Love v. Vilsack

Last updated

Love v. Vilsack refers to the 2001 lawsuit filed by a group of women farmers against the USDA. The lawsuit alleged that the USDA discriminated against female farmers through the agricultural loan process, and specifically named the Farm Service Agency (FSA). [1] This lawsuit is often discussed in conjunction with Garcia v. Vilsack because of its similar timeline and like the Garcia v. Vilsack, the claims process for female farmers was voluntary, which meant that female farmers had to file claims individually. [1]

Contents

Lawsuit

The plaintiffs claimed that they were being discriminated against based on their gender. This discrimination focused on the number of loans that were denied to female farmers, the unequal distribution of loans, tardy loans given by the USDA, and the failure to investigate claims filed by the female farmers. [2] The plaintiffs also alleged that the discrimination occurred at their local USDA offices and that government officials did not classify women as farmers. [3]

In court, the female farmers attempted to be certified as a class.  The female farmers did so under the ECOA and the APA. However, in 2001, the district court presiding over the case dismissed one of the female farmer's claims, the claim that the USDA had failed to investigate claims filed by the female farmers. [2] In 2004, the female farmers were denied class certification. [2] The court ruled this because the plaintiffs were unable to present a commonality as a class. [4] Subsequent appeals by the plaintiffs were dismissed at the DC Circuit Court and in 2010, the Supreme Court refused to hear the plaintiff's appeal.

Verdict

The 2008 farm bill placed $1.33 billion aside for women farmers and Hispanic farmers that had filed claims against the USDA. [2]  In 2012, the resolution process became known as the "Hispanic and Women Farmers and Ranchers Claims Resolution Process". [2] Similar Garcia v. Vilsack, the settlement process for female farmers was voluntary, which meant that female farmers had to file claims individually. [2]

Claims process

Claimants had to have been the owner or tenant operator of a family farm, between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, or between October 19, 1998, and October 19, 2000. [4] Claimants also had to follow certain criteria's in relation to the failure of the USDA in providing loans to the female farmers. [4] Claimants also had to believe that the actions of the USDA happened because the claimants were female and that these actions caused economic damage to the farmers. [4] In addition, claimants must have filed a complaint with the USDA claiming discrimination on the basis of their gender. [4] The USDA separated successful claimants into two tiers, tier two would receive a full payment of $50,000 while tier one claimants would receive less than $50,000, any judicator would make the final decision concerning compensation. [4]

Related Research Articles

A plaintiff is the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court. By doing so, the plaintiff seeks a legal remedy. If this search is successful, the court will issue judgment in favor of the plaintiff and make the appropriate court order. "Plaintiff" is the term used in civil cases in most English-speaking jurisdictions, the notable exceptions being England and Wales, where a plaintiff has, since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999, been known as a "claimant" and Scotland, where the party has always been known as the "pursuer". In criminal cases, the prosecutor brings the case against the defendant, but the key complaining party is often called the "complainant".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Department of Agriculture</span> Department of the US government

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to farming, forestry, rural economic development, and food. It aims to meet the needs of commercial farming and livestock food production, promotes agricultural trade and production, works to assure food safety, protects natural resources, fosters rural communities and works to end hunger in the United States and internationally. It is headed by the secretary of agriculture, who reports directly to the president of the United States and is a member of the president's Cabinet. The current secretary is Tom Vilsack, who has served since February 24, 2021.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant. A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Farm Service Agency</span> Agency of the US Dept of Agriculture

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is the United States Department of Agriculture agency that was formed by merging the farm loan portfolio and staff of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). The Farm Service Agency implements agricultural policy, administers credit and loan programs, and manages conservation, commodity, disaster, and farm marketing programs through a national network of offices. The Administrator of FSA reports to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation. The current administrator is Zach Ducheneaux. The FSA of each state is led by a politically appointed State Executive Director (SED).

Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case was argued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while she was working for the American Civil Liberties Union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Civil Rights Department</span> State government housing agency in California

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) is an agency of California state government charged with the protection of residents from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, and hate violence. It is the largest state civil rights agency in the United States. It also provides representation to the victims of hate crimes. CRD has a director who is appointed by the governor of California and maintains a total of five offices and five educational clinics throughout the state. Today, it is considered part of the California Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency.

<i>Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.</i>

Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. was a sexual discrimination class action lawsuit filed on October 16, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking back pay and an injunction. The suit challenged Walmart's denial of health insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives. The case was granted class action status with an estimated 400,000 women eligible for participation in the lawsuit.

Stopps v Just Ladies Fitness (Metrotown) Ltd was a discrimination by sex case heard before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that was significant in Canadian law because it found that a women-only admission policy of a public gym was not discrimination.

Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law, which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more unless their father or husband owned the establishment. Valentine Goesaert, the plaintiff in the case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law. The state argued that since the profession of bartending could potentially lead to moral and social problems for women, it was within the state's power to bar them from working as bartenders. Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the women bartender could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present.

The National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) is a non-profit organization representing African American farmers and their families in the United States. As an association, it serves tens of thousands of members nationwide. NBFA's education and advocacy efforts have been focused on civil rights, land retention, access to public and private loans, education and agricultural training, and rural economic development for black and other small farmers.

Pigford v. Glickman (1999) was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging that it had racially discriminated against African-American farmers in its allocation of farm loans and assistance from 1981 to 1996. The lawsuit was settled on April 14, 1999, by Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. To date, almost $1 billion US dollars have been paid or credited to fewer than 20,000 farmers under the settlement's consent decree, under what is reportedly the largest civil rights settlement until that point. Due to delaying tactics by U.S. government officials, more than 70,000 farmers were treated as filing late and thus did not have their claims heard. The 2008 Farm Bill provided for additional claims to be heard. In December 2010, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for what is called "Pigford II," settlement for the second part of the case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shirley Sherrod</span> American civil rights activist

Shirley Sherrod is a former Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture. On July 19, 2010, she became a subject of controversy when parts of a speech she gave were publicized by Breitbart News, and she was forced to resign. However, upon review of the complete unedited video in context, the NAACP, White House officials, and Tom Vilsack, the United States secretary of agriculture, apologized for the firing and Sherrod was offered a new position.

On July 19, 2010, Shirley Sherrod was fired from her appointed position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture. Her firing was an administration reaction to media reports on video excerpts from her address to an event of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in March 2010 and commentary posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart on his website. Based on these excerpts, the NAACP condemned Sherrod's remarks as racist and US government officials called on the official to resign. However, review of her full speech showed that the excerpts had been selectively edited, and that her remarks – understood in context – were about the importance of overcoming personal prejudices. The NAACP and White House officials then apologized for their earlier criticisms, and United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack apologized for the firing and offered Sherrod a new position.

Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers LLC and DOES 1-20 is a lawsuit filed in 2012 in San Francisco County Superior Court under the law of California by executive Ellen Pao for gender discrimination against her employer, the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins. Overlapping with a number of studies condemning the representation of women in venture capital, the case was followed closely by reporters, advocacy groups and Silicon Valley executives. Given the tendency for similar cases to reach settlements out of court, coverage of Pao v. Kleiner Perkins described it as a landmark trial once it began in February 2015. On March 27, 2015 the jury found in favor of Kleiner Perkins on all counts.

Janet Merlo joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in 1991 and was transferred to British Columbia. In 2007, she filed a lawsuit against the RCMP for what she described as almost daily harassment. In 2010, she took a medical discharge from the police service. In 2012, after speaking publicly about gender based harassment in the RCMP, Merlo became the representative plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit against the force and the Solicitor General of Canada. The group of current and retired female police officers who have requested to join the class action has now grown to almost 400. In June, 2015, Merlo's lawyers presented arguments to the court in British Columbia asking for class action status, due to allegations of systemic sexual harassment and misconduct.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

<i>Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey</i>

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey is a lawsuit appealed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The court heard the oral argument on September 26, 2018.

The USDA Coalition of Minority Employees is a civil rights organization formed by employees of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1994 specifically focused on ending discrimination within the Department and more generally on eradicating racism in agriculture in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Janie Simms Hipp</span> American lawyer

Janie Simms Hipp is the founder of the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative at the University of Arkansas, founder of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of Tribal Relations in the Office of the Secretary, founding Executive Director of the Native American Agriculture Fund, agriculture and food lawyer, and policy expert. Hipp's work focuses on the intersection of Indian law and agriculture and food law. On June 10, 2021, she was confirmed as USDA General Counsel, the first Native American to serve in that role.

Garcia v. Vilsack refers to a 2000 lawsuit brought by a hundred Hispanic farmers against the USDA, with the farmers claiming the organization had discriminated against Latino/Hispanic farmers. This lawsuit was filed at the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

References

  1. 1 2 Feder, J (2013). "Garcia v. Vilsack: A Policy and Legal Analysis of a USDA Discrimination Case". Congressional Research Service.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Leslie, Isaac Sohn; Wypler, Jaclyn; Bell, Michael Mayerfeld (2019-08-03). "Relational Agriculture: Gender, Sexuality, and Sustainability in U.S. Farming". Society & Natural Resources. 32 (8): 853–874. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2019.1610626 . ISSN   0894-1920. S2CID   182792843.
  3. ↑ Keller, J.C. (2014). ""I Wanna Have My Own Damn Dairy Farm!": Women Farmers, Legibility, and Femininities in Rural Wisconsin". Journal of Rural Social Sciences. 29 (1): 75–102.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Carpenter, S. (2012). "\The USDA Discrimination Cases: Pigford, In re Black Farmers, Keepseagle, Garcia, and Love". Drake Journal of Agricultural Law. 17: 1–36.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.