Month: June 2023
AMTRAK RACE DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION
Employment Litigation in the District Court for the District of Columbia:
Campbell, et al. v. Amtrak, 1:99CV02979 (EGS) – SETTLED
The long-running case Campbell, et al. v. Amtrak, originally filed in November 1998, has now been settled. We are gratified to have reached a resolution of the case for our Campbell clients. The Campbell case demonstrates the long-term commitment Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher Goldfarb has to its clients and to the cause of civil rights. We congratulate the Campbell clients on their settlement, and thank them for retaining WCPFG to represent them.
Williams, et al. v. Amtrak, 1:21CV1122 (EGS)(MU) – ACTIVE AND ONGOING
Approximately 275 of the former members of the putative, i.e., uncertified, classes as defined in the Campbell, et al. v. Amtrak case, filed their own individual-multi-plaintiffs case in 2021. Amtrak has tried to get this case, or parts of it, dismissed on a variety of grounds, some of which the District Court has rejected, and some of which are still pending. The case has evolved somewhat, and now has approximately 168 Plaintiffs. Some plaintiffs exited the case because they either decided not to proceed, fell out of touch with counsel and could not be located, or died (if the personal representative of the estate was either unwilling to proceed or has not been found). We filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) in July 2023 addressing the claims of these 168 Plaintiffs.
Amtrak then filed a Motion To Dismiss or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, together with a Memo of Law, a Statement of Facts, and a number of exhibits (MTD Exhibits A-E). We filed a Plaintiffs’ Opposition to same, with a Counter-Statement of Facts and other exhibits. Amtrak filed its Reply (Reply Exhibit 2), and we supplemented our Opposition, so the Motion is fully briefed.
The basic issue behind the Motion To Dismiss is which Plaintiffs and which of their individual claims, can remain in the case. This Motion is now pending before a Magistrate Judge, who will issue a ruling, probably in the form of a “Report and Recommendation,” that goes to the District Judge for review. Both sides will then have an opportunity to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and to respond to the other side’s objections. The District Judge will then consider whether to adopt the Report and Recommendation or reject it, or some combination of each, and it is this decision that will determine whose claims are dismissed, in whole or in part. Those whose claims are dismissed will have the right to appeal.
What’s Next? Many of you have asked when the Court will decide the pending Motion. We simply do not know. It is a very complex motion, and there are many issues and arguments to consider. Although it may seem like a long time has passed, it is not been an unusually long period of time for a complex motion such as this. The Court determines its own schedule and rarely announces when any decision is forthcoming. Further, we cannot ask for the simple reason that it will not do any good and such inquiries are frowned upon by the Court. In fact, parties are generally not supposed to contact the judge’s chambers either by phone or letter or email. Please understand that the time passage since the briefing was completed near the end of December, 2023, is not at all unusual in the federal courts. Please do not take it upon yourself to contact the Court because it would be highly inappropriate to do so and it will not get any answer, and please do not ask me to do so, for the same reasons. When the Report and Recommendation is issued, it will be posted here.
Settlement? Amtrak knows the Plaintiffs’ side is open to settlement discussions and negotiations: we always have been. However, it takes both parties to engage in a negotiation, so we will have to see if time or developments, perhaps a ruling on the Motion To Dismiss, encourage Amtrak to negotiate. We were able to bring the Campbell case to a resolution through mediated negotiations, and we believe Williams can be resolved by good faith negotiations, too.
For all named Plaintiffs in Williams, et al. v. Amtrak:
- If your physical residence address (not P.O. Box) is now different from what is listed in the caption of the THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, please contact lead counsel, as indicated below.
- If your other contact information, including mailing address, telephone number(s), or email address(es) have changed in the past two years, please contact lead counsel.
- If you are a named Plaintiff in Williams, listed above, but have not been able open or download the pdate Letters sent out since June 1, 2023, please contact lead counsel.
- If you are a named Plaintiff in Williams, listed above, please read the Update Letters carefully and thoroughly.
- Please remember that the Update Letters, and all communications to and from your lawyers, are PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL and not to be shared with anyone else and are not to be uploaded or discussed on any type of social media.
- If you have any questions about this, or anything else regarding the case, please communicate directly with lead counsel, as indicated below, or with the staff of Wiggins Childs.
- Please note that the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, which was our co-counsel in the Campbell case, is NOT involved in Williams at all. If you contact the WLC, they will simply direct you to Wiggins Childs.
- If you are listed as a Plaintiff in the Third Amended Complaint in the link above, but you do not want to be in the Williams, et al. v. Amtrak case, please contact lead counsel.
- No additional plaintiffs will be added to the Williams, et al. v. Amtrak
- Named Plaintiffs: please watch your email for more Updates and check in at this web page periodically for other news and posted documents.
** Please note that some of these documents have some information redacted. That is because those portions reveal information that, by agreement of the parties, must be kept private, and/or because they contain sensitive personal information. If you believe you are subject to these redactions and want to know more about it, please contact your attorney, Timothy B. Fleming.
Lead Attorney in the Washington, D.C. office for Williams, et al. v. Amtrak:
Timothy Fleming, of counsel
Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher Goldfarb, PLLC
2208 18th Street, N.W., # 110
Washington, D.C. 20009
Email: tfleming@wigginschilds.com
Office phone no. (for voice mail only): (202) 467-4489
Fax no.: (205) 453-4907
Wiggins Childs Lawyers Victorious in Voting Rights Lawsuit Before Supreme Court
On Thursday, June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Allen v. Milligan that the Alabama state legislature’s congressional districting map likely violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The 5-4 decision is a major victory for voting rights. Wiggins Childs is proud to have played a role on the brilliant legal team that successfully litigated this historic case from its inception in Alabama to the United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C.
The Voting Rights Act prohibits the “denial or abridgment” of a United States citizen’s right to vote based on race. Thus, a state’s political process should be “equally open” to all voters without diminishing the participation of any minority group. The Court’s opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, affirmed the lower decisions of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in the Caster case, and of the three-judge District Court in the Milligan case. In doing so, the Court upheld that Alabama’s new districting plan engaged in the prohibited practice of racial gerrymandering. Despite Black residents totaling 27% of voting-age citizens in Alabama, only one out of the seven districts in Alabama’s congressional map held a Black majority. Alabama consolidated a large number of Black voters into this single district, which principally mirrors the western section of Alabama’s “Black Belt” region. The remainder of Black voters were scattered within the other six districts’ white majorities. The Court ruled this districting plan established racial gerrymandering and violated the Voting Rights Act.
This case is a major victory in preserving the sentiment of the Voting Rights Act nationwide and preventing the unjust practice of racial gerrymandering. By holding that Alabama violated voting rights, the Court acknowledged both racial injustice and, more specifically, the weakening of Black voters within the state. Moreover, the Court not only rejected Alabama’s map, but simultaneously rejected the state’s argument that the Court should consider a “race neutral benchmark” for districting schemes. Had this “race neutral benchmark” been adopted, Alabama’s proposed interpretation could have prevented future challenges to congressional maps based on unjust and racially discriminatory suppressions of political power.
Deuel Ross, Deputy Director of Litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, delivered the victorious argument in front of the Supreme Court.
Wiggins Childs attorney, Sidney Jackson, played a crucial role in this litigation, serving as co-counsel on the litigation team and local counsel for the out of state forces heading this civil rights battle, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF); the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); Hogan Lovell law firm; and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
Each year, the Supreme Court of the United States receives an average of 7,000-8,000 requests for appeal. Only around 1% of these appeals are granted and argued in front of the court.