Pigford v. Glickman

Citations: 182 F.R.D. 341; 41 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1310; 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16299; 1998 WL 723704Docket: Civ.A. No. 97-1978 PLF

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; October 9, 1998; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs, consisting of 401 African American farmers from multiple states, have filed a motion for class certification in a case against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging willful discrimination in the administration of farm programs. They claim that the USDA not only discriminated against them during their applications for various farm loans and subsidies but also failed to adequately investigate their complaints of discrimination. The plaintiffs challenge the USDA's handling of multiple farm loan and subsidy programs, previously administered by two entities—the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)—which were consolidated into the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in 1994.

Farmers seeking loans or subsidies must apply to a county committee, which reviews applications. If denied, they can appeal to a state committee and then to a federal review board. Procedures for applying under ASCS and FmHA were similar to those of the current FSA, with some differences. Farmers denied benefits can file civil rights complaints either with USDA or the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement and Adjudication (OCREA), which should be forwarded to the FSA for investigation. The FSA's Civil Rights and Small Business Utilization Staff (CR.SBUS) is responsible for investigating complaints, with findings ultimately communicated to OCREA for final determination. The Court has determined that class action is the appropriate mechanism for addressing the liability issues raised by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs assert that the USDA failed to adequately process discrimination complaints, alleging that after the dismantling of OCREA in 1983, complaints were neither investigated nor forwarded for resolution. Consequently, many farmers received no response or only a superficial denial of relief, with some complaints reportedly discarded without follow-up. In response to growing concerns from minority farmers, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman established the Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT), which in February 1997 reported significant losses for minority farmers due to discriminatory practices by FSA and its predecessor agencies. The report highlighted failures in the complaint resolution process, citing delays in appeals and reversals of favorable decisions, leading to a perception of bad faith on the USDA's part. Concurrently, the USDA's Office of the Inspector General identified a backlog of unresolved discrimination complaints, recommending urgent action to address systemic issues within the civil rights staff at FSA. These findings contributed to the plaintiffs' decision to initiate a class action lawsuit. The original suit, Williams v. Glickman, filed by five farmers in 1995, sought class action status for African American and Hispanic individuals who faced discrimination under USDA loan programs from 1981 onward. However, Judge Thomas A. Flannery denied the motion for class certification on February 14, 1997, citing the overly broad class definition and the lack of typicality among the named plaintiffs' claims. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on April 15, 1997.

The Court addresses the government's argument that class certification has already been determined in the Williams case. While there are superficial similarities between the complaints, significant differences exist. Plaintiffs in this case assert that the USDA mishandled their complaints of discrimination, whereas the Williams case focused on a broader claim of systemic discrimination in loan granting and servicing by the FmHA. Judge Flannery found in Williams that the proposed class was inadequately defined and lacked commonality, as it encompassed all instances of discrimination related to loans.

To secure class certification, plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of a class and meet all four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which include numerosity, common questions of law or fact, typicality of claims, and adequate representation. Plaintiffs assert they meet these criteria and seek certification under multiple subdivisions of Rule 23(b), primarily focusing on (b)(2) and (b)(3). They have proposed various class definitions throughout their original complaint and subsequent amended complaints, with the most recent Fifth Amended Complaint containing yet another definition. Following oral arguments, plaintiffs submitted a revised proposed order with a new class definition.

The final class definition proposed by the plaintiffs has been deemed specific enough to address government concerns, and the Court will utilize it for analysis. The class comprises all African-American farmers who (1) farmed between January 1, 1983, and February 21, 1997, (2) applied for federal farm program participation with the USDA during this period, and (3) believed they faced racial discrimination resulting from USDA's determination, leading them to file a written discrimination complaint. Additionally, three subclasses have been proposed under Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

1. African-American farmers with a file at Defendant but no written determination in response to their complaint.
2. African-American farmers with a file who received a written determination claiming it was not lawful.
3. African-American farmers lacking a file because their complaints were destroyed, lost, or discarded by Defendant.

Each subclass must meet the independent standards for class certification under Rule 23. Although Rule 23 does not explicitly mandate the establishment of a class, courts typically require a clear definition to manage the class effectively. The government argues that the class definition is overly vague, but the Court finds it sufficiently clear for administrative feasibility, allowing easy identification of class membership. The class is confined to African-American farmers active during the specified timeframe who applied for USDA programs and filed written complaints. The Court will integrate a time limitation for complaint filing within the defined period. Furthermore, the subclasses are well-defined, promoting efficient discovery, orderly trials, and improved mediation and settlement processes.

Subclass 1 consists of members who filed complaints of discrimination with the USDA but did not receive any written response. Identification of this subclass is straightforward. Subclass 2 includes members who received a written determination from the USDA regarding their discrimination complaint but argue that this determination was legally inadequate. The government asserts that assessing membership in this subclass necessitates individualized evaluations of each claim's merits, which complicates class action proceedings. To refine the subclass definition, the third criterion for membership should be modified to include those who assert that the USDA’s written determination was legally insufficient, thereby eliminating the need for the court to make individual merits assessments or assume USDA liability.

Subclass 3 comprises individuals who did not have a file with the USDA because their complaints were never processed. Identifying members of this subclass may be challenging due to the lack of documentation; however, it is still sufficiently defined for the liability phase of litigation. Membership requires that individuals filed written complaints with the USDA between January 1, 1983, and February 21, 1997. Despite potential difficulties in proving membership due to the absence of files, the subclass's criteria are adequately specified.

Numerosity is established as the class and its three subclasses contain approximately 2,500 members, making joinder impracticable. Although the government disputes this number, asserting it is speculative, the plaintiffs need not provide an exact count to meet the numerosity requirement. The court finds that the plaintiffs' inability to provide a precise number is due to the USDA's alleged destruction of complaints. The presence of 401 named plaintiffs supports the claim of numerosity, particularly given their residence in different states, and the ongoing emergence of more plaintiffs through amended complaints reinforces this. All subclasses meet the numerosity requirement, with the exception of Subclass 2, which is acknowledged to have fewer members but is still deemed sufficiently distinct to warrant its classification.

Commonality is also satisfied, as the plaintiffs present shared legal and factual questions concerning the USDA's alleged failure to process discrimination complaints. Key issues include whether the USDA had an obligation to process complaints, whether there was a systemic failure to do so, whether a private cause of action exists, and whether the government can assert a statute of limitations defense. Despite the government’s claim that individual circumstances of class members differ significantly, the existence of at least one common issue affecting a substantial number of putative class members meets the commonality requirement.

The government argues against the appropriateness of the class action mechanism by asserting that the claims from three distinct groups are fundamentally different. While acknowledging that these groups present varying issues, the Court finds sufficient similarity in the claims to justify the use of subclasses rather than abandoning the class action entirely. The central question revolves around whether discrimination occurred in credit and crop subsidy transactions involving class members. Examples illustrate that different class members filed complaints with the USDA regarding discrimination related to delays and denials of loans and payments. The government contends that the lack of a common discriminatory practice among all class members undermines commonality. However, the plaintiffs emphasize a systemic pattern of discrimination stemming from the USDA's failure to adequately process discrimination complaints, a situation exacerbated by the disbanding of the USDA's civil rights enforcement office in 1983. Although the damages experienced by class members may vary, the core issue of the USDA's negligence in handling discrimination complaints uniformly affects all class members. Subclasses 1 and 3 share common legal and factual issues, while Subclass 2 has additional specific issues regarding the USDA's responses to their complaints. Nonetheless, all subclasses present common legal and factual questions sufficient to support the class action framework.

The typicality requirement under Rule 23(a)(3) has been satisfied, indicating that the claims of class representatives align with those of the class. This requirement ensures that the class action can be efficiently maintained and that representatives' incentives match those of absent class members, safeguarding their interests. The claims arise from the USDA's alleged dismantling of its civil rights office and failure to process discrimination complaints, which is consistent across all 401 named plaintiffs. The government argues that the claims of Mr. Pigford, who has previously filed similar claims, may not be typical and could be barred by res judicata, potentially allowing defenses against him that do not apply to other class members. Additionally, the plaintiffs have not detailed claims for a representative from each defined subclass, but this issue is expected to be rectified in an amended complaint specifying at least four typical representatives per subclass.

The adequacy of representation, another element of Rule 23(a), has been confirmed, including the effectiveness of class counsel and the absence of conflicts of interest between class representatives and class members. Class counsel, led by Mr. Alexander Pires and Mr. Phillip Fraas, along with several other attorneys, have shown commitment to advocating for the class's interests and represent a diverse geographic area. There is no evidence of inadequate communication with class members, as demonstrated by their attendance at hearings.

The Court concludes that there is no disparity of interest between the representative parties and the class members, noting that the presence of over 400 named plaintiffs reflects a diverse array of situations and interests, ensuring fair representation. Concerns regarding the lack of specific details in the complaint will be addressed upon the submission of an amended complaint that will provide further factual context for four representatives from each subclass. The collaborative effort among counsel is evident, as initial attorneys have worked closely with those who intervened from other states, enhancing representation across various interests.

Regarding class certification, the Court determines that the appropriate basis is Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule applies since the opposing party has acted in a manner generally applicable to the class, necessitating final injunctive or declaratory relief for the class as a whole. Although the government argues that the plaintiffs primarily seek monetary relief, which would preclude certification under Rule 23(b)(2), the Court finds that the plaintiffs' requests for injunctive and declaratory relief do not outweigh their monetary claims. The plaintiffs aim for a declaratory judgment on their rights under the defendant's farm programs and an injunction to counteract discriminatory actions by the USDA. The requested relief is expected to significantly influence the USDA's handling of discrimination complaints. The class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2) solely for liability determination, with future remedies to be addressed separately.

Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) may be appropriate when common legal or factual questions predominate and a class action is the superior method for resolving the controversy. A hybrid approach may be adopted to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class for injunctive relief and a Rule 23(b)(3) class for monetary relief. For liability determination, the Court certifies a class under Rule 23(b)(2) and notes that while Rule 23 does not explicitly mandate notice and opt-out rights for Rule 23(b)(2) classes, the Court may exercise discretion to require notice and allow opt-out options. The plaintiffs propose a notice to inform class members of inclusion criteria, exclusion conditions, alternatives to joining, hearing details, and benefits and consequences of membership. Given USDA's administrative complaint processing system, notice and opt-out provisions are deemed appropriate. 

The Court orders that plaintiffs meet the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23(a) and grants the motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The certified class includes African-American farmers who farmed between January 1, 1983, and February 21, 1997, applied for federal farm program participation, believed they faced racial discrimination, and filed complaints with USDA. This class is divided into three subclasses: 

1. Subclass I: Farmers with a complaint file but no written determination from USDA.
2. Subclass II: Farmers with a complaint file who received a determination they contest as unlawful.
3. Subclass III: Farmers without a file due to destruction or loss of their complaints by USDA.

By October 23, 1998, plaintiffs must file an amended complaint detailing claims for four typical representatives from each subclass, and a draft notice to class members is to be submitted by October 30, 1998. An order consistent with these findings is to be issued.

Plaintiffs filed five motions for leave to amend their complaints between the original filing and the oral argument on class certification. The government did not oppose these motions, and the court granted them on June 3, 1998. Although the amended complaints were not authorized at the time of the class certification argument, the court will now consider the Fifth Amended Complaint as the relevant document. On October 2, 1998, plaintiffs sought leave to file a Sixth Amended Complaint, which the government also does not oppose. Most original plaintiffs settled their claims against the USDA, leaving two Hispanic plaintiffs with pending administrative complaints, prompting the court to stay the lawsuit pending the USDA's administrative determination.

The plaintiffs define Subclass 2 as all African American farmers who have a file with the USDA and received a written determination on their discrimination complaints that was not in accordance with the law. The court suggests that it would be clearer to define the subclass based on whether the USDA's determination complied with legal standards. The government argues that merely alleging class-wide racial discrimination does not justify class action status. However, plaintiffs assert that the USDA systematically failed to process discrimination complaints from African American farmers over a fourteen-year period, a claim that underpins their entitlement to class certification.