of a 48 unit apartment complex and its property managers. The U.S. sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief and civil penalties, alleging that the managers frequently used racial slurs to refer to black tenants, threatened them with eviction without cause, filed false police reports, turned off heat, threatened assault, and retaliated when complainants took their complaint to the owners and to the Housing Commission. The Complaint alleged that the owners knew of the managers' behavior and did nothing to stop it. On December 21, 2010, the parties settled the claim against the owners resulting in a three-year injunction with anti-discrimination policy, advertising, training, and monitoring provisions, as well as $30,000 in damages and penalties. The manager defendants defaulted and were ordered to pay $15,000 each in penalties, and prohibited from operating any housing entity covered by the Fair Housing Act.
View Case Detail (FH-SD-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 18, 2019
Brown v. Snyder
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 5:18-cv-10699 (E.D. Mich.)
PB-MI-0019
On November 2, 2017, five residents of Flint, MI filed this lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims. The plaintiffs sued the State of Michigan and many state employees for personal injuries and property damage arising out of the Flint Water Crisis. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief requiring the remediation of harm caused to plaintiffs, monitoring, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Although initially filed in a Michigan state court, this case was removed by the defendants. This district court remanded the case and, after an unsuccessful appeal by the defendants to the Sixth Circuit, litigation is proceeding in state court.
View Case Detail (PB-MI-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 18, 2019
Mendez Rojas v. Johnson
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-01024 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0026
In 2016, asylum seekers filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs alleged that DHS had failed to notify them of its one-year asylum application deadline and failed to implement mechanisms that guaranteed them the opportunity to timely submit asylum applications. In March 2018, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The defendants appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit in May 2018, and the parties have since been participating in the Ninth Circuit's mediation program which facilitates settlement. This process is ongoing.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2019
Guertin v. State of Michigan
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 16-cv-12412 (E.D. Mich.)
PB-MI-0025
On June 27, 2016, two residents of Flint who bathed in and consumed lead contaminated water filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs sued various state entities, their employees, and private companies responsible for water testing and feasibility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought general, compensatory and punitive damages, an order declaring the conduct unconstitutional, equitable relief and attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs claimed that the failure to provide safe drinking water and deliberate misinformation about the safety of the drinking water constituted state created danger, violation of bodily integrity, and deprivation of contractually created property rights. While the court dismissed most of the plaintiffs' claims, the Sixth Circuit allowed a narrow species of due process claims against individual government employees to proceed, and negligence claims against private companies also survived. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PB-MI-0025)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2019
EEOC v. ROCKET ENTERPRISE, INC.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:06-CV-14319 (E.D. Mich.)
EE-MI-0135
The EEOC brought this suit in September of 2006, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about the sexual harassment. The suit went to trial, where a jury found for the defendant in February of 2008. The EEOC voluntarily dismissed the suit on appeal and the case is now closed.
View Case Detail (EE-MI-0135)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2019
United States v. Hasbajrami
Case Category: National Security
Trial Docket: 1:11-cr-00623 (E.D.N.Y.)
NS-NY-0012
Summary/Abstract not yet on record
View Case Detail (NS-NY-0012)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2019
Westside Mothers v. Olszewski
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 99-CV-73442-DT (E.D. Mich.)
PB-MI-0026
This class-action suit was filed in 1999 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs, representing a class of one million low-income children, alleged that the state of Michigan's Medicaid system reimbursed doctors and dentists too little to ensure that they would be willing to treat patients on Medicaid. After two amended complaints and two appeals to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the parties agreed to a settlement in 2007. The agreement preserved significant expansions of the state’s program and major increases in rates paid to doctors and dentists for treating Medicaid patients, required the state to monitor children’s access to care, and provided for ongoing oversight of the state’s program by representatives of the plaintiffs. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PB-MI-0026)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2019
State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 4:19-cv-05210-RMP (E.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0043
In August of 2019, 14 states filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The DHS' Public Charge Rule, enacted in August of 2019, increases the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. It is alleged that the Public Charge Rule will result in harm to the Plaintiff States and its residents because it will deter legal residents from enrolling in basic benefit programs, out of fear of being determined a "public charge," and thus inadmissible for citizenship. District Court Judge Rosanna Peterson granted the Plaintiff States' Motion to Stay Pending Judicial Review and Preliminary Injunction, resulting in the Rule not being implemented as planned. The Defendants' appeal of this Order is pending judgment in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
View Case Detail (IM-WA-0043)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 17, 2019
EEOC v. Vivendi Universal Studios
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:03-cv-07023-GAF-JTL (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0245
In September of 2003 the EEOC filed this lawsuit against Universal Pictures alleging discrimination on the basis of race. In March of 2005, the complainant intervened in the lawsuit. The intervenor and the defendant reached a confidential settlement on June 13, 2006. In October of 2007, the court granted defendant's motion for judgement as a matter of law. The EEOC appealed, and later voluntarily dismissed their appeal in June of 2008. The case is closed.
View Case Detail (EE-CA-0245)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2019
EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0030
In September 2005, the EEOC filed suit in the District of Nevada on behalf of a male employee against his employer, Prospect Airport Services, Inc. for failing to address sexual harassment by a female co-worker. EEOC brought the complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, but on appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. In December 2011, the parties settled before trial and the defendant company agreed to pay $75,000.00. EEOC later moved for injunctive relief in January 2012. The court granted the motion in part, enjoining the defendant from violating the sexual harassment provision of Title VII for five years and requiring the company to implement a stronger anti-harassment policy and investigative procedure including extensive employee trainings. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (EE-NV-0030)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2019
Lewis v. Bentley
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-00690-RDP (N.D. Ala.)
PB-AL-0016
Plaintiffs sued agents of the State of Alabama for the passage of a bill restricting cities from increasing their minimum wages. Plaintiffs alleged the bill discriminated against African-American residents of the City of Birmingham. Their case was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the dismissal on all but one claim, finding that plaintiffs had stated a valid complaint alleging intentional discrimination. The case was remanded and is ongoing as of November 2019.
View Case Detail (PB-AL-0016)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 16, 2019
EEOC v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:06-cv-02371 (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0023
In September 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued DHL Express (USA), Inc. in the Northern District of Ohio. EEOC alleged that DHL refused to hire a fifty-three-year-old applicant because of his age, thereby violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court granted summary judgment to DHL in November 2007. EEOC appealed the case, but the parties later decided not to pursue the appeal and the case closed in May 2008.
View Case Detail (EE-OH-0023)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 15, 2019
Rouser v. White
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0066
In 1993, a Wiccan prisoner incarcerated by the California Department of Corrections since 1979 filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and California state law against prison officials. The plaintiff claimed that the prison officials had violated his right to freedom of religion by failing to accommodate his practice of the Wiccan religion. In 1997 the parties settled, but in 2003 the prisoner renewed the action for failure to follow the settlement. The parties settled again in 2011 and the prisoner again renewed the action for failure to follow the settlement, which the district court dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to the 9th Circuit which found that the District Court had abused its discretion and reversed the vacation of the consent decree. As of November, 2019 the consent decree has not been vacated and this case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-CA-0066)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2019
Hatcher v. Genesee County
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 5:18-cv-11986 (E.D. Mich.)
PB-MI-0018
On June 25, 2018, detainees in the Genesee County Jail filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs sued individuals and entities responsible for their care in the Jail under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought punitive and compensatory damages and attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs claimed that the failure to provide adequate safe water was cruel and unusual punishment violating their Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and caused significant negative health effects.
View Case Detail (PB-MI-0018)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2019
Ross v. Blount
Case Category: Criminal Justice (Other)
Trial Docket: 2:19-cv-11076-LJM-EAS (E.D. Mich.)
CJ-MI-0008
In 2019, pre-trial detainees of Wayne County Jail filed this class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs alleged that the policy and practice of detaining individuals in jail following their arraignment hearing because they were unable to afford imposed cash bail conditions, violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case was stayed in August.
View Case Detail (CJ-MI-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2019
Barden v. City of Sacramento
Case Category: Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Trial Docket: 2:99-cv-00497-MCE-JFM (E.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0056
On March 15, 1999, individuals with mobility and/or vision disabilities filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged the City of Sacramento violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act due to the city’s inaccessible or dangerous to those with mobility and/or vision disabilities. The plaintiffs asserted that newly constructed or altered sidewalks and curb ramps must be accessible to those with mobility and/or vision disabilities and that Sacramento is obligated to provide access to existing sidewalks and curb ramps. On January 22, 2004, a court approved a settlement between the plaintiffs and the city. The City agreed to dedicate 20% of its Transportation Fund annually to the installation of accessible curb ramps and removal barriers on sidewalks. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement for the entirety of the agreement’s 30-year compliance period. The eight named plaintiffs were each awarded $10,000 and class counsel was awarded $745,000. The City of Sacramento is still subject to the settlement.
View Case Detail (DR-CA-0056)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2019
Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-00302-RPM (D. Colo.)
IM-CO-0011
The Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC) filed this suit against DHS and ICE under FOIA, seeking information regarding substandard and abusive conditions of confinement against individuals detained at two immigration detention facilities. As of November 13, 2019, a possible settlement is in the works.
View Case Detail (IM-CO-0011)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2019
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius
Case Category: Speech and Religious Freedom
Trial Docket: 3:13-cv-01303 (M.D. Tenn.)
FA-TN-0001
On November 22, 2013, a group of nonprofit religious organizations filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. On December 26, 2013, United States District Court (Judge Todd J. Campbell) denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The same day, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (No. 13-6640). On June 11, 2013, the 6th Circuit affirmed, holding that the ACA did not unlawfully burden the plaintiffs' religion. The case was remanded back to the 6th Circuit in light of a Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell. Following the Zubik decision, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury adopted new rules on October 6, 2017 that allowed for religious and moral objections to providing contraceptives under the ACA. As a result, on January 28, 2018 the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed.
View Case Detail (FA-TN-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2019
Cantell v. Commissioner of Correction et al.
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: SJC-12015 (State Court)
PC-MA-0047
On January 20, 2012, prisoners incarcerated in Massachusetts administration segregation, filed this lawsuit in state court in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs alleged that that conditions in administrative segregation violated their state and federal constitutional rights to due process. The state's highest court reversed the lower court's decision to grant the defendant's motion for dismissal. In 2019, the parties filed a settlement agreement that included substantive procedural reform of the administrative segregation policies and practices. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (PC-MA-0047)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2019
Vega v. Davis
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:12-cv-01144-RPM (D. Colo.)
PC-CO-0020
The family of a deceased prisoner formerly held at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum in Florence, Colorado ("ADX") filed a Bivens action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against agents of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant disregarded the family's right to the prompt return of the prisoner's body and his personal possessions following his death, in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case twice failed on qualified immunity grounds. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PC-CO-0020)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 13, 2019
Californians for Renewable Energy v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Case Category: Environmental Justice
Trial Docket: 4:15-cv-03292 (N.D. Cal.)
EJ-CA-0001
Five non-profit organizations focused on environmental justice filed this lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to issue preliminary findings in Title VI complaints. Judge Armstrong granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss with regard to each individual claim addressing a specific complaint in which the EPA failed to issue preliminary findings. Judge Armstrong granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with regard to the claim that the EPA's pattern and practice of failing to issue preliminary findings violated the APA. The parties entered settlement talks which have, as of October 2019, been unsuccessful, and the case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (EJ-CA-0001)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 12, 2019
Bostock v. Clayton County
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 1:16-CV-001460-ODE-WEJ (N.D. Ga.)
EE-GA-0114
This case addresses the scope of Title VII's ban on sex discrimination. A gay man filed this suit on May 5, 2016 against Clayton County, arguing that he was terminated from his employment there on the basis of his sexual orientation. In so doing, the plaintiff argued that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of sexual orientation and so violated Title VII. The complaint was dismissed in the district court for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The 11th Circuit affirmed and refused to hear the case en banc. The case was taken up by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 22, 2019 and oral arguments occurred on October 8, 2019.
View Case Detail (EE-GA-0114)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2019
Rosas v. Baca
Case Category: Jail Conditions
Trial Docket: 2:12-cv-00428-DDP-SH (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0073
In 2012, prisoners in the Los Angeles County Jails filed this is a class action in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs alleged a long-standing and widespread pattern of violence and abuse by deputies against inmates and sought an injunction requiring training, supervision, and disciplinary policies for deputies. In 2015, the parties reached a settlement that required a detailed and far-reaching remedial plan. The case is ongoing with monitoring.
View Case Detail (JC-CA-0073)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2019
Black Parallel School Board v. Sacramento City Unified School District
Case Category: Education
Trial Docket: 2:19-at-00821 (E.D. Cal.)
ED-CA-0035
On September 5, 2019, the Black Parallel School Board and three students in the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) filed a lawsuit against the SCUSD. The suit alleged districtwide discrimination against students with disabilities, especially Black students. The plaintiffs claimed the discrimination segregates and denies students with disabilities a meaningful opportunity to be educated alongside their peers and excessively disciplines students for behaviors linked to their disabilities. The case is ongoing.
View Case Detail (ED-CA-0035)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 11, 2019
Prison Legal News v. The GEO Group
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:14-cv-01957-JMS-DKL (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0019
In November 2014, Prison Legal News filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court against The GEO Group, a for-profit corporation that operates and manages a state correctional facility in Indiana, as well as against the state. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by prohibiting the distribution of its monthly journal to prisoners in custody and by failing to provide notice of this censorship and an opportunity to contest it. In January 2015, the parties reached an agreement and filed a stipulation to enter a consent injunction, which the court ordered the next day. Under the agreement, the defendants are enjoined from preventing the distribution of the journal without providing sufficient justification and are required to post the consent injunction in their facilities and conduct compliance training for the mailroom staff. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PC-IN-0019)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 10, 2019
The People of the State of New York v. Trump
Case Category: Presidential Authority
Trial Docket: 451130/2018 (State Court)
PR-NY-0006
On June 14, 2018, the State of New York brought this lawsuit against the Donald Trump Foundation and its officers in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by misusing charitable assets of the Foundation to engage in political activities and by failing to manage the Foundation in accordance governance rules required by New York law. The plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the defendants, as well as monetary damages. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 23, 2018 and the decision was appealed. On November 7, 2019, the parties reached a settlement and the court awarded $2,000,000 in damages to the plaintiffs. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (PR-NY-0006)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 9, 2019
Ball v. Kasich
Case Category: Public Benefits / Government Services
Trial Docket: 2:16-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio)
PB-OH-0008
On March 31, 2016, individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the State and State departments. They claimed that they were experiencing, or were at risk of experiencing, pervasive and widespread isolation and segregation in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C., and the Social Security Act. On March 23, 2017, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the case. On March 27, 2017, the court granted class certification, but the defendants subsequently asked for reconsideration, and the court entered a revised class definition on March 30, 2018. On May 10, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion for settlement that would entail expanded options counseling and additional funding for individuals with intellectual and development disabilities.
View Case Detail (PB-OH-0008)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2019
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Pompeo
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 1:18-cv-01388-TSC (D.D.C.)
IM-DC-0051
Iraqis and Afghans who worked for the U.S. government in their home countries who applied for special immigrant visas (SIVs) to the U.S. filed this lawsuit against the Departments of State and Homeland Security in 2018 when they experienced long delays in the processing of their applications. The plaintiffs alleged that both agencies were violating a 2013 congressional mandate that SIV applications must be processed fully within nine months. This class action followed earlier lawsuits filed in 2015 featuring individual plaintiffs who made substantially similar factual and legal allegations and won settlements from the government. On September 20, 2019, the court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, stating that the defendants’ delays in the processing and adjudication of the plaintiffs’ SIV applications are unreasonable in light of the RCIA and the AAPA. Afghan and Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States v. Pompeo, 2019 WL 4575565 (D.D.C.). The relief is contingent upon resolution of the class action certification dispute, which is still ongoing as of November 7, 2019.
View Case Detail (IM-DC-0051)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2019
EEOC v. C.R. ENGLAND
Case Category: Equal Employment
Trial Docket: 2:06-cv-00811-BSJ (D. Utah)
EE-UT-0003
On September 27, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Utah based trucking and transportation company C.R. England. The EEOC and an intervening plaintiff, a former driver for C.R. England, alleged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against their driver because of his HIV-positive status. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of C.R. England on all claims. Both the named plaintiff and the EEOC appealed the decision. In a sealed opinion answering both plaintiffs' appeals, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court decision. Judge Holmes found that the plaintiffs had not stated a viable claim under the ADA.
View Case Detail (EE-UT-0003)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2019
Pugh v. Goord
Case Category: Prison Conditions
Trial Docket: 1:00-cv-07279-KMK (S.D.N.Y.)
PC-NY-0056
In July 2000, three prisoners in New York state prisons, filing pro se, sued officials of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") and prison ministerial program coordinators for violating their First and Fourteenth Amendments by not providing religious accommodations for Shiite Muslims. In July 2009, a settlement agreement was reached that awarded $6,000 in damages to two of the plaintiffs and created accommodations for incarcerated Shiite Muslims for, at minimum, January 2009-January 2012.
View Case Detail (PC-NY-0056)


CASE ADDITIONS
November 7, 2019
Center for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Category: Immigration and/or the Border
Trial Docket: 3:17-cv-07204-EDL (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0110
On Dec. 19, 2017, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) and one of its journalists brought this suit in N.D.Cal, suing DHS under FOIA. Plaintiffs sought information on expedited removal of noncitizens since the Trump Administration's Jan. 25, 2017 EO 13767. The parties disagreed whether the defendant complied had complied with the plaintiff's FOIA request, but the case was voluntarily dismissed in 2018. The case is now closed.
View Case Detail (IM-CA-0110)