Filed Date: Aug. 28, 1997
Clearinghouse coding complete
On August 28, 1997, three African-American farmers, on behalf of a putative class of 641 African-American farmers, filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1691, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 551. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and monetary relief, alleging that both the USDA and county officials to whom the USDA delegated authority discriminated against them in the provision of farm loans and other credit programs.
The plaintiffs challenged a history of discrimination in the USDA's farm lending programs and benefits programs, a history that led to a dramatic decline in the number of African-American farmers in America. The USDA administers billions of dollars in farm loans and guarantees each year. It has delegated authority to approve or deny loan and benefit applications to county committees elected by local farmers and ranchers. Under one percent of the commissioners nationwide were African American. The plaintiffs alleged that the county commissions either denied them loans because of their race or made it much more difficult for them to obtain credit than similarly situated white farmers. This problem was compounded by the fact that the USDA disbanded its Office of Civil Rights in 1983, and therefore stopped responding to African-American farmers' claims of discrimination. A USDA-sponsored investigation conducted in 1997 revealed that the USDA had a large backlog of uninvestigated complaints. Because of the USDA's policies and practices, many African Americans lost their farms to foreclosure and had to leave farming. Others were able to continue farming, but suffered the consequences of institutional discrimination. The plaintiffs brought their fair lending claims under the ECOA and alleged that the discriminatory provision of non-lending benefits, such as disaster relief benefits, violated the APA.
Ultimately, the District Court (Judge Paul L. Friedman) approved a consent decree on April 14, 1999. Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1998). The Consent Decree covered a class of all African-American farmers who farmed or attempted to farm between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996, applied for a farm loan or USDA benefit program, believe they were discriminated against on the basis of their race, and filed a complaint on or before July 1, 1997. Class members could either opt out of the Consent Decree or resolve individual claims pursue one of two settlement tracks. The settlement tracks allowed for out-of-court adjudication of individuals' claims. Class members could have elected to submit "substantial evidence" that they were victims of discrimination and receive a capped settlement amount under Track A of the Consent Decree. Class members with better-documented claims of discrimination could have elected to pursue Track B, which entitled them to a one-day trial in front of an arbitrator. Track B was only available to farmers with ECOA claims; it was not available to farmers who only brought claims under the APA relating to discrimination in the distribution of non-credit benefits. A court-appointed monitor (Randi Roth) oversaw the implementation of the Consent Decree.
Track A of the Consent Decree was designed for the large majority of the class. As the District Court recognized, many of the class members lacked the type of documentation of the USDA's discrimination necessary to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard. This was in part due to the USDA's failure in processing discrimination complaints from farmers. Track A participants could prove that they submitted a complaint to the USDA by providing documents demonstrating that they complained directly to the USDA, to a member of Congress, to the White House, or to a government official who forwarded to complaint to the USDA. Class members who did not have such documentation could submit an affidavit from a non-family member which, based on personal knowledge, described the way in which the class member lodged a complaint.
To receive relief under Track A, class members claiming ECOA violations needed to prove that they owned or leased land or attempted to own or lease land, that they applied for USDA credit at a county office between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996, that the USDA discriminated against them by denying the loan or providing it on less favorable terms than similarly situated white farmers, and that they were harmed by the discriminatory treatment. Class members claiming discriminatory denial of benefits in violation of the APA needed to prove that they applied for a benefit program between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996 and that the request was denied or provided on less favorable terms than similarly situated white farmers received.
Track A claims were to be resolved within 110 days of the filing date. The claimant submitted the application to a facilitator, to whom the USDA could also submit information on damages and liability. The facilitator then submitted a recommendation to an arbitrator who was to issue a decision. The arbitrator's decision was final, unless a Court-appointed monitor determined a clear and manifest error occurred. Claimants that submitted successful claims received a $50,000 cash payment, forgiveness of all debt owed to the USDA stemming from a program upon which their claim was based, a tax payment equivalent to a quarter of the total debt forgives and cash payment, immediate termination of any USDA-initiated foreclosure proceedings, and one-time consideration for a priority loan.
Under Track B, claimants with more documentation could choose to litigate their claims in mini-trials. Claimants who unsuccessfully pursued a remedy under Track B were ineligible to receive Track A benefits. Class members seeking damages under Track B could have chosen to be represented by class counsel or counsel of their choice. Claimants opting in to Track B were able to conduct limited discovery, including depositions, for 180 days before a one-day mini-trial. Following the trial, in which class members had to demonstrate that they were the victim of lending discrimination and suffered damages from the discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence, an arbitrator issued a decision within sixty days. Successful claimants under Track B were entitled to actual damages as well as priority consideration for loans. As with Track A, the decision of the arbitrator was final unless the Court appointed monitor found that "a clear and manifest error" had occurred and that the error was "likely to result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice."
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Judges Judith W. Rogers, David B. Sentelle, and David S. Tatel) affirmed the District Court's approval of the Consent Decree. Pigford v. Glickman, 206 F.3d 1212 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
A number of factors led to the parties entering the Consent Decree. Shortly after the complaint was filed in 1997, a number of farmers sought to intervene in the case. Class counsel added those farmers as named plaintiffs, and allowed their attorneys to join as class counsel on the condition that they would only seek attorneys' fees through statutory fee-shifting provisions and would not bill the individual farmers or take a contingency fee. On October 9, 1998, the District Court (Judge Paul L. Friedman) certified a class of plaintiffs. Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341 (D.D.C. 1998). On October 21, 1998, President Clinton signed into law a bill waiving ECOA's statute of limitations for farmers that filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA between January 1, 1981 and July 1, 1997. Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, §741. This bill mooted the USDA's statute of limitations defense. The plaintiffs filed a Seventh Amended Complaint on October 26, 1998.
In January 1999, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the Pigford case with Brewington v. Glickman, Case No. 98-1693. The allegations in the Brewington complaint tracked those in the original Pigford complaint, but were made on behalf of farmers who filed discrimination complaints with the USDA after February 21, 1997 and before July 7, 1998. The parties also jointly moved to expand the class definition to reflect the addition of the Brewington class members, and filed a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed Consent Decree along with a notice to class members. The court approved each request, and scheduled a fairness hearing for March 2, 1999. After hearing objections, the Court approved the final Consent Decree on April 14, 1999.
Following the entry of the consent decree, various class members continued to litigate issues specific to the Consent Decree and attorneys fees. Parties were still filing papers with the court through 2014. As of April 1, 2012, 15,645 out of 22,552 Track A claimants prevailed in their claims. Approximately 169 claimants elected to pursue Track B, of which 104 prevailed or reached a class settlement. The federal government paid a total of $1.05 billion to prevailing Track A and Track B claimants. A large number of farmers filed claims after the Consent Decree's deadline. The Consent Decree required claimants to submit claims by October 12, 1999. The court (Judge Paul L. Friedman) provided the arbitrator with the discretion to extend the filing deadline until September 15, 2000 for farmers who missed the deadline because of extraordinary circumstances. Farmers who could not participate in the Consent Decree are the subject of subsequent litigation, In re Black Farmer's Litigation, found in this database at FH-DC-0007.
The case now appears to be closed, though the court retained jurisdiction over the consent decree's implementation.
Summary Authors
Benjamin Clark (2/23/2013)
Virginia Weeks (11/13/2017)
In re Black Farmers' Discrimination Litigation ("Pigford II"), District of Columbia (2008)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4215043/parties/pigford-v-veneman/
Friedman, Paul L. (District of Columbia)
Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (District of Columbia)
Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)
Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson (District of Columbia)
Sentelle, David Bryan (District of Columbia)
Tatel, David S. (District of Columbia)
Bowens, Stephon J (North Carolina)
Branch, David A (District of Columbia)
Chestnut, J. L. Jr. (Alabama)
Clifford, John M (District of Columbia)
Friedman, Paul L. (District of Columbia)
Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (District of Columbia)
Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)
Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson (District of Columbia)
Sentelle, David Bryan (District of Columbia)
Tatel, David S. (District of Columbia)
Bowens, Stephon J (North Carolina)
Branch, David A (District of Columbia)
Chestnut, J. L. Jr. (Alabama)
Clifford, John M (District of Columbia)
Cross, Othello C. (Arkansas)
Doan, Joshua A (District of Columbia)
Dowdy, William Harold (North Carolina)
Fierst, David U (District of Columbia)
Fraas, Philip L (District of Columbia)
Frantz, David Joseph (District of Columbia)
Frazer, T. Roe (Mississippi)
Herman, Anthony (District of Columbia)
Jimison, Marcus B (North Carolina)
Kagan, Barbara Kim (District of Columbia)
Kearney, Jesse L (Arkansas)
Lyons, Mona (District of Columbia)
Myart, James W Jr. (District of Columbia)
Ogletree, Charles J. (District of Columbia)
Pires, Alexander John Jr. (District of Columbia)
Sanders, Rose Mary (Alabama)
Saunders, Hubbard I. IV (Mississippi)
Seymour, Richard Talbot (District of Columbia)
Stein, Jacob A (District of Columbia)
Toure, Faya Rose (Alabama)
Varma, Anurag (District of Columbia)
Ware, Charles Jerome (Maryland)
Wolverton, Caroline Lewis (District of Columbia)
Bartz, Philip D. (District of Columbia)
Bensing, Daniel (District of Columbia)
Bernie, Andrew Marshall (District of Columbia)
Crowley, Megan Anne (District of Columbia)
Edney, Marsha S. (District of Columbia)
Elliott, Stephen McCoy (District of Columbia)
Forrest, Herbert E (District of Columbia)
Gardner, Joshua Edward (District of Columbia)
Goitein, Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
Henry, Terry Marcus (District of Columbia)
Jordan, Robert Elijah III (District of Columbia)
Josephson, Matthew (District of Columbia)
Lennon, Susan Hall (District of Columbia)
Lin, Elbert (District of Columbia)
Linder, Dennis G. (District of Columbia)
McElvain, Joel (District of Columbia)
Moore, Tamra (District of Columbia)
Newmark, Andrea (District of Columbia)
Ogden, David W. (District of Columbia)
Quester, Amanda (District of Columbia)
Sitcov, Michael (District of Columbia)
Souders, David (District of Columbia)
Straus, Julie (District of Columbia)
Wells, Carlotta (District of Columbia)
Banks, Wyndell Oliver (District of Columbia)
Brittenum, Dedrick Jr. (District of Columbia)
Davis, John W. (District of Columbia)
Fagan, David N (District of Columbia)
Henn, Emily Johnson (California)
Ladd, Ford C (Virginia)
Lear, Gerard Robert (Virginia)
Martin, Dawn V (District of Columbia)
Shoreman, John M (District of Columbia)
Sweet, Dennis C III (Mississippi)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4215043/pigford-v-veneman/
Last updated May 20, 2022, 3 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 28, 1997
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All African-American farmers who (1) farmed between January 1, 1983, and February 21, 1997; and (2) applied, during that time period, for participation in a federal farm program with USDA, and as a direct result of a determination by USDA in response to said application, believed that they were discriminated against on the basis of race, and filed a written discrimination complaint with USDA in that time period.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Availably Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $1.05 billion
Order Duration: 1999 - None
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Race: