Other

• Ramirez v. New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department (N.M. Ct. App.) – Amicus
  • USERRA validly subjects state employers to suit in state court pursuant to Congress's War Powers
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	01/10/13

• DynaLantic Corp. v. Department of Defense (D.C. Cir.) – Appellants/Cross-Appellees
  • Section 1981 does not apply to the federal government based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the plain language of the statute
  
   

  Document	Date
  Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Affirmance	02/04/13
  Motion for Partial Summary Affirmance	01/02/13

• Weaver v. Madison City Board of Education, et al. (N.D. Ala.) – Intervenor
  • The Board is not an arm of the state under the relevant constitutional standard
  • In the alternative, USERRA provides only for state court jurisdiction over private USERRA suits against States and accordingly, if the Board is an arm of the state, the case should be dismissed on statutory grounds
  • If the court reaches the issue, it should hold that Congress has the authority under its War Powers to authorize private USERRA suits against state employers
  
   

  Document	Date
  District Court Decision, 2013 WL 2350181	05/29/13
  Brief as Intervenor	10/04/12

• Keller v. City of Fremont (8th Cir.) – Amicus
  • The Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act vest in the federal government exclusive authority to regulate immigration and to determine which aliens will be permitted to reside in the United States, and that the entirety of the housing provisions in the ordinance – including the provisions requiring individuals to report their immigration status to the City in order to obtain an occupancy license – impermissibly intrude on that authority
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	08/31/12

• Rivera-Meléndez v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC (1st Cir.) – Amicus
  • The district court applied the wrong legal standard to Rivera-Meléndez's USERRA reinstatement claim by misconstruing USERRA's escalator principle, reasonable certainty test, and like-status requirement
  • Because a servicemember is not required to identify the reemployment position sought, and because a 2008 amendment explicitly provides that USERRA contains no statute of limitations, Rivera-Melendez could not be deemed to have waived his rights under USERRA
  • Doctrines such as the doctrine of laches might still apply if a servicemember delayed seeking reemployment in an escalator position
  
   

  Document	Date
  Letter Brief as Amicus	03/19/13
  Brief as Amicus	03/27/12

• Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch (5th Cir.) – Amicus
  • The Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act vest in the federal government exclusive authority to regulate immigration and to determine which aliens will be permitted to reside in the United States, and the City's ordinance impermissibly intrudes on that authority
  • Ordinance 2952 is preempted by federal law
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus En Banc	08/30/12
  Court of Appeals Decision (revised)	04/09/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 675 F.3d 802	03/21/12
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation	12/13/11

• Serricchio v. Prudential Securities, Inc (2d Cir.) – Amicus
  • USERRA requires that an employer when reemploying a servicemember returning to a 100% commissioned position, offer both the commission rate and commission earning opportunities that he would have had but for his military service or take appropriate steps to restore him to a position of similar pay
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 658 F.3d 169	09/13/11
  Letter Brief in Response to Court's Invitation	07/21/11

• United States v. Hurt (8th Cir.) – Appellant
  • The court erred by failing to determine whether the action as a whole was "substantially justified," and by failing to recognize that a pattern or practice case, by its very nature, is a single claim, not a collection of individual claims
  • The court failed to recognize that given its denial of defendants' motions for summary judgment and a directed verdict, there is a presumption that the government's case was substantially justified
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 676 F.3d 649	04/12/12
  Reply Brief	08/23/11
  Brief as Appellant	06/17/11

• United States v. Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (11th Cir.) – Appellee
  • The district court correctly held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit against a State to enforce USERRA when the United States is a plaintiff
  • The court correctly held that ADMH violated USERRA when it failed to rehire the employee upon his return from active duty service, and the employee was entitled to the court's award of back pay
  • ADMH failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because its version of the evidence conflicts with the factual findings of the district court
  • ADMH will suffer no irreparable injury by complying with USERRA
  • ADMH personnel and current and future servicemembers will suffer injury with a grant of the stay, and the public interest weighs against the grant of a stay of injunctive relief
  
  

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 673 F.3d 1320	03/16/12
  Supplemental Letter Brief	12/05/11
  Brief as Appellee	05/09/11
  Opposition to Motion to Stay Injunctive Relief Pending Appeal	02/16/11

• United States v. Union Auto Sales (9th Cir.) – Appellant
  • The district court erred in concluding that the allegations in the complaint were not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, and defendants have not made any compelling arguments to the contrary
  • The district court erred in dismissing the complaint at the pleading stage, as the district court misapplied the standard for notice pleading and set the bar too high for pleading discrimination cases
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, 490 F. App'x 847 (unpublished)	07/13/12
  Reply Brief	05/02/11
  Brief as Appellant	01/03/11

• Andre Gordon v. Pete’s Auto Service of Denbigh, Inc. (4th Cir.) – Amicus
  • The Division supported the servicemember’s argument that the provision of the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (SCRA) that requires lienholders to get a court order before enforcing a lien on a servicemember’s property creates an implied private right of action for damages
  • Section 802 of the SCRA does not have an impermissible retroactive effect on the parties and therefore may be applied in this case
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 637 F.3d 454	02/14/11
  Supplemental Brief as Amicus	11/29/10
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	04/06/10

• United States v. B.C. Enterprises, Inc., et al. (4th Cir.) – Appellee
  • United States filed suit alleging that the defendant tow truck company towed and sold the cars of at least 20 servicemembers without court orders in violation of Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act
  • The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming that the United States lacks authority to seek damages on behalf of the servicemembers
  • The district court denied the motion, but certified its order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)
  • The Division did not oppose the petition
  • The United States has authority to file suit to enforce the SCRA and may seek appropriate relief, including damages for aggrieved servicemembers
  • After briefing, Congress amended the SCRA by, inter alia, giving the United States explicit enforcement authority
  • Supplemental brief addressed the impact of this change in law
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF] (unpublished), 447 F. App'x 468	08/29/11
  Supplemental Brief as Appellee	04/07/11
  Brief as Appellee	06/25/10
  Petition For Interlocutory Appeal Granted	05/05/10
  Response to Petition for Interlocuatory Appeal [PDF]	03/29/10

• In re Grand Jury Subpoena (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee [PDF] (filed under seal)	3/11/09

• United States v. City of Detroit (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court correctly denied the Coalition's motion to intervene as of right
  • The Coalition is not entitled to permissive intervention
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee [PDF]	04/07/04
  Appeal dismissed	01/24/05

• Boswell v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (10th Cir.) -- Amicus Curiae
  • An air carrier may choose not to provide passengers with medical oxygen without showing that providing it would be an undue hardship or fundamental alteration
  • The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 does not create a private cause of action
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus[PDF]	11/24/03
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 361 F.3d 1263	03/16/04

• United States v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Community groups and private individuals are not entitled to intervene in a case in order to enforce the consent decree entered between the United States and the City of Los Angeles resolving allegations of systemic police misconduct
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee [HTML] [PDF]	07/27/01
  Court of Appeals decision [PDF], reported at 288 F.3d 391	04/22/02

• United States v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Court of Appeals should deny the police union's motion for a stay pending its appeal of the district court's denial of its motion to intervene in the case between the United States and the City of Los Angeles regarding the operations of the Los Angeles Police Department
  • Police union was not entitled to intervene in case to challenge consent decree between the United States and City of Los Angeles to resolve allegations of systemic police misconduct when the consent decree imposed no obligations upon the union or its members and did not affect officers' collective bargaining rights
  
   

  Document	Date
  Opposition to Stay [HTML] [PDF]	03/22/01
  Court of Appeals denial of stay, unpublished	04/16/01
  Brief as Appellee [HTML] [PDF]	06/04/01
  Court of Appeals decision [PDF], reported at 288 F.3d 391	04/22/02

• United States v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Police union lacked standing to bring independent action seeking injunction against entry of a consent decree in a separate case between the United States and the City of Los Angeles regarding the operations of the Los Angeles Police Department.
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee [HTML] [PDF]	05/30/01
  Court of Appeals decision, unpublished	04/22/02

• Coleman v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation (6th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • District court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a plaintiff class lawsuit alleging disparate impact racial discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [HTML] [PDF]	03/14/01
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 296 F.3d 443	07/22/02

• Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (6th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • District court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a plaintiff class lawsuit alleging disparate impact racial discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [HTML]  [PDF]	02/16/01
  Court of Appeals decision, unpublished	01/07/02

• Stevenson v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (D.C. Cir.) -- Intervenor
  • District court properly refused to order the United States to disclose internal documents regarding an ongoing investigation of police misconduct
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Intervenor [HTML] [PDF]	12/28/00
  Court of Appeals decision [HTML], reported at 248 F.3d 1187	05/01/01

---

Browse Briefs by Category

Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Religion Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other

---