1. Warner v. GPO
IPR has a long history of representing employees at the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) in employment discrimination cases. IPR represents Kimberly Warner who currently manages the GPO’s DigitalPrintCenter. When her former supervisor was promoted, Ms. Warner assumed his responsibilities, but was not promoted into his vacant position. Despite her increased duties, Ms. Warner has not been recognized or compensated appropriately, while many of her male colleagues and supervisors have been promoted repeatedly.
Ms. Warner filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) pro se, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After filing her complaint, Ms. Warner contacted IPR for assistance. After conducting discovery and preparing for a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge, IPR successfully negotiated a settlement on Ms. Warner’s behalf.
2. James Nix and Yvonne Davis v. Library of Congress
IPR represents James Nix and Yvonne Davis, two retired Library of Congress employees who participated in a 1982 class action alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In September 1995, the underlying class action was settled through a court-approved agreement that included a non-retaliation clause. In July 1997, the plaintiff class filed a motion to enforce the settlement, which included claims that Mr. Nix and Ms. Davis were retaliated against in contravention of the settlement agreement. In May 2006, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia retained jurisdiction over their retaliation claims and IPR subsequently agreed to represent Mr. Nix and Ms. Davis. In February 2007, the Library filed a motion for summary judgment. IPR opposed the motion and is awaiting the Court’s ruling.
3. Joi Hyatte v. DOJ
IPR represents Joi Hyatte, an African-American, longtime employee of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) who has repeatedly been denied promotions and subject to harassment on the basis of race. Ms. Hyatte filed a pro se administrative complaint with DOJ’s Equal Opportunity Office, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She then contacted IPR for assistance. IPR filed a federal action on Ms. Hyatte’s behalf in May 2008. The complaint may be found here.
1. In re Arons
This is the latest chapter of IPR’s long-running effort to ensure that Delaware parents have assistance when they battle school boards in order to secure educational services for their disabled children. A few years ago, we represented parents who argued that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal law governing the rights of disabled children to a free and appropriate public education, guaranteed parents a right to be assisted by non-lawyers in the due process hearings that are held under the Act. The issues and procedures involved in these hearings are very complex, and few, if any, lawyers are willing to represent the parents. In contrast, the school boards have access to lawyers and experts. The Delaware Supreme Court rejected our argument as a matter of law, but urged the parents to file a petition with the Court to modify Delaware’s rules forbidding non-lawyers from practicing law. Specifically, the Court indicated that it would consider the adoption of a rule permitting lay representation in a limited class of cases, “[i]f it could be demonstrated that an unmet need exists and that the local bar could not adequately respond.” In re Arons, 756 A.2d 867, 874 (Del. 2000).
IPR is preparing such a petition to the Delaware Supreme Court. In the petition, we will tell the stories of parents’ battles with the school boards and drive home to the Court just how unequal these battles are.
2. Students v. D.C. Public Schools and Bureau of Prisons
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires states to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities who are convicted as adults under state law and incarcerated in adult prisons. In 2001, the Lorton Correctional Complex in D.C. was closed and all D.C. offenders were transferred to federal custody pursuant to the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act. However, D.C. offenders in federal custody are not receiving the special education services they are entitled to under IDEA. Therefore, IPR is working with the U.D.C. David A. Clarke School of Law’s Juvenile Law Clinic to bring a class action to ensure that all eligible D.C. offenders receive IDEA services while in federal custody.
1. Hamilton v. VirginiaDepartment of Corrections
Gutman v. VirginiaDepartment of Corrections
IPR represented two Jewish inmates in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”) in their efforts to meaningfully practice their religion while in prison. Mitzi Hamilton and Gary Gutman were seeking a variety of accommodations such as access to kosher for Passover meals, the right to observe religious fasts, Shabbat, and other holidays, and the right to possess prayer items. IPR engaged in lengthy negotiations with VDOC officials in order to educate them about the religious rights of Jewish inmates and advocate for necessary accommodations. As part of this effort, IPR drafted a comprehensive Policy on Jewish Religious Observance which is currently under review by the VDOC.
1. Consumer Federation of America v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
The Consumer Federation of America (“CFA”) is a nonprofit research, education, and advocacy organization. In August 2004, CFA made a FOIA request to the Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”), an agency within the USDA, seeking disclosure of public calendars memorializing meetings between high-level FSIS officials and industry representatives, including meetings held in connection with the promulgation of a rule regulating the public’s exposure to Listeria monocytogenes (“Listeria”). Listeria is a food-borne bacterium that may be found in cooked foods, such as ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, as a result of post-processing contamination. It causes listeriosis, a potentially fatal disease in newborns, the elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems, such as those with chronic disease or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or those taking chemotherapy for cancer.
In 2003, the USDA announced its plans to weaken federal regulations governing Listeria exposure in meat and poultry processing facilities. CFA believes that the regulations were weakened because high-level departmental officials had been overly cozy with industry representatives during the rulemaking process. CFA therefore sought copies of certain high-level officials’ calendars to see precisely with whom they have been meeting.
After the USDA denied CFA’s FOIA request for the calendars, IPR filed suit in October 2004 on CFA’s behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In December, IPR filed a motion for summary judgment. In response to that motion, the USDA began to release some, but not all, of the calendars, and those calendars that were released were heavily (and inconsistently) redacted without explanation. IPR therefore refused to withdraw its motion, and the government then filed its cross-motion for summary judgment. In July 2005, the Court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed CFA’s case, accepting the government’s argument that the calendars were not “agency records” under FOIA.
CFA appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In June 2006, the D.C. Circuit reversed the District Court and ruled that the USDA must release the calendars of five of the senior officials. Consumer Federation of America v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 455 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 2006), reversing 383 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005).
On remand, CFA discovered that the USDA failed to search for, segregate, and preserve the calendars in response to CFA’s August 2004 request, in clear violation of FOIA. As a result, hundreds of calendar pages that CFA is entitled to are now missing. In March 2007, parties cross-moved for summary judgment. CFA also asked the Court to sanction the USDA for failing to preserve the calendars. We are awaiting the Court’s ruling.
2. Lee v. Minner
IPR represented Matthew Lee, a New York-based writer, community activist, and executive director of Inner City Press/Community on the Move, an organization that advocates on behalf of poor, inner city residents and that is dedicated to exposing the unfair lending practices of national and multi-national banks and financial services companies. On behalf of Mr. Lee, IPR challenged the constitutionality of the State of Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Delaware’s FOIA law limits access to public records to “citizens” of Delaware, and Mr. Lee is a citizen of New York. For a journalist and community activist interested in tracking how the State of Delaware regulates companies incorporated in Delaware and doing business nationwide, the Act’s restrictions pose a severe hardship.
In November 2003, IPR filed a lawsuit in federal court in Wilmington challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The lawsuit alleged that the Act’s citizens-only provision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Following a period of discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment in June 2004.
In May 2005, the court granted IPR’s motion for summary judgment, held that the Act’s “citizens-only” provision was unconstitutional, and enjoined enforcement of that provision of the law. Lee v. Minner, 369 F. Supp. 2d 527 (D. Del. 2005). The State then moved for a stay of the injunction pending appeal, which the court denied.
Delaware appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2006, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision and enjoined Delaware from limiting FOIA access to Delaware citizens. Lee v. Minner, 458 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2006).
3. Inner City Press v. Federal Reserve Board
As indicated above, the Inner City Press/Community on the Move (“ICP”) advocates on a variety of issues that adversely impact poor, inner-city residents — e.g., predatory lending, redlining, insurance scams, environmental justice, and affordable housing. IPR has represented ICP in its efforts to obtain information from federal and state agencies regarding the failure of those agencies to adequately supervise and regulate banks, insurance companies, and other financial services companies.
One focus of ICP’s work has been payday and title lenders, pawnshops, and other “subprime” lenders that prey on the poor and un/underemployed. Many large national banks (e.g., Wachovia) underwrite the activities of these subprime lenders, but they try to do it in ways that fly under the radar (e.g., wholly-owned subsidiaries or secured loans to subprime operators) because it is bad publicity for the banks to be associated with these types of lenders. In addition, federal or state regulators can (though they rarely do) hold the national banks accountable for
their support of these other entities’ unfair lending practices.
In July 2004, ICP sought records from the Federal Reserve Board relating to a pending application by Wachovia to merge with SouthTrust bank. As part of Wachovia’s application, it had to disclose to the Board any support the bank has given to subprime lenders. ICP filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request with the Board, asking for copies of Wachovia’s application, seeking in particular a listing of the subprime lenders that Wachovia has financed or otherwise supported.
The Board denied ICP’s request, saying that the information was exempt from disclosure under FOIA’s Exemption 4 which covers “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” After pursuing an unsuccessful administrative appeal on behalf of ICP, IPR filed suit against the Board in October 2004 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The parties then cross-moved for summary judgment, and in July 2005, the Court granted each motion in part. Inner City Press/Community on the Move v. Federal Reserve Bd., 380 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court ordered the Board to disclose significant portions of the confidential exhibit discussing Wachovia’s subprime lending activities. The Board moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision, which was denied.
The parties filed cross-appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In September 2006, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the names of the subprime lenders fall within Exemption 4 of FOIA. Inner City Press/Community on the Move v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, 463 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2006). IPR filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied. On remand, the Board agreed to release additional information from Wachovia’s merger application that was available in public SEC filings and ICP agreed to dismiss the case.
4. NRDC v. Department of Defense
This is a FOIA action that IPR is handling on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental organization. The case was filed in March 2004 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and seeks to compel the EPA, the Defense Department, and the Office of Management and Budget to disclose information about the extent of perchlorate contamination in certain areas of the country, any assessments of the health risks posed by the contamination, and any records relating to measures being implemented by the government to eliminate or mitigate the contamination.
Last year, the government moved for summary judgment with respect to the EPA and Department of Defense, and the Court, in a lengthy opinion that is quite favorable to our position, denied that motion. NRDC v. Dep’t of Defense, 388 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2005). In May 2006, the Court issued another lengthy opinion again denying the government's motion for summary judgment and ordering the defendants to turn over significant numbers of records to the NRDC. NRDC v. Dep’t of Defense, 442 F. Supp. 2d 857 (C.D. Cal. 2006). After extensive
discovery proceedings that revealed gaping holes in their searches, the defendants agreed to turn over numerous additional documents. IPR is awaiting the Court’s ruling on additional disputed documents.
5. FOIA Request for Department of Defense Interrogation Records
IPR is assisting two prominent experts in bioethics in making Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Department of Defense and other government agencies. Our clients want to learn more about how government and civilian medical personnel assist in developing and implementing interrogation and torture techniques, and what code of conduct, if any, guides these individuals. To date, IPR has submitted nearly fifty FOIA requests to ten government agencies on behalf of our clients.
