Current Cases

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores

In June 2001, ERA, the Impact Fund and four other law firms filed a Title VII class action sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Six plaintiffs from California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois and Florida allege that female employees of Wal-Mart have been denied promotions, training, and equal pay; and retaliated against because of their gender. As a result, they claim women are grossly underrepresented in management and are paid less than men for comparable work.Plaintiffs complain that while 72% of the Wal-Mart sales workforce is female, only one-third of its managers are women, which is significantly less than the number of women managers employed by Wal-Mart’s competitors. In August 2001, Wal-Mart moved to dismiss the action or to change venue to Bentonville, Arkansas where it is headquartered. On December 3, 2001, the Court denied defendant’s request to change venue but granted its motion to dismiss with respect to the four non-California plaintiffs, holding that only the California plaintiffs meet the special venue provisions of Title VII and can represent Wal-Mart’s female employees nation-wide. The Court then ordered defendant to produce nationwide discovery concerning its policies and practices. Discovery closed in January 2003 and the parties exchanged expert witness reports and conducted expert depositions in March and April 2003.Analyses of the company’s personnel and payroll records as well as of testimony by its corporate officers and managers substantiate the evidence from plaintiffs and class members that Wal-Mart discriminates against women in promotions and pay on a systemic basis.On April 28, 2003, Plaintiffs moved to certify a nation-wide class action.Defendant’s opposition is due on June 12 and the Court will hear plaintiffs’ motion on July 25, 2003.

More on Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores

Hulteen v. AT&T

In March 2001, ERA and cooperating counsel Judy Kurtz and two Oakland law firms, counsel for the Communication Workers of America, filed a class action lawsuit challenging discriminatory employment benefit practices at AT&T.Four individual plaintiffs and the Communication Workers of America allege that AT&T’s benefit calculation policies violate Title VII and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by treating pregnancy-related leave taken by female employees prior to April, 1979 less favorably than leaves taken by other employees who were disabled for any other reason during the same time period.Prior to the April 29, 1979 implementation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), employees of AT&T and its subsidiaries who suffered from temporarily disabling conditions were given ñservice creditî for their disability-related absences from work while pregnant women were not.Instead, pregnant women were forced to take ñpersonal leavesî for their disability-related absences for which they were not given service credit.As a result of such lost credit, thousands of female AT&T workers have been excluded from lucrative early retirement opportunities or given lower pension benefits while co-workers who were absent from work for the same amount of time due to other medical disabilities experienced no such losses.After April 1979, when the PDA became law, such practices were outlawed. AT&T changed its policies for new employees, but when calculating pension and retirement benefits, AT&T continues to deduct pregnancy-related leave time taken before 1979.The class may include an estimated 15,000 women employed at AT&T and its various subsidiaries who took pregnancy-related disability leave before April 29, 1979. On April 2002, a hearing was held on cross motions for summary judgment. The case is under submission. 

Donaldson v. Lori's Diner, International

In December 2004, Equal Rights Advocates filed suit on behalf of current and former female wait staff at Lori’s Diner, a San Francisco restaurant chain charged with sexual and racial harassment. Women servers were groped and sexually propositioned. Their repeated complaints were met with hostility and retaliation and no corrective action was taken. For months, their male co-workers spied on them through a peep-hole into the women’s dressing room. Although management became aware of the peephole, they left it unrepaired for many months and chose not to tell the women they were being watched, leaving them to learn about the peep-hole only after it was closed.

ERA’s objectives are to ensure that employers develop and enforce an anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policy; train employees and managers to prevent harassment and retaliation, and to develop an effective complaint procedure; and prevent harassment from occurring and immediately remedy unlawful harassment. All of the above are already required by law.

Read the complaint

Brown v. Sacramento Regional Transit District 

In March 2001, ERA, along with the Impact Fund, assumed Class Counsel responsibilities on behalf of seven women and a class of similarly situated female RT employees who were denied promotion and training opportunities because of their gender.Plaintiffs in the Title VII lawsuit specifically alleged that Defendant RT engaged in subjective selection and training practices that resulted in the hiring, development and promotion of less qualified men into more desirable and higher paying positions from which qualified women were systemically excluded.RT’s recruitment and selection practices related to promotion are complex and highly subjective.Many allow unfettered discretion by untrained hiring authorities with no open application process. Many positions were filled by “direct appointment”—a non-posted, non-competitive selection process.The decision regarding whether to post a position, and whether to modify qualification standards is itself highly subjective.The various compensation and reclassification analyses undertaken by RT are also subject to discretionary control both in choice of jobs to be studied and in the methodology employed by those conducting the studies.

Click here for more information about the settlement.

Connerly v. State Personnel Board

ERA, together with other public interest law firms, is representing a coalition of minority-owned and women-owned businesses, labor unions, and advocacy groups as real parties in interest in this case. The case was initially filed in the California Court of Appeal by Governor Wilson against five state agencies which have legislatively-mandated affirmative action programs for public contracts. We intervened claiming that the case was improperly filed in the Court of Appeal and that Governor Wilson has no standing to bring the case because he is, in essence, suing himself. The Court of Appeal refused to hear the case. The Supreme Court did as well.

On September 4, 2001, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded with directions to enter a new judgment.The Court held that Connerly had standing to maintain the litigation. It further held that the California State Lottery Commission’s requirement that the director make an affirmative duty to maximize the participation of ñsocially and economically disadvantaged small business concernsî and the statutory provisions establishing participation goals for professional bond service contracts as well as state civil service, community colleges’ and state contracting affirmative action programs that included goals and timetables violated Prop 209 and the Equal Protection Clause. The Court also held that all data collection provisions and Û 19798 of the civil service statute altering layoff and reemployment schemes where there is a finding of past discriminatory hiring practices did not violate Prop 209 or equal protection and could be severed from the invalid provisions.

White v. Chevron Corporation and Chevron Overseas Petroleum, Incorporated (“COPI”)

On February 8, 2000 James White, an African-American man, filed a complaint against Chevron and COPI alleging that he was discharged because of his race after over seventeen years of service. He specifically alleges that Chevron and COPI denied him available positions within COPI after he was informed that his mechanic position was being eliminated. Rather, he asserts, his sponsor, who was charged with assisting him with finding another position, did not assist him and falsely told him that there were no available positions. White further alleges that when he did apply for available positions within COPI, white males from outside COPI were hired despite a stated policy that the positions would be filled by employees within COPI. In at least two of the three positions White alleges he was qualified to fill, two of the white candidates selected were loaned to COPI locations.  One witness recently testified that one of the individuals who denied White a position in Nigeria told him that he was not selected because ñwe didn’t want that nigger over here.î

Although discovery was scheduled to end on October 1, 2001, the Court has ordered further discovery that will be completed by the end of November.The case settled in December 2001.

McIntyre and Hibbitts v. Main Street and Main Street Incorporated d/b/a TGIFridays

Tiffany McIntryre and Deneane Hibbitts, two African-American women, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California in December 1999 alleging that they had been sexually harassed and discriminated against because of their sex and/or race while employed at a TGIFridays restaurant in Oakland, California. They each specifically allege that they were subjected to unwelcome sexual remarks, physical touching and requests for dates by one or more restaurant managers. They further allege that when each complained about the sexual harassment, they were retaliated against and denied better employment opportunities promised to them. They also assert that defendant did not adequately correct or remedy the sexually hostile work environment when they complained in violation of state and federal law.

After completion of discovery in December 2000, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case.

Kamsan Mao v. Top Line Electronics and Lite-On Corporation

Top Line agreed to cease all industrial homework and comply with health and safety laws.  Top Line also agreed to pay Mr. Mao a monetary amount.  Mr. Mao did not obtain a ruling from the court on the joint employer issue.

Does 1-8 v. ASC Fashion 

ERA, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and Litt and Associates are representing immigrant garment workers who were not paid minimum wage or overtime in this case in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. This case seeks to reduce or eliminate sweatshop conditions prevalent in the garment industry by holding contractors and manufacturers jointly liable for wage and hour violations. If manufacturers are held liable for the labor violations of their contractors, they will have strong incentive to ensure compliance with wage and hour laws by their contractors.

After some discovery had been conducted, plaintiffs and defendant US Boys agreed to settle the matter. In November 1998, defendant US Boys agreed to pay back wages and attorneys’ fees totaling $200,000. US Boys also agreed to a consent decree which would require it to monitor its sewing contractors in specific ways to help ensure that the contractors were paying the garment workers at least minimum wage and overtime. (The consent decree would be effective for three years or until US Boys was sold to a bona fide third party purchaser.)  ERA recently received its portion of attorney fees for its work on this matter.

Katherine W. v. Borland

In April 1999, on behalf San Mateo County adults and children who rely on welfare, ERA, with the Western Center on Law & Poverty, East Palo Alto Community Law Project, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, and Northern California Lawyers for Civil Justice, sued the San Mateo County Human Services Agency, its Director, and the California Department of Social Services, and its Director for operating a county welfare program that is inconsistent with state welfare law. San Mateo’s welfare program, SUCCESS, was authorized by a waiver granted by the Director of the California Department of Social Services. Portions of the SUCCESS program unlawfully restrict eligibility and coverage for welfare benefits, thus exceeding the scope of the Director’s waiver authority. Among other things, the SUCCESS program terminates aid to children as a penalty for the parent’s noncompliance with work requirements, imposes participation requirements on exempt persons, and limits access to education. Neither the state welfare law nor the waiver provisions permit San Mateo to impose these kinds of restrictions. In 1998, the County discontinued more than 100 families from aid for failing to comply with SUCCESS requirements.

Petitioners sought a writ of mandate and a permanent injunction to prevent the County from continuing to operate portions of its SUCCESS program. They also sought restoration of benefits unlawfully withheld as a result of the SUCCESS program. Finally, petitioners sought class certification.

In July, the Sacramento Superior Court ruled that key portions of San Mateo County’s welfare program violate state law. Under the order, the parties have 30 days to develop a remedial plan to bring the County’s welfare program into compliance with state law. The case was settled and the parties have resolved the attorneys’ fees.