The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) has filed a claim under the amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act against a company that allegedly discharged a morbidly obese man. EEOC v. BAE Sys., Inc., No. 11-03497 (S.D. Tex., filed September 27, 2011). According to the EEOC, “at the time of his discharge, [Ronald] Kratz was qualified to perform the essential function of his job as a material handler II. BAE refused to engage in any discussion with him to determine whether reasonable accommodations were possible that would have allowed him to continue to perform the essential function of his job … The suit asserts that BAE replaced Kratz with someone who was not morbidly obese.” News sources have reported that Kratz, who weighed 450 pounds when the military vehicle manufacturer hired him, gained 200 pounds over the 16 years he was employed. He claims that his weight never interfered with his job…
Tag Archives discrimination
Three lead class attorneys who, for five years or longer, have represented African-American farmers claiming discrimination in government farm loan programs, have filed their fee petition seeking 7.4 percent of the preliminarily approved $1.25 billion settlement, or $90.8 million. In re: Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., Misc. No. 08-0511 (D.D.C., filed August 8, 2011). The petition recites the efforts required to obtain redress for the farmers, who missed the deadline for filing claims under the first such settlement in 1999, including working for congressional approval of laws in 2008 and 2010 establishing a fund to compensate them. According to the petition, the fee award request, to be divided among all class counsel, is “expressly within the range authorized by the Settlement Agreement.”
African-Americans who briefly worked at a North Carolina farm in 2010 allege that they were subjected to a hostile work environment and discriminatory job conditions so the employer could obtain certification under a Department of Labor (DOL) program that allows farmers to hire seasonal foreign workers when U.S. workers are not available and hiring foreign workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. Fulford v. Alligator River Farms, LLC, No. 11-00103 (E.D.N.C., filed June 20, 2011). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission allegedly issued the plaintiffs a letter of determination relating to their claims. According to the complaint, DOL certification requires that employers undertake specified efforts to recruit U.S. workers after the need for the services of foreign workers (referred to as H-2A workers) arises. Among other matters, the employer must submit a job, or clearance, order to the local state employment agency. The…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has issued an order granting preliminary approval of a settlement agreement involving a class of African-American farmers who “submitted late-filing requests under Section 5(g) of the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree on or after October 13, 1999, and on or before June 18, 2008,” but had not yet obtained a determination on the merits of their discrimination complaints. In re: Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., No. 08-0511 (D.D.C., filed May 13, 2011). The order certifies the class and sets a “cost cap” of $35 million with payment of up to $3.5 million for class counsel fees and costs. Class members are enjoined from bringing any other claims arising out of section 14012 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. These lawsuits alleged that the U.S. Department of Agriculture systematically discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race. The court has scheduled…
A federal court has reportedly approved a $760 million government settlement with Native American farmers and ranchers who claimed that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) discriminated against them by denying them equal access to credit through the agency’s Farm Loan Program. Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-03119 (D.D.C., settlement approved April 28, 2011). A final dispute over attorney’s fees was resolve in class counsel’s favor; they will receive 8 percent of the settlement, or $60.8 million. The Department of Justice apparently urged the court to halve that amount. According to a news source, the settlement funds do not require legislative action to be awarded; farmers must file their claims by December 2011. President Barack Obama (D) said, “Today’s approval of the settlement will help strengthen our nation to nation relationship with Indian Country and reinforce the idea that all citizens have a right to be treated fairly by their government.” Under…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has reportedly scheduled an April 26, 2011, hearing to determine whether attorneys representing Native American farmers and ranchers in the settlement of claims alleging discrimination against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should receive $60.8 million in fees. Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-03119 (D.D.C., preliminary settlement approval filed November 1, 2010). The sum represents 8 percent of the $760 million settlement; Department of Justice attorneys oppose the request and will file supporting papers in the next week. See The Blog of LegalTimes, April 5, 2011.
Five Hispanic farmers have filed a putative class action in a D.C. district court against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), to seek “redress from Defendants’ unconstitutional treatment in the proposed settlement of discrimination claims by these Hispanic Plaintiffs . . . as compared to the manner in which Defendants have settled identical discrimination claims by similarly situated African-American and Native American claimants, . . . all of whom were undeniably discriminated against in like manner by [USDA] in the administration of its farm credit and non-credit farm benefit programs.” Cantu v. United States, No. 11-00541 (D.D.C., filed March 15, 2011). According to the complaint, the government has paid African-American farmers about $1 billion in settlement benefits, and legislation signed into law in December 2010 provides an additional $1.25 billion to settle African-American farmers’ claims. Native American farmers were purportedly offered $680 million in compensation and $80 million in debt…
A diabetic man has reportedly filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking at least $4,000 in mental anguish damages from a Studio City sushi restaurant that requires those patrons paying an all-you-can-eat price to eat all of the food served and not just the fish. Martin v. A Ca-Shi Sushi, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct.). David Martin alleges that restaurant owner Jay Oh is discriminating against diabetics by requiring them to eat the rice along with the sashimi, which Martin picked out and consumed, leaving the rice behind. According to a news source, Oh offered to prepare two orders of sashimi alone for Martin at a cost of $3 less than the all-you-can-eat sushi deal, but Martin refused. Instead, he filed a lawsuit and said he would be willing to settle for $6,000. Oh is reportedly going to fight the litigation even if his legal costs exceed…
According to a news source, a district court in the District of Columbia has denied a request seeking an order that the Justice Department submit a proposal for settling claims of loan program discrimination filed by female farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Instead, the court apparently urged the lawyers representing the litigants to work together to reach an agreement and to report back during a January 14, 2011, status hearing. Unlike recent cases addressing charges that USDA discriminated against African-American (Pigford I and Pigford II) and Native American (Keepseagle v. Vilsack) farmers, Love v. Vilsack reportedly involves putative class claims that have not been certified. Counsel for the women farmers and those representing Hispanic farmers with similar claims (Garcia v. Vilsack) contend that the government’s settlement proposals thus far pale in comparison to the sums agreed to in Pigford ($2.25 billion) and Keepseagle ($680 million). See National Journal Daily, December…
A number of Burger King Corp. franchisees in California have filed a complaint for declaratory relief in federal court, claiming that the company has no basis for demanding that they pay the cost of settlement or its attorney’s fees and costs in a recently settled disability discrimination lawsuit. Newport v. Burger King Corp., No. 10-4511 (N.D. Cal., filed October 5, 2010). They seek an order declaring that Burger King is not entitled to indemnification as well as attorney’s fees and costs. According to the complaint, Burger King has demanded indemnification for a settlement it reached over complaints that its restaurants were not accessible to the disabled. “If the Plaintiff franchisees do not pay BKC’s unfounded demand, BKC threatens to ‘terminate’ their franchise agreements, engage in self-help by withholding money owed to the franchisees, and/or otherwise retaliate against franchisees by preventing them from obtaining new restaurant opportunities or limiting to whom they…
