Current Impact Cases

Impact litigation is ERA’s main strategy and it is as much about access to legal services and education as it is about justice. ERA’s cases educate the public and the legal profession about the larger issues of discrimination, signal emerging legal trends in employment law, and set precedents that have the power to benefit large numbers of women workers. In some instances, ERA prosecutes lawsuits on behalf of an entire class and, in so doing, changes the policies and culture of specific industries or employment sectors.

ERA's current impact cases are protecting women from sexual harassment in the casino industry; protecting the rights of tradeswomen who were targeted for lay-off solely on the basis of gender; continuing the fight to obtain full pension benefits for women subjected to pregnancy discrimination; and eliminating pay inequity and lack of advancement opportunities at the nation's largest employer, Wal-Mart.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores

On behalf of female employees of Wal-Mart, ERA is charging the retail giant with systematically denying promotions, training opportunities, and equal pay to women. Certified as a classaction lawsuit in June 2004, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores is the largest sex discrimination case ever litigated against a private employer, affecting up to 2 million current and former women Wal-Mart workers in the United States. Click here or visit the Wal-Mart class web site for more information.

Mansourian, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

ERA has joined on as counsel in this Title IX class action case brought on behalf of University of California at Davis (UCD) women wrestlers. The Sturdevant Law Firm also joins the case as the women’s co-counsel. The women allege that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against them when they withdrew their status as varsity athletes in 2001. As a result, the women wrestlers were deprived of scholarships and benefits, including medical and athletic training services, academic tutoring, insurance, and access to varsity facilities. The women allege that discrimination against women athletes reaches beyond the women’s wrestler team. Defendants have provided more opportunities for intercollegiate athletic participation to men than women at UCD relative to the respective enrollment of each sex. The women seek certification of a proposed class of all current, prospective, and future female students at UCD who are denied (as well as all women who are deterred from enrolling at UCD because they would be denied) an equal opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics and/or to receive financial assistance.

As women comprise an ever-greater percentage of students attending colleges and universities it is important they have the rights guaranteed by Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational institutions. ERA wants women and girls to have the myriad benefits that come from playing sports – and to receive comparable economic benefits from scholarship and professional opportunities to those enjoyed by male athletes.

Discovery in the case continues, and plaintiffs anticipate several upcoming motions, including a motion on class certification.

See the Law Library for information on previous impact cases.