2002

Paid Family Leave Bill
Governor Gray Davis signs a bill establishing paid family leave in California. California is the first state in the nation to provide six weeks of partial paid leave to workers who take time off to care for a new child or seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or domestic partner. ERA is part of the statewide steering committee that worked to craft and pass this bill.

Higher Education Legal Advocacy Project
ERA launches the Higher Education Legal Advocacy Project to identify and eliminate barriers to the advancement of women employed in academia. ERA will develop advocacy material, co-counsel with or otherwise advise attorneys with cases in the area, and develop a network of individuals familiar with and ready to address the entrenched gender bias of our academic institutions.

Tradeswomen Legal Advocacy Project
ERA renews its tradeswomen legal advocacy efforts. The Tradeswomen Legal Advocacy Project aims to improve the working conditions and expand the advancement opportunities for women in the trades through advice and counseling and impact litigation. ERA is currently working with a number of women’s rights and tradeswomen’s organizations to develop and implement a legal strategy to eradicate the discriminatory practices that hinder women’s involvement and advancement in the trades.

New Know Your Rights Brochures
ERA updates and produces new Know Your Rights brochures on Sexual Harassment, Sex Discrimination, and Family and Medical Leave/Pregnancy Discrimination. These informative brochures contain concrete examples of discrimination, rights under the relevant laws, suggestions on steps to take if rights have been violated, options for redress, and resources for further assistance.

2001

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores
ERA and its co-counsel files a nationwide, class action sex discrimination lawsuit against retail giant Wal-Mart Stores. The lawsuit alleges that female employees of Wal-Mart are denied advancement and training opportunities, paid less than men for the same or comparable work, steered to lower wage departments, and retaliated against when they attempt to address the sex discrimination. In December, the Court rejected Wal-Mart’s motion to throw out or transfer the case to Arkansas—the home of Wal-Mart’s headquarters—stating that the request was “not in the interests of justice.” The Court ruled that the case may proceed as a nationwide case and that female employees in California may serve as named plaintiffs.

Brown v. Sacramento Regional Transit District
ERA takes over as class counsel in this gender discrimination lawsuit against the Sacramento Regional Transit District, Sacramento’s public transportation entity.The lawsuit specifically alleges that Regional Transit has engaged in subjective selection and training practices that result in the hiring, development and promotion of less qualified men into desirable and higher paying positions and the exclusion of women qualified to fill these positions.

Hulteen v. AT&T
ERA and its co-counsel files Hulteen v. AT&T, a class action lawsuit alleging that AT&T’s employment benefit practices discriminate against pregnant women. Female employees of AT&T who took pregnancy leave before the 1979 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), were forced to take “personal leave” for their pregnancy-related disability leave and were denied “service credit” for missed days of work, whereas employees who took temporary disability leave for a variety of other illnesses accumulated service credit for those work absences. Therefore as this class of women retire, they receive lower pension checks than they are entitled to and/or do not qualify for early retirement packages.

2000

Kamsan Mao v. Top Line Electronics and Lite-On
ERA and the Asian Law Caucus reach a settlement in the first-ever lawsuit to challenge the illegal homework practices in the electronics assembly industry. Press coverage serves the dual purpose of warning companies to cease such illegal practices and informs immigrant workers of their rights.

Release of the 2000 Self-Sufficiency Standard for California
The Californians for Family Economic Self-Sufficiency (CFESS) releases the updated Self-Sufficiency Standard for California—revealing the hourly, monthly, and annual income that families need to earn to pay for the basic expenses necessary for healthy families. This report provides the crucial information needed to illustrate that California’s Work First approach of forcing welfare recipients into the first available, low-paying job does not achieve self-sufficiency. This report is widely distributed to county welfare offices, living wage campaigns, and public officials.

McIntyre and Hibbitts v. Main Street and Main Street Incorporated d/b/a TGIFridays
ERA successfully settles sexual harassment case on behalf of two African-American female servers. The restaurant industry is one of the targeted industries in ERA’s litigation strategy.

Tradeswomen Roundtable
ERA co-sponsored a two-day tradeswomen’s roundtable in San Francisco, at which renowned tradeswomen, attorneys, and activists from the Bay Area and across the nation came together to discuss problems faced by tradeswomen and to develop litigation strategies for opening up the trades to women.

Lundy v. University of California, Santa Cruz
ERA successfully settles a case on behalf of Dr. Jackelyn Lundy, Associate Director for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems who was fired after she took parental leave to adopt and care for her first child. She won back pay and the benefits.

Broken Promise: Welfare Reform Two Years Later
ERA releases this report on the numerous problems with the CalWORKS system, as reported by welfare recipients in Northern, Central and Southern California. Women reporte a lack of clear information about available services, confusion about time limits, inadequate training, and pressure to take low-wage temporary jobs.

1999

Pallas v. Pacific Bell
After 13 years of litigation, ERA and its co- counsel settle this pregnancy discrimination case concerning denial of early retirement benefits due to maternity leave. The case covers a class of nearly 10,000 women, and its settlement is valued in excess of $25 million. This is the same issue presented in Hulteen v. AT&T.

From War on Poverty to War on Welfare: The Impact of Welfare Reform on the Lives of Immigrant Women
ERA releases this report, based on ERA’s study of immigrant women’s experiences in Santa Clara County with California’s new “welfare-to-work” program. The report results in state legislative and administrative action.

Does 1-8 v. ASC Fashion, US Boys, et al.
ERA settles a case against garment manufacturers on behalf of Thai and Latino workers. The manufacturers agree to monitor their independent contractors to ensure compliance with wage and hour laws, as well as workplace safety regulations. ERA plans to conduct public education aimed at garment workers, as well as follow-up enforcement efforts.

Katherine W. v. Borland
ERA and its co-counsel won a lawsuit against the San Mateo County Human Services Agency and the California Department of Social Services challenging the County’s welfare demonstration program on the grounds that it violates state law when it terminates the entire family (including children) when the adult fails to comply with welfare’s new work requirements.

1998

Reaching for the Dream: Profiles in Affirmative Action
In coalition with other California civil rights organizations, ERA publishes this booklet that describes California’s successful equal opportunity programs and features individuals who have benefited from them. When two bills in the California State Legislature attempt to outlaw the programs, this booklet and legislative testimony from ERA staff are critical to the bills’ defeats.

Opportunities Lost
ERA and Chinese for Affirmative Action release the only study of nearly 100 California counties, cities, state agencies, post-secondary institutions, school districts and district agencies to learn of changes they have made in their affirmative action programs in the post-Proposition 209 environment.

Keslar v. State of Nebraska
ERA co-counsels a successful sexual harassment case brought by a court reporter against a judge in the State of Nebraska. Debbie Keslar wins damages and the State of Nebraska agrees to institute a sexual harassment policy that explicitly includes court reporters, and to have a separate expedited procedure for handling claims involving judicial harassment.

Sexual Harassment Supreme Court Cases
ERA files amicus briefs in three of the four sexual harassment cases (employment- and school-based) heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court agrees with the positions we took in the workplace cases.

Know Your Rights
ERA updates and expands this popular brochure series, providing crucial information on sex discrimination, and sexual harassment at school and in the workplace. The brochures are available in English and Spanish.

1997

New web site—www.equalrights.org
ERA launches www.equalrights.org. Topics featured include: “Know Your Rights” workplace information, current issues affecting women in the workplace, links to other women’s sites and much more!

Doe v. Petaluma City School District
ERA and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund successfully settle Doe v. Petaluma in the plaintiff’s favor for $250,000. We represented a junior high school student who was subjected to sexual harassment by fellow students over an eighteen-month period. During that time, her guidance counselor and the school district failed to take action to stop the harassment, a violation of Title IX. This case establishes legal precedent, as Doe is the nation’s first federal court case to recognize that peer (student-to-student) sexual harassment is actionable under Title IX. ERA continues to assist attorneys handling such cases.

1996

The Affirmative Action Public Education Project
ERA launches a massive, long-term public education effort designed to educate women about the important role affirmative action continues to play in providing equality of opportunity for women and minorities in employment, education, and contracting. Through the use of videos, information booklets, op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, speaking engagements, and news stories on television, radio and in newspapers, ERA continues to provide a factual basis for the nationwide debate on this important issue.

The Welfare Reform Project
In response to the passage by Congress of “welfare reform” legislation to effectively end the nation’s 60-year commitment to protecting the poor, ERA becomes the lead organization in the Californians for Family Economic Self-Sufficiency (CFESS) program. Conceived by the national women’s employment organization Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), the collaborative project brings together advocates from across the country to implement a range of strategies. The plan is designed to assist low-income women and their families in their efforts to achieve economic independence in the block-granting of welfare and workforce development policies. This project is ongoing.

1995

Fausset v. Fabco
ERA files this case with the Employment Law Center in the hopes of producing one of the first judicial interpretations of FMLA (the federal Family and Medical Leave Act) and CFRA (the California Family Rights Act). These laws, enacted in 1994, give “eligible employees” the right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid medical leave to care for one’s family members or self. Ms. Fausset, an executive secretary at Fabco in Oakland, was fired after taking five weeks of disability leave due to severe difficulties. Her employer did not ask her to give written notice of her condition, but cited the absence of such notification in firing her. The company had no employee protection policies and ERA used this circumstance as an educational tool to publicize employers’ obligations under FMLA and CFRA. The case settled. The only information ERA may disclose is that the lawsuit was settled to the parties’ mutual satisfaction including: a monetary component, an agreement to provide training for employees of the defendant for five years, and the defendant adopting a FMLA/CFRA leave policy.

1994

Doe v. Petaluma City School District
In counsel with NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, ERA’s attorneys begin groundbreaking work on the first case of student peer-on-peer sexual harassment to reach the courts. Jane Doe, a middle-school student in Petaluma, was the victim of many months of sexually harassing remarks and behavior by her peers. While school officials promised to end the harassment, they failed to do so; nor did they inform Jane or her parents of her rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools receiving federal funding. Perhaps most importantly, Doe was a case of “first impression,” setting the standard for future cases.

Organizacion de Lideres Campesinas
An echoing green fellow joins ERA’s staff for a two-year fellowship, during which time she creates the Farmworker Women’s Leadership Project. The primary goal of this project is to empower Spanish-speaking, low-income, rural women to become more effective advocates for themselves and their communities. In addition to leadership development, the project educates farmworkers and the broader public on the complex realities faced by women farmworkers, an extremely vulnerable and often exploited population. ERA helps support the project for a third year, and in 1997 Lideres Campesinas acquires its own nonprofit status and adequate funding sources to become a separate entity.

1993

Title IX—Sexual Harassment in Educational Settings
In June 1993, ERA files a formal complaint with the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR), on behalf of a group of faculty, staff, and students at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The complaint details numerous instances of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape by UCSC students (against other students) and the University’s repeated violation of OCR regulations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and of its own rules and procedures. ERA’s complaint marks one of the first times that OCR has been asked to investigate a class action complaint against an educational institution for fostering a hostile environment harmful to women. In response to ERA’s complaint, OCR conducts a formal investigation into the allegations and, in May 1994, releases a report of findings in which it concluded that UCSC failed to respond adequately to incidents of sexual assault and harassment on campus, thus creating a hostile environment that discriminated against female students.

Gonzalez v. Rubber Stampede
ERA files a lawsuit on behalf of Maria Theresa Gonzalez, challenging her firing, her employer’s failure to provide workers with adequate ventilation, and its failure to monitor their exposure to toxic fumes. (After working at Rubber Stampede approximately six months, Ms. Gonzalez had been rushed by ambulance to a local hospital where doctors diagnosed her with acute chemical fumes exposure. Subsequent blood and urine tests revealed liver damage as well. Following the doctors’ diagnosis of her condition, Ms. Gonzalez filed a complaint with Cal OSHA regarding her working conditions; she was subsequently fired by her employer.) ERA’s case on behalf of Ms. Gonzalez is the first of its kind in Northern California to use the state’s anti-toxics initiative (Prop. 65) to challenge workplace conditions. (Ms. Gonzalez’s story is, unfortunately, all too familiar to ERA. We have received numerous inquiries in recent years from women—many of them women of color in low-paying jobs—who have been exposed to unsafe working conditions and a myriad of other discriminatory practices.)

1992

The Peralta Eleven
ERA commits to representing 11 women who were the unwitting victims of a “Catch-22” situation that resulted from a decision handed down in December 1990 by the California Supreme Court (Peralta Community College District v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC)). The Court ruled that, while compensatory damages are available under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, only a court has the authority to award damages, not the FEHC. The Peralta decision not only made California’s administrative hearing process a much less constructive alternative for women seeking remedies for discriminatory practices, but also put in limbo the women ERA is representing—all of whom have filed claims and been awarded compensatory damages.

Pallas v. Pacific Bell
The U.S. Supreme Court upholds a 1991 ruling in ERA’s favor by denying PacBell’s request for review in this landmark lawsuit, the first to tackle the routine discrimination that many older working women face as they approach retirement age and find that they have not been granted “service credit” for the time taken off for pregnancy (while credit is given for other types of medical leave). As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, ERA enters the second phase of this complex litigation, in which its lawyers return to the trial court to determine the size of the class of women affected by PacBell’s discriminatory policies and the remedies available to them.

Public Policy Initiative
In its role as a “channel for unheard voices,” ERA expands its efforts within the public policy arena to reduce the between experiences of individual women and proposed changes in public policy affecting equal rights for women. ERA’s lawyers and public policy interns provide expert testimony and/or technical assistance to legislators, policymakers, and other advocates on a number of issues.

Publication of Affirmative Action Handbook
ERA publishes and widely distributes resource manual to assist non-lawyer advocates who wish to institute affirmative action programs designed to enable women and people of color to compete on equal footing with white men.

Sexual Harassment Testimony
ERA provides expert testimony at numerous public hearings on the issue of sexual harassment and provides technical assistance on two California legislative bills.

California Family Rights Act
ERA monitors the Fair Employment and Housing Commission’s (FEHC) drafting of the Family Care Leave Regulations for California’s Family Rights Act of 1991 (FRA). The FRA makes it unlawful for an employer of 50 or more employees to refuse a request by an employee for an unpaid family care leave of up to four months in a 24-month period for the care of a child, spouse, or parent. ERA’s lawyers critical of FEHC’s narrow interpretation of the FRA, circulate it to scores of agencies and testifies at public hearings in San Francisco.

1991

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, A. Castrejon v. Tortilleria La Mejor
ERA, along with the Asian Law Caucus and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), win a landmark federal district court case on behalf of Alicia Castrejon, an undocumented worker whose pregnancy discrimination lawsuit raised the issue of undocumented workers’ rights under federal anti-discrimination law. The court’s ruling results in thousands of undocumented immigrant workers receiving legal protection against discrimination.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991
Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, ERA plays a significant role in briefing the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. about the effects various legislative proposals were likely to have on the litigation of Title VII cases. Working under the auspices of the Coalition for Civil Rights (CCR), ERA convenes a meeting of Bay Area litigators to obtain their thoughts on proposed legislative proposals; travels with other members of CCR to Washington to meet with the Leadership Conference to discuss concerns about the proposals; and provides witnesses to testify at hearings held prior to the bill’s passage. ERA’s work ensures that the real-life experiences of its clients are taken into consideration in developing legislation.

California “Little Hoover” Commission Hearings
ERA plays a major role in organizing public hearings that are held by the state’s “Little Hoover” Commission (whose purpose is to investigate waste in government). The hearings are to examine the California Division of Apprenticeship Standard’s historic failure to take action to assure women’s access to blue collar apprenticeship programs.

1990

Associated General Contractors of California v. City & County of San Francisco
ERA intervenes, together with several public interest law organizations, in a lawsuit to defend a city ordinance designed to aid women- and minority-owned businesses in their efforts to secure city contracts.

Miller v. Children’s Hospital
ERA successfully settles a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, challenging employer policies that exclude pregnant employees from certain jobs rather than accommodating them.

1989

Bell v. Kemp
ERA files a major pay equity case against the federal government challenging the policy of setting employee salaries based upon earnings in previous jobs, a practice that institutionalizes sex- and race-based wage discrimination.

United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls
ERA joins several other public interest law organizations in submitting an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges “fetal protection” policies used by employers nationwide to exclude fertile women from high-paying industrial jobs traditionally dominated by men. In March 1991, the Court hands down a ruling forbidding sex-specific fetal-protection policies.

Immigrant Women’s Task Force
ERA is a founding member and co-chair of this project of the Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services. Following Congress’ passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the task force is established to help bring to the forefront the discrimination issues that particularly affect immigrant women.

1988

Henning et al. v. Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC)
Working with the Coalition for a Fair Minimum Wage, ERA and several public interest law firms and unions challenge the subminimum wage for tipped employees, two-thirds of whom are women. The California Supreme Court hands down a ruling declaring the subminimum wage illegal.

1987

Davis et al. v. City and County of San Francisco
After a five-year challenge against the discriminatory hiring policies of the San Francisco Fire Department, the City agrees to a Consent Decree that included hiring and promotional goals for women and minorities over the next seven years. The decree is one of the first to have specific goals for women of color.

California Federal Savings & Loan v. Department of Fair Employment and Housing
The United States Supreme Court agrees with the reasoning in ERA’s amicus brief and upholds a California law that requires employers with five or more employees to grant unpaid disability leaves of up to four months to women disabled by pregnancy or childbirth.

1986

Sai Chen Ha et al. v. T&W Fashions and Fritzi Manufacturing Corporation
ERA, the Asian Law Caucus, and the Employment Law Center successfully settle a case on behalf of 13 garment workers who seek to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and compensatory damages from an apparel manufacturer and its contractor.

Colombano v. City and County of San Francisco
ERA and its co-counsel, Kathleen Purcell, file a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco and several individual police officers on behalf of Louette Colombano, a nine-year veteran of the police force who was subjected to severe, life-threatening harassment. On the eve of the trial, counsels negotiate a settlement worth approximately $800,000.

Coalition for Civil Rights
ERA is a founding member of this broad-based group of civil rights and community organizations committed to advocating for affirmative action and demanding the return to strong local, state, and national civil rights policies.

1984

Kouba v. Allstate Insurance Company
After seven years of litigation, ERA successfully settles a landmark pay equity case against Allstate Insurance Company for its practice of setting salaries based on previous job earnings. Under the terms of the settlement, Allstate agrees to establish a fund of $5 million to recompense over 3,400 class members nationwide for back wages.

1983

Equal Employment Opportunities for Women of Color Project
ERA establishes this project to address employment issues specific to women of color. ERA provides focused advice, referrals, workshops, and litigation involving the double burden of sex and race discrimination borne by these women. ERA continues to address these issues.

1982

Piazza v. BART
ERA successfully settles a sexual harassment case on behalf of a BART mechanic who was subjected to life-threatening harassment and differential treatment by co-workers and supervisors.

1981

Bernardi v. Yeutter
In a class-action lawsuit alleging employment discrimination against the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service, ERA negotiates a Consent Decree that provides for goals and timetables and an affirmative action fund in the amount of $1.5 million.

Miller v. Bank of America
ERA represents an African American woman in her complaint of sex and race discrimination by her employer. This landmark lawsuit extends existing legal precedent to include sexual harassment cases. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds the employer liable for injury to an employee inflicted by a supervisor.

1979

Advocates for Women v. Usery
ERA and its co-counsel negotiate a landmark Consent Decree in a suit filed to require the Secretary of Labor to establish goals and timetables for the hiring of women by federal contractors.

1978

Berg v. Richmond Unified School District
ERA appears before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case challenging a school district’s forced maternity leave policy and the denial of accrued sick pay for pregnancy-related disabilities. Following remand by the Court, a settlement is reached.

Caria v. Saks Fifth Avenue
ERA brings a class-action suit against Saks Fifth Avenue alleging sex discrimination and violations of the Equal Pay Act. ERA negotiates a significant settlement agreement that establishes both a back pay fund of $360,000 and a salary readjustment fund, and secures a policy change in hiring and promotion procedures.

Smith v. Union Oil Company
ERA challenges the racially discriminatory policies and practices of Union Oil Company with respect to hiring, compensation and promotion at its San Francisco Credit Card Center. Following trial, Union Oil agrees to a Consent Decree that includes back pay awards to claimants and changes in the company’s hiring and promotion policies.

1977

The Lesbian Rights Project (LRP)
ERA establishes the nation’s only legal organization primarily dedicated to equality for lesbians. In 1989, the LRP becomes the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and continues to represent lesbian and gay clients in their quest for justice in such areas as constitutional rights, employment, housing, public accommodations, partner benefits, child custody, adoption, and foster parenting.

Mueller v. Greyhound Lines West
ERA settles a case that challenges Greyhound’s policy of overtly excluding experienced women applicants from bus driver positions through the use of minimum height and weight requirements. The settlement agreement includes back pay for the plaintiff class, establishment of goals and timetables for women in bus driving positions, and elimination of the height and weight requirements.

1976

Phelps v. Ramsay
ERA successfully challenges Contra Costa County’s practice of incarcerating all women prisoners in the maximum-security jail, while assigning nearly all sentenced men to a minimum-security facility.

1975

Frank v. Manchester Band of Pomo Indians
ERA files a suit on behalf of a woman threatened with ousting from her tribe under an ordinance that forces women (but not men) married to non-Indians to relinquish their tribal membership. The court gives the tribe two months in which to resolve the problem. The tribe repeals the ordinance soon thereafter.

Love v. California Youth Soccer Association
On behalf of Amy Love, a ten-year-old soccer star, ERA files a class-action lawsuit against the California Youth Soccer Association. The Association subsequently repeals its rule prohibiting the participation of girls in soccer league competition. One year later, Title IX goes into effect, prompting greatly increased participation by women and girls in athletic programs.

1974

Geduldig v. Aiello
ERA co-founder Wendy Williams argues before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of plaintiffs in a case that raises the issue of whether the state can deny disability insurance coverage to women disabled by pregnancy. The Supreme Court rules that denying disability benefits to pregnant women is not sex-based discrimination because not all women are pregnant. Victory comes four years later, when Congress passes the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to address, in part, instances of pregnancy discrimination such as the above.