*You must download and install Abobe Acrobat Reader to view or download the following PDF (Adobe Portable Document Format) documents.
Please credit the Sugar Law Center in an appropriate manner whenever you use any portion of our pleadings, and let us know at mail@sugarlaw.org
how they were used.
Guardian case--Living Wage and Union Contract
In October 2004, this Class Action Complaint was filed for workers on city service contracts who were denied the living wage in violation of the Detroit Living Wage ordinance, based on the excuse that they were members of a union that had a collective bargaining contract providing for lower minimum wages than required by the ordinance. This is a violation of federal labor law, which prohibits such discrimination on grounds of union membership. When the City of Detroit was added as a Defendant, the Law Center withdrew from this case because the Center had been retained by the Detroit City Council to study and make recommendations about living wage enforcement, which represented a potential conflict of interest. Hence, plaintiff's names and co-counsel names have been redacted from version of complaint available below, but should serve as a guide to the issues in this case.
Allen vs JOWA et al--Living Wage and sub-contractors
Begun in May 2003, Allen was an Living Wage enforcement action against a security guard company that had several contracts with various City of Detroit offices and private contractors in the city. Sharon Allen worked at a waste transfer station run by Waste Management, Inc. of Michigan, and its subsidiaries, City Disposal and City Management companies. We sued all four entities for failing to pay the Jowa security guards the living wage and refusing to post the wage at the job site, as required by the ordinance. Sharon Allen was paid less than $9 per hour with no benefits, although the living wage ordinance, if it is held to apply to her work at the city waste transfer site covered by a contract between Waste Management and the City of Detroit, required that she be paid $9.05/hr with fully paid family medical insurance or $11.31/hr without such benefits. We were assisted by cooperating attorney Jerry Goldberg of the Law Offices of Christopher S. Varjabedian.
Ordinance to a Subcontractor
Lucero et al vs DPS et al--Environmental contamination of an elementary school site
Begun in July 2001, this landmark case challenged the Detroit Public School system's decision to build an
elementary school that serves an overwhelmingly Hispanic and African-American population on a contaminated
former industrial site. This case, which relies on 42 U.S.C. §1983, sought to enforce the Department of
Education's Title VI regulations, which prohibit federally funded programs from being operated in a manner that
has the effect of discriminating on the basis of race, national origin or ethnicity. The Plaintiffs were jointly
represented by the Sugar Law Center and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF).
landmark Environmental Justice decision for Detroit Elementary School Students. The Court held that Plaintiffs
stated a valid claim under two federal civil rights theories.
Settlement Agreement The Sugar Law Center negotiated a settlement with strong enforcement provisions
of this landmark Environmental Justice class action in which parents successfully challenged a governmental
power structure and are continuing to hold them accountable for the safety and well-being of their school
children through the Safety Committee mandated by the Settlement.
Missouri Hotel and Motel Association vs City of St. Louis et al
Authoritative support for Living Wage
In 2002, in defense of a Living Wage ordinance, the Sugar Law Center helped develop a major friend-of-the-court brief in Missouri's litigation, which went up to the Missouri Supreme Court, defending the City of St. Louis's power to enact a local living wage ordinance against a legal challenge by business interests. The significance of this brief is that it assembles economic, historical and religious/philosophical evidence and authorities to support the position that paying a living wage to low wage workers is a reasonable and affordable way for corporations to do their fair share in helping to build a decent society. Experience shows that local living wage laws are sound policy tools for beginning to address the needs of the working poor in our communities. Studies reveal that living wage laws reduce poverty while allowing businesses to make a fair profit. Companies have not fled from urban areas that have enacted such laws; the price of government contracting has not skyrocketed; and yet people are earning better wages. Local economies also benefit from these laws because living wages generally are earned by the people who are most likely to spend them in local markets.
