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.

Hulteen v. AT&T

ERA is demanding that AT&T correct its discriminatory benefit calculation practices. Through this class action lawsuit, ERA is seeking justice for female employees who lost pension benefit or were excluded from early retirement opportunities due to AT&T’s practice of treating pregnancy-related leaves less favorably than other temporary disability leaves.

This case is virtually identical to a prior ERA case, Pallas v. Pacific Bell, that resulted in Pacific Bell agreeing to pay approximately $26 million in additional retirement benefits. In the 1950’s and 60’s, phone companies were places where women could have life-long careers and women joined these companies in significant numbers. But today many of these women are living with reduced financial security that is the sorry legacy of discrimination that occurred decades before in a “woman-friendly” sector. This case is so distressing because it shows how long the reach of discrimination can be. It is all the more troubling to consider that even the power of their union was not enough to prevent the discrimination. Pursuit of the case is aided by the strong support of the union of which the women are members, which is all the more important given the length of time the case’s resolution requires.

Corinn Medina, et al. v. Station Casinos, Inc., Station California LLC, Station Development LLC, Curtis Broome, and DOES 1-20

Indian gaming resorts are rapidly increasing in number in California and other states throughout the country. These business enterprises employ women in a variety of mostly low-wage service sector jobs. ERA represents five women who were employed by Thunder Valley Casino located on tribal land of the United Auburn Indian Community in a rural and economically depressed area in Northern California.

While employed at Thunder Valley Casino, women employees have been sexually assaulted and subjected to persistent sexual harassment. In addition to the sexual harassment hostile work environment, our clients' lawsuit alleges discrimination against women in promotion, as well as retaliation and wrongful discharge of employees who assert their rights. Beyond the egregious employment discrimination, the casino also requires that workers attend mandatory meetings before the start of their shifts, but does not pay them for the time associated with these meetings, practices that are clearly outlawed by federal and state wage and hour laws.

As a condition of operating a gaming casino the Auburn Indian Community entered into a Tribal State Gaming Compact with the State of California. In this Compact, the Tribe agreed to adopt and comply with standards no less stringent than federal and state laws that forbid discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age and disability.

Courts have historically held that Indian tribes, as sovereign nations, have the power to establish the rights of their employees and be free from state and federal laws that infringe on the tribes' rights of self-governance. The defendants, including the Auburn Indian Community and Stations Casino, a Las Vegas private for-profit corporation, which operates this and numerous other Indian casinos, are petitioning the court to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction because of sovereign immunity.

ERA seeks broader protection for low-wage workers, most of them women, by extending liability for employment discrimination to Indian Nations (and their private business partners) when their business enterprise is operated with no regard for their obligations to protect workers as guaranteed by the Indian Gaming Compacts. The case is also important to raise the awareness among public officials, including the Governor and Legislature, who must approve these Compacts authorizing the casinos.

Read the complaint

September 22, 2006 Demurrer Ruling

Press Coverage

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.