Blog

This is what a technicality looks like.

Posted on by Amy Robertson
Icon showing magnifying glass on top of open book.

Defendant:  does a thing that violates a civil rights law.

Plaintiff: files suit under said civil rights law.

Court: 

  • Defendant did the thing but you can’t show that it will definitely do the thing again: no standing to ask for an order to make sure Defendant does not do the thing again.
  • Defendant did the thing but then Defendant stopped doing the thing, at least for now, after you sued:  your case is moot.
  • Defendant did the thing but you can’t show that your incarcerated [maybe disabled; maybe illiterate] client filed a Step 1 grievance within 30 days, then filed a Step 2 grievance within five days of receiving the response to the Step 1 grievance, and then filed a Step 3 grievance within five days of receiving the response to the Step 2 grievance:  case dismissed. 
  • Defendant did the thing and your incarcerated [maybe disabled; maybe illiterate] client filed all the grievances and responses on time but one step of the grievance used different language from another step of the grievance: case dismissed.   
  • Defendant did the thing and your incarcerated [maybe disabled; maybe illiterate] client filed all the grievances and responses on time and used all the right language but the grievance was similar to an earlier grievance in which they were unable to follow all the rules and deadlines: case dismissed.   
  • Defendant did the thing but you can’t show that the law against the [obviously illegal] thing was well-established:  Defendant’s minions are immune from suit.
  • Defendant did the thing but you can’t prove that Defendant’s policy required doing the thing: Defendant city/county agency is not liable. 
  • Defendant did the thing but Defendant is the state, so the 11th Amendment, which doesn’t actually say anything about this situation, makes the State immune from suit: no damages.
  • Defendant did the thing but you can’t show that Defendant intended to do the thing:  no damages. 
  • Defendant did the thing but you can’t show physical or financial harm from the thing: no damages.

Tim Fox Appointed to Monitor Landmark Fair Housing Settlement

Posted on by Amy Robertson
Head shot of Tim Fox, white man in sports coat; wheelchair headrest is visible.

A federal district court in California appointed Fox & Robertson partner Tim Fox as the monitor in the landmark fair housing settlement in Independent Living Center of Southern California v. City of Los Angeles. The settlement, reached in 2016, requires the City to produce 4,000 units of public housing accessible to people with disabilities, and to reform and enforce policies to ensure that these units are available to and occupied by people with disabilities. As of July 1, Mr. Fox will succeed Bill Lann Lee, who has held the position of Monitor since July, 2018. Mr. Lee will be retiring later this summer.

When Mr. Lee was appointed, progress on the settlement had largely stalled. Under his guidance, and in partnership with City staff and plaintiffs’ counsel, the City has reformed many essential fair housing policies, added staff necessary to the implementation of the settlement, and retained an expert in accessibility standards to design what the parties believe to be the largest and most complex accessibility survey to date. Mr. Fox has been Mr. Lee’s principal deputy in this effort, and has led up the effort to create a comprehensive database that will replace the patchwork of electronic and paper systems that previously tracked the City’s public housing.

Mr. Fox will continue to lead up the database team. He will also oversee teams working on policy coordination and reform, and survey and remodeling of public housing to remove barriers. He will be assisted by F&R’s Amy Robertson and Elizabeth Jordon of the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center.

Mr. Fox specializes in complex impact litigation with a particular focus on monitoring class action settlements. For example, as class counsel, he monitored a settlement requiring accessibility upgrades at more than 1,400 Kmart stores nationwide, and settlements securing improvements in the accessibility of sidewalk and curb ramp systems in multiple cities. He has extensive experience developing efficient systems for monitoring class action settlements, including creating databases to assist with monitoring.

Mr. Fox is looking forward to continued productive collaboration with the City and plaintiffs’ counsel toward the goal of ensuring that disabled Angelenos have access to supportive and accessible housing.

Hello [again], World!

Posted on by Amy Robertson

After an eight year hiatus to found and grow the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Fox & Robertson is back at work on high-impact disability rights cases and mildly humorous blog posts.  We started with a splash, working with a group of brilliant disability rights lawyers and advocates to draft an amicus brief to the Supreme Court urging the Court not to gut the protections of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

We’re also restarting our social media presence, so please like/follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.