Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Hispanic Farmers Denied Class Action Status
in Discrimination Suit Against USDA

Jennifer Williams
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Garcia v. Veneman, 224 F.R.D. 8 (D.D.C. 2004), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied an application for class certification sought by Hispanic farmers against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for alleged discrimination practices on the part of the USDA.

Background

The plaintifs were Hispanic farmers from across the United States who filed suit against the USDA claiming that the USDA had subjected them to discriminatory lending and disaster relief practices over the past twenty years. See id. The plaintiffs filed an action in April 2002 and made a motion for class certification at that time. See id. The court denied that petition "because plaintiffs had not shown, nor did it appear from the record that they could show, a common question of law or fact." Id. After this decision, the court and parties worked out a plan that allowed the plaintiffs limited discovery to further develop their argument of a common complaint related to discrimination. See id. at 9-10. The plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of class status to the court after conducting this discovery. See id. at 10.

Arguments

The plaintiffs argued they had shown a common issue "with respect to both disparate impact and disparate treatment claims." Id. They also requested that the court allow them to conduct broader discovery so that they could better develop their claim if their motion for class certification was denied. See id. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint a third time, in order to add "five subclasses of Hispanic farmers" that they argued arose out of the discovery they had conducted. See id. at 10-11.

Analysis and Holdings

The court first turned to the plaintiffs' disparate impact claim. See id. at 11. The court noted that in this type of case, "the plaintiff must 'isolate and identify the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities.'" Id. While the plaintiffs attempted to persuade the court that "isolation and identification [were] impossible because USDA did not keep adequate records," the court did not find this argument persuasive. Id. The judge stated that "[a]necdotal proof of discrimination against Hispanic farmers, and even statistical proof that Hispanic farmers have received proportionally less assistance than others, will not be enough to support class certification." Id. It stated that the claim could not be certified as a class action because the plaintiffs did not sufficiently identify the USDA practices that were "established at the national level" in order to meet the specificity required to show a common question and because they did not show that the USDA worked under a "general policy of discrimination." Id. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not shown probable cause that the tests required could be met if they were allowed further discovery opportunities. See id.

The court next determined that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements for their disparate treatment claims. See id. The plaintiffs asserted that the USDA was on notice of the alleged discrimination and "acquiesced in and ratified" the discrimination by failing to take steps to correct it. Id. The court stated that

[p]roof of conscious inaction on the part of USDA . . . in the face of numbers demonstrating that Hispanic farmers suffered disproportionately high loan rejection rates and received disproportionately low disaster benefit payments might satisfy the first . . . requirement of a "general policy of discrimination," but it would be no help at all with respect to the second . . . requirement of decision-making processes that were "entirely subjective." The common discriminatory practice that . . . [is] require[d] is still missing.

Id. at 12.

The court noted that the class sought by the plaintiffs would "include Hispanic farmers who suffered discrimination at the hands of county agents or county committees - hundreds and perhaps thousands of decision-makers in who knows how many of the 2700 county offices nationwide that number Hispanic farmers among their clientele." Id. at 12-13. The court further noted that the problem with this was in identifying "the locus of autonomy in making the challenged . . . decisions." Id. at 13. The court explained that in order to succeed on their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs had to show the decision making process was "entirely subjective." Id. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy this burden, even in light of new arguments that were arguably more persuasive. See id. at 15.

The court stated that even if the case were to be certified and even if there were "classwide discrimination", it would be the individual's complaints and circumstances that would be at issue." Id. It stated that what the system had learned from the Pigford v. Glickman, which involved discriminatory practices against African-American farmers, was that

the certification of a plaintiff class to resolve decades of disputes about loans made or not made and disaster relief provided or not provided to thousands of individual farmers, working under disparate conditions and submitting applications to hundreds of difference decision-makers . . . would be only the beginning of a length and difficult process in which, as it turns out, it is the "questions affecting only individual members" that predominate.

Id. at 16.

The court also held that plaintiffs would not be allowed further discovery in order to try to obtain their class certification. See id. After examining the evidence that had been presented, the court stated that it did "not give rise to probable cause to believe that a searching and expensive discovery program would unearth sufficient evidence of commonality to support class certification." Id.

The case was decided on September 10, 2004; this summary was posted Jan. 6, 2005.