• Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia
  • About Affirmative Action, Diversity and Inclusion
  • Is affirmative action racist? – Allan G. Johnson

For questions about this Equal Opportunities Policy, the practices of this site or any dealings with Digi-Sign Limited, contact us at:

EEOC Guidelines on Affirmative Action, 29 C.F.R. § 1608.1(c).

EEOC Guidelines on Affirmative Action, 29 C.F.R. § 1608.1(c).

(1) the alleged unlawful employment practice that is the subject of the complaint occurred; or
Cell phone subscriber was entitled under 28 USCS § 1447(c) to remand of her class action against a wireless carrier and a mobile content provider for violation of B & P C § based on allegedly unlawful billing practices; a preponderance of evidence did not show that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million notwithstanding $23 million in revenues. Serabian v. Cellco P'ship (2010, CD Cal) 2010 US Dist LEXIS 66531.

Lecture 17: Arguing Affirmative Action – Harvard Justice


Route drivers were not entitled to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification in an action against a delivery company for alleged violations of B & P C § and California labor law based on the alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors; the individualized issues of whether the drivers were engaged in a business distinct from that of the company and what use different drivers made of the option to use back-ups and subcontractors predominated over common issues for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3). Spencer v. Beavex, Inc. (2006, SD Cal) 2006 US Dist LEXIS 98565.

 

Affirmative Action: Is it Still Necessary in ..


Route drivers were not entitled to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification in an action against a delivery company for alleged violations of B & P C § and California labor law based on the alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors because the proposed class was not ascertainable; the modified proposed class definition excluded drivers who provided more than 51 percent of their services to the company by using their own employees or subcontractors, but applying objective criteria would be administratively infeasible because the drivers failed to demonstrate that it could be readily and reliably determined whether each driver actually drove a given route on a particular day. Spencer v. Beavex, Inc. (2006, SD Cal) 2006 US Dist LEXIS 98565.


Employee of a temporary staffing agency was entitled to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification in her action for alleged violations of Lab C § 1194 and B & P C § in relation to the agency's failure to pay compensation for time spent interviewing with the agency's customers; common issues predominated for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3) based on the agency's uniform corporate practices and policies regarding the interview process and based on the common proof as to the “suffered or permitted to work” test. Sullivan v. Kelly Servs. (2010, ND Cal) 268 FRD 356, 2010 US Dist LEXIS 50623.


Is Affirmative Action still necessary in the 21st Century

Consumers who purchased vehicles equipped with the “collision mitigation braking system” met their burden of showing that the proposed nation-wide class met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) in their action against manufacturer for alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, B & P C § et seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, CC § 1750 et seq., and unjust enrichment for violations based on manufacturer's alleged omission of the braking system's limitations in pre-purchase marketing materials; for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2), common questions of law and fact included whether manufacturer had a duty of disclosure, whether manufacturer had exclusive knowledge of material facts regarding the braking system that were not known to consumers, whether reasonable consumer would find the omitted facts material, and whether manufacturer's omissions were likely to deceive the public. Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co. (2008, CD Cal) 254 FRD 610, 2008 US Dist LEXIS 102429.

Affirmative Action and Its Future | Scholars Strategy …

In an action alleging that a satellite television provider induced subscribers to purchase high definition (HD) services with false advertising, class certification was properly denied because common issues of fact did not predominate. For example, some members of the proposed class never saw advertisements or representations of any kind before deciding to purchase the company's HD services; the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), B & P C § , does not authorize an award for injunctive relief and/or restitution on behalf of a consumer who was never exposed in any way to an allegedly wrongful business practice. Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2009, 2d Dist) 178 Cal App 4th 966, 101 Cal Rptr 3d 37, 2009 Cal App LEXIS 1728, review denied Cohen (Philip Kent) v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2010, Cal.) 2010 Cal. LEXIS 954.

Affirmative action is not morally justified

In a purported class action for violations of the California Labor Code, conversion and theft of labor, and unfair business practices under B & P C § et seq., the plaintiff was entitled under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 to compel the production of documents requested under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34; the employer failed to meet its burden to show that documents pertaining to its employment policies, practices, and procedures were “confidential proprietary information” for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7). Hill v. Eddie Bauer (2007, CD Cal) 242 FRD 556, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 35940.