FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Nonprofit org, founded by Mitch Landrieu, invests in leaders expanding race and class equity.
NEW ORLEANS, Nov. 16, 2021 – E Pluribus Unum (EPU) announced its 2021 UNUM Fellows today including North Carolina’s own State Senator Jay Chadhuri and State Representative Ashton Clemmons. The select cohort of Southern elected leaders will participate in a year-long program to advance racial and economic equity in their states through sustainable change and collaboration. Just as with the inaugural cohort of EPU UNUM Fellows that included local elected officials, the organization will provide resources, training, and technical expertise along the journey.
“EPU’s UNUM Fellows are on the front lines of shaping America and are passionate to unite and build upon our country’s promise, said Founder and President Mitch Landrieu, a former Louisiana state legislator, mayor of New Orleans, and Louisiana Lt. Governor. “When leaders emphasize equity across race and class, then we begin tearing down the old walls intentionally built to divide us. Our communities, states, and America herself thrives when united and EPU Fellows are a part of making us better.”
Upon receiving the recognition, State Senator Chadhuri and State Representative Clemmons noted, “A North Carolina that keeps striving for race and class equity is a better North Carolina; and we are honored to partner with E Pluribus Unum as UNUM Fellows continuing on this important journey for our state and all North Carolinians.”
E Pluribus Unum’s 2021 UNUM Fellows are:
- Teri Anulewicz, State Representative of Georgia
- Christopher Bell, State Representative of Mississippi
- Park Cannon, State Representative of Georgia
- Jay Chaudhuri, State Senator of North Carolina
- Ashton Clemmons, State Representative of North Carolina
- Royce Duplessis, State Representative of Louisiana
- Aimee Adatto Freeman, State Representative of Louisiana
- Juandalynn Givan, State Representative of Alabama
- Harold Love, State Representative of Tennessee
- Kim Schofield, State Representative of Georgia
- Zakiya Summers, State Representative of Mississippi
Learn more about E Pluribus Unum’s UNUM Fellows.
###
About E Pluribus Unum
Founded by former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu in 2018, E Pluribus Unum (EPU) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose mission is to build a more just, equitable, and inclusive South, uprooting the barriers that have long divided the region by race and class. Incubated at Emerson Collective, EPU is focused on changing the divisive narratives that perpetuate systemic and interpersonal racism, cultivating and empowering courageous leaders who are advancing racial equity, and championing transformative policy change.
A South Florida lawyer is part of the team of litigators asking for more than $169 million in attorney fees.
The move comes after a federal district judge in Michigan gave the nod to a more than $600 million settlement in a years-long battle over contaminated water in Flint.
Theodore J. Leopold, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Palm Beach Gardens said that reaching this partial settlement as co-lead counsel for the victims required overcoming several obstacles, some of which are still pending.
…
“There was a minority community that was preyed upon by the, at the time, governor of Michigan,” Leopold said. “The injustice that occurred is something that we should never lose sight of, and we, as lawyers, should be there to stop these types of injustices.”
…
One of the challenges Leopold faced early on was that Michigan asserted it had sovereign immunity from these types of lawsuits. He said plaintiff counsel had to bypass the threshold to establish key areas of constitutional law to show that the state’s conduct was conscious indifference.
Leopold said a second challenge was battling defendants in multiple courts over their opposition to their lawsuits.
“We had probably from eight to 12 appeals that were not just to the Michigan Supreme Court, but also to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Leopold said. “There was a long trilogy of cases, fields that had to be addressed.”
…
Leopold also said the two defendants have appealed for appellate review of class certification against them. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal ruling will determine if the remaining defendants will go to trial.
…
“Hopefully, the infrastructure bill will address some of the water contamination issues not only PFAS related areas, which is a very big area right now, but also as it relates to piping infrastructure,” Leopold said, referring to toxic chemicals and polyfluoroalkyl substances. “Lead piping that’s all going to have to be replaced is one of the tenants of the infrastructure bill.”
For years, thousands of detainees awaiting their trials in immigration court were paid $1 a day to mop, scrub toilets, do laundry, and myriad other jobs at the Washington state facility where they were being held. During that time, GEO Group, the company contracted with the government to run the facility, Northwest ICE Processing Center, was posting millions of dollars in profits.
On Nov. 2, that balance of power shifted. In an extraordinary decision, a federal jury in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered GEO Group to provide $17.3 million in backpay to more than 10,000 former and current detainees, some of whom had performed the virtually-unpaid labor as far back as 2005.
In addition to the jury award, federal Judge Robert Bryan issued an injunction halting GEO Group’s labor practice and requiring the company, going forward, to pay the state’s minimum wage—$13.69—to all detainees participating in the company’s Voluntary Worker Program. In response to a related lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Judge Bryan also ordered GEO Group to pay the state $5.9 million on the grounds that the company had enjoyed “unjust enrichment” through unfair labor practices.
Those decisions, while limited to Washington state, could have powerful national implications, legal experts say. Many expect the federal court ruling to catalyze a wave of similar challenges in states with labor laws that mirror Washington’s. “I just don’t think a case of this magnitude … is going to go unnoticed across the country, that’s just not going to happen,” says Attorney General Ferguson, who says he plans to share the details and results of this case with other state attorneys general.
The legal reasoning employed by both the jury and Judge Bryan was straight-forward and far-reaching: immigrant detainees are not criminals. In the U.S., people who have been convicted of a crime are exempted from state labor laws while incarcerated. Immigrants, who are detained while they await civil proceedings to determine if they can remain in the U.S., fit a different category — and are therefore entitled to minimum wage for their labor.
. . .
A nationwide ripple effect
It’s already getting attention. In Colorado, lawyers representing up to 40,000 immigrants in a similar class action lawsuit against GEO Group have submitted paperwork to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado detailing how Judge Bryan ruled in the Washington case. The Colorado plaintiffs echo Washington Attorney General Ferguson’s argument almost exactly—that GEO Group unjustly enriched itself by paying detainees $1 a day for their labor. One plaintiff in that case, Alejandro Menocal, was paid $1 a day in 2014 for cleaning when he was detained at the Aurora Detention Facility, which was also run by GEO Group.
. . .
Michael Hancock, an attorney who has represented immigrants at privately-run detention centers in the past, says the Washington state decision offers a crucial paradigm shift. For years, he says, federal courts have “conflated those criminal incarcerated prisoners with civil detainees under the immigration law.” While he and other attorneys representing immigrant detainees argued that was “an inappropriate analogy,” they haven’t, so far, found traction.
Earlier this year, Hancock represented Desmond Ndambi, who was paid $1 a day in 2017 to manage a library at New Mexico’s Cibola County Correctional Center in New Mexico, which was run by CoreCivic, a private company that contracted with the government to run the facility. At the end of 2019, a New Mexico District Judge dismissed the Cibola case. In March, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court judge’s dismissal.
Washington Judge Bryan called out the case by name in his opinion. “I hope that other judges who review these proceedings will not be swayed by the idea, as quoted in the Ndambi vs CoreCivic case…that ‘fair payment for prisoners is too outlandish to consider,’” he wrote.
. . .
No good options
Immigrants who participated in the work programs at multiple CoreCivic and GEO Group locations describe long hours and abusive behavior by officers running the center, according to court documents. Hancock, who was part of a team of lawyers who conducted interviews with former detainees during its case against CoreCivic, says that many people accepted the dismal $1 per day wage because they wanted access to basic resources, like additional food or phone calls.
“It allows you to buy ramen noodles at the canteen to supplement what is otherwise a pretty dreary diet,” Hancock says. “It can allow you to make phone calls…Even though it’s a pittance, it’s something that allows you to sort of supplement what you’re getting from the detention facility, which isn’t much and can really improve your quality of life.”
A court has approved a settlement of more than $600 million — the majority of which will be paid by the state of Michigan — in a milestone in the years-long battle over contaminated water in Flint, one of the nation’s worst public health disasters.
The $626 million deal to settle most lawsuits filed by Flint residents is one of the largest in the state’s history, according to District Judge Judith Levy’s ruling. Children in Flint who were exposed to dangerous lead-contaminated drinking water are set to benefit in particular from the decision.
….
Residents of the predominantly Black city of around 95,000 people complained of discolored and foul-smelling water and skin rashes after bathing, but their concerns were largely ignored. Some critics have since labeled the disaster an example of environmental racism.
“This is a historic and momentous day for the residents of Flint, who will finally begin to see justice served,” said Ted Leopold, one of the lead attorneys in the litigation, the Associated Press reported.
NPR’s Ailsa Chang talks with Ted Leopold, co-lead counsel for the people of Flint, Mich., after a judge approved a settlement for victims of the city’s water crisis.
AILSA CHANG, HOST: A federal judge has approved a $626 million settlement for victims of the Flint water crisis. Residents there were exposed to contaminated drinking water after the city switched its water source in a cost-saving move back in 2014. Ted Leopold is co-lead counsel for the people of Flint, and he joins us now.
Welcome.
TED LEOPOLD: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
CHANG: I want to drill down on some aspects of the judge’s decision today because she considered multiple objections to this settlement. One in particular was about the technology used by one firm to determine whether residents had lead contamination in their bones, which could help determine how much money a resident is entitled to in this settlement, right?
LEOPOLD: That’s correct. So one of the firms has what’s referred to as bone scanning. And their clients have gone, from what I understand, and some may continue to go through that process. But that’s only one aspect there. We have set up, for the community and those who want to participate, another aspect to be able to get a just and full recovery for their injuries and damages by going through neuropsychological testing. So we are going to have that testing with experts and doctors from around the country coming in and to test all of those individuals who wish to have that done – not only adults but children as well.
CHANG: OK, so a number of ways that a resident can determine how much money they will be owed.
LEOPOLD: That’s right.
CHANG: And there has been some pushback from residents who say that this deal is inadequate. Can Flint residents opt out of this settlement and pursue other separate lawsuits if they’re not happy with the particular amount here?
LEOPOLD: They can opt out. There was a time frame for both people who were going to object to make their objections, which Judge Levy has addressed, and also for people to have opted out of that process of the settlement. So all of that has been taken into consideration.
CHANG: But going forward, no one else can opt out at this point, right?
LEOPOLD: That’s right. They either participate or not.
CHANG: OK. But just to be clear, there are still outstanding separate lawsuits in addition to this class action related to what has happened in Flint, correct?
LEOPOLD: Right. There is. And I think that sort of brings up an issue to which you were just asking about in terms of being concerns of, quote, “not enough money,” if you will, by some people within the community. And, you know, in something like this, it has had such a catastrophic effect on a community and especially the Flint community that has gone through, historically, such hard times that, you know, no amount of money could ever cure what has happened. But we think that this is a large sum of money that can hopefully bring justice, or at least some semblance of justice, to what has occurred, bring some closure for people – but also that this $600-plus million is one aspect of the case. There are still additional engineering – private engineering companies that are defendants in the case. We – recently, Judge Levy has certified that case. And if that case doesn’t resolve, we are looking forward and working hard to prepare that case for trial. So there are additional funds that will be available.
CHANG: Ted Leopold is co-lead counsel for the people of Flint.
Thank you very much for joining us today.
LEOPOLD: Thank you.
Judge announces compensation plans for tens of thousands of residents affected by one of America’s worst public health cases.
A federal judge has approved a $626m settlement for victims of the lead water crisis in Flint, Michigan, in a case brought by tens of thousands of residents affected by the contaminated water.
Announcing the settlement on Tuesday, district judge Judith Levy called it a “remarkable achievement” that “sets forth a comprehensive compensation program and timeline that is consistent for every qualifying participant”.
Most of the money will come from the state of Michigan, which was accused of repeatedly overlooking the risks of using the Flint River without properly treating the water.
“This is a historic and momentous day for the residents of Flint, who will finally begin to see justice served,” said Ted Leopold, one of the lead attorneys in the litigation.
It’s been four years since a chemical compound called GenX was discovered in the Cape Fear River and area drinking wells. GenX has been used by Fayetteville company Chemours to make non-stick cookware.
According to a recently released report from the EPA, the effect on humans is potentially worse than first thought.
“Animal studies following oral exposure have shown health effects including on the liver, kidneys, the immune system, development of offspring, and an association with cancer” the report stated.
“The people who are experiencing those injuries and diseases are very concerned that it’s the water that they’ve been drinking, in some cases for 40 years, that’s causing this,” said Gary Jackson. He is an attorney with the law firm James Scott Farrin. His team joins two other law firms that represent a consolidated federal class-action lawsuit against Chemours and parent company Dupont.
Beginning in 2019, the EPA stopped releasing crucial toxics reports. Even agency staffers have a hard time accessing them.
The Environmental Protection Agency has withheld information from the public since January 2019 about the dangers posed by more than 1,200 chemicals. By law, companies must give the EPA any evidence they possess that a chemical presents “a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.” Until recently, the agency had been making these reports — known as 8(e) reports, for the section of the Toxic Substances Control Act that requires them — available to the public. In 2017, for instance, the EPA posted 481 substantial risk reports from industry on ChemView, a searchable public database of chemical information maintained by the agency. And in 2018, it added another 569 8(e) reports to the site. But since 2019, the EPA has only posted one of the reports to its public website.
During this time, chemical companies have continued to submit the critical studies to the agency, according to two EPA staff members with knowledge of the matter. Since January 2019, the EPA has received at least 1,240 reports documenting the risk of chemicals’ serious harms, including eye corrosion, damage to the brain and nervous system, chronic toxicity to honeybees, and cancer in both people and animals. PFAS compounds are among the chemical subjects of these notifications.
An EPA spokesperson acknowledged the problem in an emailed response to questions from The Intercept. “Due to overarching (staff and contractor) resource limitations, the agency was not able to continue the regular publication of 8(e) submissions in ChemView, a very manual process, after 1/1/2019.” The statement went on to note: “The TSCA program is underfunded. The previous Administration never asked Congress for the necessary resources to reflect the agency’s new responsibilities under amended TSCA. These shortfalls have implications that matter to all stakeholders, not just industry.” Despite the funding challenges, the EPA pledged to try to rectify the situation.
June 22 was a great day for Alfi, Inc, a tech company in Miami Beach, Florida, which sells facial recognition advertising software. After going public in early May at $3.75 per share and dipping to a low of $2.41, the stock had risen above $16.
On June 21, an article published on Yahoo! reported that Alfi’s stock was going “parabolic,” citing a bullish video interview conducted by Benzinga, a financial news outlet. “We’ve been given a big bat and we’re swinging,” Alfi’s chief executive, Paul Pereira, was quoted as saying. The original Benzinga video included air horn sound effects for emphasis.
What the Yahoo! story didn’t report was that, starting June 10, Alfi had paid Benzinga to promote the company with articles and videos. Benzinga, which is based in Detroit and employs an editorial staff of around 30 people, publishes hundreds of stories per day, including paid promotions written by a dedicated team, Luke Jacobi, Benzinga’s director of operations, told CJR. One sponsored content package, including videos and “review style press release article[s]” to be syndicated to websites including Yahoo!, costs $5,750, according to marketing materials shared with advertisers.
While some astute Yahoo! readers may have noticed the small Benzinga logo near the headline, few are likely to know what it means, or that Alfi had paid for the original story. The original and syndicated versions were nearly identical, down to the same lead image of a neon arrow pointing upwards. But there was one important difference. The Benzinga version included a small advertiser disclosure, while the syndicated version on Yahoo! did not.
This Alfi story was one of more than a hundred paid promotional articles originally published by Benzinga, then syndicated to better-known financial news websites like Yahoo!, Yahoo! Finance, and Markets Insider (from the website Insider) to appear without disclosures over the past six months, according to a review by CJR. It’s not clear how many readers saw them, but, in the company’s marketing materials, Benzinga says it has received 150 million monthly impressions through its syndication partnerships.
. . .
The Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 made it illegal to promote a stock in exchange for payment without disclosing that payment, a response to crooked tip sheets and newspaper items of the day. Joshua Mitts, a professor at Columbia Law School who advises the Department of Justice on market manipulation and securities fraud violation, says the act of digital syndication makes the enforcement of the rules more complicated.
“These duties apply to the speaker — to the one injecting the information into the market,” said Mitts. Initially, that speaker is Benzinga, with proper disclosure. Then, it’s a secondary site, without one. “Now you’re asking a different question, a very interesting one, which is, ‘what about a platform that’s rebroadcasting what is in effect — has now become — a materially misleading statement?’”
“It’s a difficult claim for a regulator to bring,” said Laura Posner, a lawyer specializing in securities litigation and investor protection.
In 2017, the SEC charged 27 firms and individuals for promoting stocks on news websites in exchange for undisclosed payments. The stories appeared on sites including Yahoo! Finance and Benzinga, according to the SEC — but the sites themselves weren’t named as defendants in the complaint. In an “investor alert” at the time, the SEC warned readers to look out for more undisclosed paid promotions in the future. “Even if articles on an investment research website appear to be an unbiased source of information or provide commentary on multiple stocks, they may be part of an undisclosed paid stock promotion,” the warning read.
WHAT TO KNOW:
- Arbitration cases grow in 2020, industry group report shows
- House lawmakers want to stop mandatory agreements
The number of employment disputes resolved in arbitration climbed by roughly 66% between 2018 and 2020, according to new data, despite pressure from the #MeToo movement and efforts by Fortune 500 companies and lawmakers to curb agreements that keep claims out of court.
Companies closed just over 5,000 workplace arbitration cases in 2020, up from more than 3,000 cases in 2018, according to an American Association for Justice report released Wednesday.
The data appears to back a growing trend of companies using arbitration agreements to resolve worker claims through private dispute resolution. The practice has been bolstered by U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the past decade, but it’s been targeted in the wake of the #MeToo movement by worker groups, shareholders, and legislatures as harmful to workers because of a lack of transparency in the process.
Some employers—including Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Microsoft Corp., Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co.—have said they would drop mandatory arbitration for sexual harassment and assault claims. But companies also have dug their heels into enforcing arbitration pacts when workers allege wage-and-hour and other types of discrimination violations, leading to repeated clashes in court.
. . .
The new report comes as the House Judiciary Committee considers legislation (H.R. 963) that would eliminate the use of mandatory arbitration in employment and consumer agreements. The bill will almost certainly face headwinds from business groups and Republicans, who argue that arbitration is a faster and more efficient way to resolve disputes than the court system.
. . .
Federal Legislation
States previously have attempted to curb arbitration in cases of sexual harassment, but courts have mostly held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts those measures. One notable exception is a California law a federal appeals court revived in September that is pending further review.
In light of the power of federal law, Congress is considering the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, which would amend federal law to ban mandatory arbitration agreements for employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has fought the FAIR Act and argued to lawmakers that the bill promotes, “expensive class action litigation that does little to help businesses, consumers and employees and serves principally to benefit the attorneys who file class action lawsuits.” It cites studies from the Institute for Legal Reform that show instead that employees can prevail and recover more money than they could in court.
Congress also is weighing a separate bill to end the enforceability of mandatory arbitration agreements for workers alleging sexual harassment or assault.
Mass Filings
The AAJ report found that companies, including Amazon.com Inc., American Express Co., and AT&T, at times faced more than 10, and sometimes over 100, arbitration filings in a single day.
This could be an indication that companies are being hit with “mass arbitration” claims, attorneys said. Gig companies, including DoorDash Inc. and Postmates Inc., have faced that tactic in recent years, forcing the companies to pay millions in arbitration fees up front.
Those tactics, however, are rare and can only be handled en masse by large firms that have the resources, said Joe Sellers, a partner with Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC. He represents workers in litigation and arbitration disputes.
The cost of arbitration fees to companies in those situations can be high and far more burdensome than proceeding in court.
“There are several phenomena going on at the same time. There’s a temptation by companies to use these agreements to avoid class claims, but they may be forced to incur large amounts of transaction costs to handle multiple claims that are very similar,” he said. “The increased use of arbitration is largely a hedge against the class actions.”