Southern Poverty Law Center - Louisiana

ALEX A. v. EDWARDS

rudy.isaza_2663 — Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:31:55 +0000

In July 2022, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards announced a plan to transfer dozens of incarcerated youths to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola. The facility is the nation’s largest and has a longstanding record of human rights violations. It housed some 5,000 adult men, the vast majority of them convicted of violent crimes.

A former official with the state Official of Juvenile Justice, called the move “abhorrent” and the “worst juvenile justice policy decision probably ever made in modern times.” The prison was not equipped to safely and humanely house youth and provide them with the educational and rehabilitative services required under federal law.

A coalition of civil rights groups and attorneys filed a class action federal lawsuit on behalf of children moved to Angola, and a federal judge in August 2023 ordered the state to remove them, citing unconstitutional conditions that amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment.” Children had been subjected to solitary confinement for days and weeks at a time; excessive force; denial of education; and the routine use of shackles, handcuffs and chemical agents. The state appealed the decision and lost, but the order was time-limited and no longer in force, returning the case to the district court, where the plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to end the confinement at Angola or any other adult facility.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Date Filed

August 19, 2022

Issue Area

Children's Rights

Co-Counsel

ACLU National Prison Project, Claiborne Firm, Murell Law Firm, Shanies Firm

Active Case

ALEX A. v. EDWARDS

CALOGERO, ET. AL. v. SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP

rudy.isaza_2663 — Mon, 08 Jul 2024 16:53:17 +0000

In the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, Congress provided billions of dollars through the “Road Home” program for home repair, rebuilding and other services to homeowners whose residences were destroyed or severely damaged.

In 2007, Iris Calogero and Margie Nell Randolph, both elderly widows, each received grants to restore homes devastated by the storms. A decade later, they received dunning letters from the defendant, a law firm hired by the state of Louisiana. The letters alleged they owed thousands of dollars because they did not follow certain rules under the Road Home program, administered by the state, and threatened them with litigation.

After Calogera disputed the debt, the defendant changed the basis of the alleged debt and added a new penalty. Meanwhile, the state was suing thousands of other homeowners under similar claims.

On behalf of the plaintiffs and others in their situation, the ��Խ� and co-counsel filed a federal class action lawsuit claiming the debt collector violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by using false, deceptive or misleading representations in an attempt to collect the alleged debt.

A federal judge dismissed the complaint, but it was reinstated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit. Following that decision, the lower court judge granted a summary judgment in favor of the law firm. Calogero and Randolph also appealed that decision. On March 15, 2024, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the homeowners again, sending the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion stating that the debt collector had violated the FDCPA in multiple ways.

In February 2003, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that it was ending efforts to reclaim funds from homeowners who received money through the Road Home program. Randolph received partial relief that she sought in the lawsuit when HUD forgave the outstanding balance on the debt she allegedly owed.

The Court of Appeals’ decision paves the way for Randolph, Calogero and other Road Home grant recipients represented in the lawsuit to seek compensation for the harm caused by their unlawful debt collection practices.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Date Filed

July 12, 2022

Issue Area

Economic Justice

Co-Counsel

Margaret Woodward, Jenny Deasy and Keren Gesund

Active Case

CALOGERO, ET. AL. v. SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP

Case Number

22-30487

Jerome Morgan, et al. v. Blair’s Bail Bonds, Inc., et al.

rudy.isaza_2663 — Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:57:10 +0000

After Louisiana lawmakers passed legislation to prevent the bail bond industry from paying refunds after overcharging people for more than a decade, the Southern Poverty Law Center and its co-counsel filed a lawsuit.

New Orleans bail bond companies faced the possibility of paying millions of dollars in refunds to people who purchased bail bonds between 2005 and 2019 after the Louisiana Department of Insurance issued Directive 214. The directive – issued following an insurance complaint that the ��Խ� submitted – found that the companies had overcharged people.

After the Department of Insurance issued Directive 214, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 54, a law immunizing the bail bond industry from having to pay those refunds. The ��Խ� and William P. Quigley, a Loyola University law professor, filed a lawsuit to strike down Act 54 as an unconstitutional local and special law and as a violation of due process.

After Act 54 was passed, the ��Խ� filed the lawsuit in state court on behalf of Jerome Morgan and a putative class.

Date Filed

August 12, 2019

Issue Area

Economic Justice

Co-Counsel

William P. Quigley

Active Case

Jerome Morgan, et al. v. Blair’s Bail Bonds, Inc., et al.

Case Number

2019-08430

Ebony Roberts, et al. v. Robert J. Black, et al.

donovan.thomas — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:40:38 +0000

A city court judge in Bogalusa, Louisiana, operated a modern-day debtors’ prison by illegally jailing indigent people unable to pay fines or court costs – including a man fined for stealing $5 worth of food to feed his family. The ��Խ� filed a federal lawsuit to stop the unconstitutional practice.

The federal lawsuit describes how Judge Robert J. Black routinely sent people to jail for failure to pay fines or court costs for minor traffic tickets or misdemeanor violations without determining why they couldn’t pay. The court was significantly funded through court costs and fees, creating an incentive for the judge to find people guilty and coerce payment through the threat of jail, according to the lawsuit. The court operated in a city where 35 percent of residents lived below the poverty line.

Black even created an illegal $50 “extension fee” defendants could pay to stay out of jail while they raised money to pay the fees and fines they still owed the court. The extension fee, which is not authorized by state law, is used to raise money for the court. Overall, court costs and fees have been used to cover budget shortfalls within the Bogalusa court system ranging from 20 to 30 percent.

Debtors’ prisons were outlawed in the United States nearly 200 years ago. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1983 ruling in Bearden v. Georgia found judges can’t send people to jail for being too poor to pay court fines. A judge must first consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay but “willfully” refuses.

Rozzie Scott, a 21-year-old Bogalusa resident, spent time in jail after he was unable to pay $450 in fines and court costs for stealing $5 worth of food from a local store to feed his family. Scott was released 4 hours later after his cousin paid the $50 extension fee. Black never asked Scott if he worked or why he couldn’t pay. He told other defendants they would go to jail if they couldn’t pay their fines and court costs or the extension fee.

The lawsuit, which names the judge and the city court as defendants, seeks class action status and a preliminary injunction to block the judge’s unconstitutional practices.

Date Filed

June 21, 2016

Issue Area

Economic Justice

Ebony Roberts, et al. v. Robert J. Black, et al.

VAYLA New Orleans, et al. v. Tom Schedler, et al.

alex.amend — Wed, 04 May 2016 15:21:15 +0000

Louisiana discriminated against naturalized citizens by requiring them to provide citizenship documents when registering to vote – a requirement that was not asked of other potential voters who were only required to swear that they are U.S. citizens. The ��Խ� filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of three naturalized citizens who had to meet the requirement, which dated back to 1874.

VAYLA New Orleans, a nonprofit organization that had attempted to register voters, was also a plaintiff.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. It describes how the requirement violates the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment by singling out naturalized citizens. This practice also violated Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voter Registration Act, according to the lawsuit.

Under Louisiana law, all registrants had to swear they are citizens when completing voter registration forms. These forms did not state that naturalized citizens must provide documentation. The website for Louisiana’s secretary of state also failed to mention this requirement. After registering to vote, a letter would be sent to these potential voters demanding that they provide proof of citizenship, such as a U.S. passport or a certificate of naturalization.

There were approximately 72,250 naturalized citizens living in Louisiana at the time of the lawsuit. Voter registration groups, such as VAYLA New Orleans, faced difficulties as they registered naturalized citizens only for these potential voters to discover later that they must provide documentation. The obstacles created by the requirement prevented many people from voting in the 2016 presidential primary.

The Fair Elections Legal Network served as the ��Խ�’s co-counsel on the case.

Date Filed

May 04, 2016

Status

Won

Court where filed

United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

Issue Area

Immigrant Justice

Plaintiffs

VAYLA New Orleans, Thanh Mai, Floridalma Mansilla, Norma Flores

Defendants

Tom Schedler, in his official capacity as Louisiana Secretary of State, Angie Rogers, in her official capacity of Louisiana Commissioner of Elections

Co-Counsel

Fair Elections Legal Network

VAYLA New Orleans, et al. v. Tom Schedler, et al.

Complaint to the Department of Justice Regarding National Origin Discrimination in the First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 14:14:42 +0000

Louisiana Court Language Access Title VI Complaint

The ��Խ� filed a federal civil rights complaint after discovering that Latinos with limited English proficiency were being treated more harshly for traffic offenses than others appearing before a Jefferson Parish court in the suburbs of New Orleans, Louisiana.

The complaint to the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) was filed on behalf of four people charged with traffic offenses in the First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish.

In addition to paying fines and court fees, they were forced to attend and pay for overpriced English classes as a requirement of probation. They were also charged, without their consent, for inadequate interpretation services in court. They were forced by court officials to sign forms written only in English, and their assigned interpreters failed to explain the charges against them and did not properly convey the complainants’ evidence to the judge.

The DOJ has repeatedly told courts that they must inform defendants of all charges pending against them and make interpretation services available free of charge.

Date Filed

March 30, 2016

Issue Area

Immigrant Justice

Complaint to the Department of Justice Regarding National Origin Discrimination in the First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish

EEOC v. Signal International, LLC

admin — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 21:52:53 +0000

Three years after the ��Խ� filed its lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit against Signal, accusing the company of discriminating against the Indian guest workers in the David case filed by the ��Խ� and its co-counsel. The EEOC’s lawsuit also alleges that Signal retaliated against the workers – firing them, detaining them and attempting to deport them – when they tried to oppose the company’s discriminatory practices.

The EEOC lawsuit is part of an effort targeting extreme labor abuse. The court allowed the guest workers represented by the ��Խ� to join the EEOC’s case as plaintiff-intervenors, providing these workers with a voice in the EEOC case and another opportunity for justice. The EEOC lawsuit is also significant because the government sought to hold Signal, rather than labor recruiters or other “middlemen,” responsible for the abuses.

The lawsuit charges that Signal discriminated against the Indian workers by requiring them to pay astronomical rent to live in substandard, crowded housing that non-Indian workers did not have to occupy, and created and perpetuated a hostile work environment against the Indian employees based on their race or national origin.

Date Filed

May 06, 2011

Status

Resolved

Court where filed

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Issue Area

Immigrant Justice

Plaintiffs

The United State Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Defendants

Signal International, LLC

Co-Counsel

Crowell & Moring, American Civil Liberties Union, Sahn Ward & Baker, and Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund

EEOC v. Signal International, LLC

Case Number

12-557

Schwartzmann v. Couvillon

admin — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:32:52 +0000

Schwartzmann v. Couvillon

The ��Խ� filed suit in state court after Vermilion Parish (La.) Sheriff Michael Couvillon refused to release public records related to the detention of individuals suspected of being undocumented. The records were requested under the Louisiana Public Records Act to determine if the sheriff’s office was holding immigrants in jail for prolonged periods due to unconstitutional racial profiling.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can ask state agencies to detain individuals after the resolution of traffic, municipal or state criminal charges if it suspects a person has committed a civil immigration violation – a suspicion often based on racial profiling alone. Federal law prohibits state agencies from holding individuals for more than 48 hours after the initial ICE request if the detention is based solely on immigration status. Despite this requirement, there is concern that local law enforcement agencies in Louisiana, and possibly in other states, regularly use the cover of these ICE “immigration detainers” to hold immigrants for unconstitutionally excessive periods.

Sheriff Couvillon has argued that the records sought by the ��Խ� are exempt from the disclosure requirements of the state’s Public Records Act.

Date Filed

September 19, 2012

Issue Area

Criminal Justice Reform

Immigrant Justice

Schwartzmann v. Couvillon

M.V. vs. Jefferson Parish Public School System

admin — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:28:14 +0000

Louisiana’s Jefferson Parish Public School System failed to provide adequate translation and interpretation services for Spanish-speaking parents with limited English proficiency (LEP) and created an environment hostile to Latino students. The school system provided notices, such as notices of long-term suspensions and special education materials, in English to English-speaking parents but failed to provide this information to Spanish-speaking parents in Spanish. This failure discriminated against these students and violated state and federal law.

The ��Խ� filed a complaint against the school district with the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice, resulting in a settlement agreement between the school system and federal authorities.

The complaint describes how LEP parents of Latino students are unable to read and understand important school notices written in English. They also are unable to communicate effectively with school staff because of the lack of interpretation services. M.V., a 7-year-old Latino student, had to translate for his mother at his parent-teacher conference, because the school did not have an on-site translator. M.V. had a difficult time translating the teacher’s messages and resorted to telling his mother that the “teacher said he was doing fine.”

The complaint also describes how the school system’s staff has created a hostile learning environment for Latino students, routinely interrogating them about their citizenship status as a condition of enrollment and graduation. C.K., a rising sophomore, sought a transfer from his high school because of widespread hostility. A teacher called him a “w------” during class, but school officials failed to take any action against the teacher or remove C.K. from the teacher’s classroom.

Latino students comprised 17 percent of the district’s student population, and LEP students are 8 percent. Federally funded school districts are required by various laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to provide LEP parents with important information in a language they can understand. This also requires that schools not condition enrollment or graduation from a public school on a students’ citizenship or immigration status.

The three-year settlement agreement outlines several steps the district must take, including the following:

A bilingual parent advisory committee will be created to offer recommendations to the school system on the educational program for English language learners. It also will offer recommendations for registration and enrollment policies and communications to parents regarding harassment and bullying.

A translation and interpretation policy will be implemented to ensure essential information is provided to LEP (limited English proficiency) parents in a language they understand.

All school system employees who interact with the public will receive annual training for effective communication with LEP parents and the type of information that must be translated or interpreted.

The school system will revise its policies and practices to ensure that discrimination complaints are investigated and resolved.

Faculty, staff and students of West Jefferson High School will receive anti-harassment, anti-bullying and diversity training. A school climate survey will be conducted annually at the high school to determine if there is harassment or bullying based on race, color or national origin.

Policies and materials for enrollment and registration also will be revised by the school system before the 2014-15 school year to ensure students are not discouraged from enrolling due to immigration status or citizenship. The school system will ensure that enrollment or graduation does not require parents or students to present a Social Security number, state-issued ID or similar documents.

Date Filed

August 22, 2012

Issue Area

Children's Rights

M.V. vs. Jefferson Parish Public School System

W.P. v. Jefferson Parish Public School System

admin — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:04:51 +0000

African-American students and students with disabilities in Louisiana’s Jefferson Parish Public Schools were disproportionately referred to alternative school, where they often languish for months or even years before returning to regular classes. These students often were referred to alternative schools for minor misconduct, such as disrespectful behavior, use of profanity, disrupting class and horseplay.

The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a federal discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in May 2012 on behalf of a group of students subjected to such treatment.

The complaint described how the district’s discipline and alternative school policies resulted in students with disabilities accounting for 52 percent of referrals to alternative schools, when they represent just 11 percent of the district’s student population. African-American students accounted for 78 percent of all alternative school referrals even though they made up 46 percent of the district’s student population.

It also described how the district’s policies result in these students being held at alternative schools for far longer than their peers due to a strict exit policy that required them to earn points for the opportunity to return to their regular school.

As a result, students with disabilities averaged 223.9 days in alternative school, compared to an average stay of 94.5 days for students without disabilities. African-American high school students had an average stay of 115.3 days, compared to 74.4 days for white high school students.

Once these students were at the alternative school, they were placed in front of a computer screen where they work through online courses – regardless of their ability or needs.

This was the second discrimination complaint the ��Խ� filed against the school district. A complaint was filed with the Office for Civil Rights in January 2012 citing racial disparities in school-based arrests.

Southern Poverty Law Center - Louisiana

ALEX A. v. EDWARDS

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

ALEX A. v. EDWARDS

CALOGERO, ET. AL. v. SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

CALOGERO, ET. AL. v. SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP

Case Number

Jerome Morgan, et al. v. Blair’s Bail Bonds, Inc., et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Jerome Morgan, et al. v. Blair’s Bail Bonds, Inc., et al.

Case Number

Ebony Roberts, et al. v. Robert J. Black, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Ebony Roberts, et al. v. Robert J. Black, et al.

VAYLA New Orleans, et al. v. Tom Schedler, et al.

Date Filed

Status

Court where filed

Issue Area

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

VAYLA New Orleans, et al. v. Tom Schedler, et al.

Complaint to the Department of Justice Regarding National Origin Discrimination in the First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish

Louisiana Court Language Access Title VI Complaint

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Complaint to the Department of Justice Regarding National Origin Discrimination in the First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish

EEOC v. Signal International, LLC

Date Filed

Status

Court where filed

Issue Area

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Co-Counsel

EEOC v. Signal International, LLC

Case Number

Schwartzmann v. Couvillon

Schwartzmann v. Couvillon

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Schwartzmann v. Couvillon

M.V. vs. Jefferson Parish Public School System

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

M.V. vs. Jefferson Parish Public School System

W.P. v. Jefferson Parish Public School System

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

W.P. v. Jefferson Parish Public School System