Storefront Launches Texas Voting Rights Initiative

On March 7, 2024, the Brewer Storefront announced the launch of the Texas Voting Rights Initiative (“TVRI”), a statewide effort focused on ensuring that Texas school boards operate in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”). The Storefront undertook an extensive analysis of voting systems across Texas and believes that many operate in violation of the VRA.

The TVRI will continue to analyze voting systems used for electing school board trustees and city council members across Texas, advance written scholarship, and pursue legal action to uphold and strengthen voting rights. 

The TVRI is supported by the Brewer Storefront, the public service legal affiliate of the national litigation firm Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. Since its establishment in 1995, the Storefront has brought numerous successful voting rights lawsuits on behalf of Latino, African American and Asian voters across North Texas.

““The Texas Voting Rights Initiative will promote democratic principles and voter equality at an important time. We believe our political institutions work best when they give all voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing.”    ”
— William A. Brewer III, Brewer Storefront chairman

Why It Matters – Equality and Opportunity in Education

A lack of diversity and equitable geographic representation on school boards often leads to underfunded schools, school and student achievement gaps, and disenfranchised voters.

In Texas, a considerable academic achievement gap still exists between white and minority students. In 2023, 64% of white students met grade level across all grades and subjects tested on the STAAR exam, compared to 42% of Hispanic students and 36% of African American students who met grade level. Given this disparity, Brewer Storefront believes the communities of color that Texas school districts educate deserve fair representation on elected school boards.

The need for a statewide voting rights initiative in Texas is critical, given its status as the nation’s second largest state, with a population exceeding 30 million people. Texas is a majority-minority state, with Hispanics as its largest population group. Despite this, many elected bodies, including local school boards and city councils, fail to reflect the state’s demographics, especially as voters of color continue to make up an increasing share of the electorate.

The TVRI’s initial focus is on school boards since as of last year, nearly three-quarters of the students enrolled in Texas public schools were children of color, and about 53% of all students were Hispanic.

The Storefront has successfully challenged many at-large election systems and inequitably drawn single-member districts. Through lawsuits filed under the Voting Rights Act, these challenges have argued that such systems deprive voters of color of a fair opportunity to meaningfully participate in the electoral process and to elect school board representatives or city council members of their choosing.  

The Storefront pursues its voting rights cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group.   This advocacy frequently results in the establishment of single-member districts, ensuring minority voters have a fair opportunity in the electoral process and enabling them to actively participate in shaping the political landscape.

Following its assessment, the TVRI, through the Storefront, issued warning letters to 11 Texas school districts alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The school districts are Alamo Heights Independent School District, Angleton Independent School District, Arlington Independent School District, Corsicana Independent School District, Dumas Independent School District, Eagle Mountain-Saginaw Independent School District, Garland Independent School District, Humble Independent School District, Lufkin Independent School District, New Braunfels Independent School District, and Texarkana Independent School District.

“We urge these school districts to take proactive steps in adopting election systems that comply with the Voting Rights Act and create districts that give voters of color a fair opportunity to participate in the electoral process,” Brewer said. “Elected school boards should reflect the diversity of the communities they serve.”

The letters request that the school boards in these districts take corrective actions and implement opportunity districts where a majority of eligible voters are Hispanic or African American.

The Storefront previously achieved winning outcomes in Voting Rights Act cases with the Lewisville Independent School District in August 2023, Richardson Independent School District in 2019, Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District in 2015; City of Grand Prairie in 2015; Irving Independent School District in 2014; Grand Prairie Independent School District in 2014; City of Farmers Branch in 2012; and City of Irving in 2009. These school districts and city councils now utilize remodeled voting systems.  

Related news

NRA Prevails Over NYAG’s Bid for Dissolution, Compliance Monitor

 

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors achieved a major legal victory on behalf of the National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) in July 2024 when a New York Supreme Court Justice rejected the New York Attorney General’s (“NYAG”) demands that a compliance monitor be appointed to oversee the historic gun rights organization. The New York Times reported it was a “win” for the gun rights group and the “beginning of the end of a four-year-old case…”

In August 2020, NYAG Letitia James filed a “dissolution lawsuit” against the NRA – a case that sought to shut down the Association and seize its assets. Four years later, following trial proceedings, Justice Joel M. Cohen rejected the NYAG’s demands for a compliance monitor and instead recommended the NRA and NYAG confer to consent to further governance reforms. In accordance with the court’s direction, the NRA will suggest additional reforms in furtherance of its ongoing commitment to good governance.

The NYAG sought something vastly different:  a “monitor” that would have been an invasive and crippling remedy with financial oversight, access to employees and records, and an open line of communication with the NYAG. 

“Key facts and a chorus of voices established that the relief sought by the NYAG was unwarranted,” said NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “The NRA organized its defense around an important reality: there was no evidence the NRA Board of Directors condoned the violations in question; instead, the board acted when it became aware of deviations from its own controls. That said, the Association takes seriously its commitment to stay in strict compliance with all controls.”

The NRA will pay no fines, collect awards from individual defendants, and have the freedom to pursue its mission. An expected final award of millions of dollars against former Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre will be payable to the NRA, as will proceeds from prior settlements with former NRA executives Josh Powell and Wilson Phillips.

The court found no reason to remove NRA Secretary John Frazer from his position.

 “We recognize the importance of the jury’s findings and will continue our commitment to good governance,” said NRA President Bob Barr, as he “praised the Association’s millions of loyal members who never lost faith in the organization and its commitment to protecting freedom.”

A 10-day bench trial that concluded on July 29, 2024, followed a 24-day jury trial earlier in the year, during which the NRA established that the NYAG failed to prove self-dealing or bad faith by the NRA Board. The NRA challenged the NYAG’s narrative that any governance issues at the NRA are “persistent” or ongoing.

Importantly, reflected in the court’s decision was recognition that the NRA established that it adopted new policies and accounting controls, displaced vendors and “insiders” who abused the Association, and accepted reparations for costs determined to be excess benefits. Most of these corrective measures – part of an internal investigation ignited by the NRA Board in 2018 – were underway before the NYAG even began her investigation.

Upon assuming office in 2019, Attorney General James launched an investigation and sought to put the NRA out of business. As part of her drive to destroy the NRA, on July 1, 2024, James requested a court-appointed delegate with sweeping powers over the Association.  

The NRA’s defense focused on its compliance efforts and the organization’s commitment to good governance following whistleblower complaints that emerged in the summer of 2018. When the NRA Board was alerted to the allegations, it led an investigation and determined that certain individuals participated in transactions that ran afoul of NRA policies and procedures. Testimony confirmed the “tone at the top” of the NRA has indeed changed.

Joining Brewer in representing the NRA were firm partners Sarah B. Rogers, Svetlana M. Eisenberg, and Noah Peters.

Related News

 

 

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for NRA in First Amendment Case Against Former New York Regulator

 
shutterstock_52262827[1].jpg

←back to cases

On May 30, 2024, Brewer client, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), scored a historic legal victory in one of the most closely followed First Amendment cases in the nation.

In a stinging rebuke of New York’s “blacklisting campaign” against the NRA, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled for the NRA in its case against former New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo. The decision remands the NRA’s case to the lower court – reviving the NRA’s claims that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights when she urged banks and insurers to cut ties with the NRA in 2018.

““This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom. The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy. This is a victory for the NRA’s millions of members and the freedoms that define America.” ”
— William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA

The opinion of the court, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, states, “Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment… Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.”

“This victory is a win for the NRA in the fight to protect freedom,” says NRA President Bob Barr. “This is a historic moment for the NRA in its stand against governmental overreach. Let this be clear: the voice of the NRA membership is as loud and influential as ever. Regulators are now on notice: this is a win for not only the NRA, but every organization who might otherwise suffer from an abuse of government power.”

In the opinion, Justice Sotomayor writes that Vullo was “free to criticize the NRA” but “could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.”

Justice Sotomayor continues, “One can reasonably infer from the complaint that Vullo coerced DFS-regulated entities to cut their ties with the NRA in order to stifle the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy and advance her views on gun control.”

The History of the Case

In a May 2018 lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo, at the urging of Governor Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and conspired to use DFS’ regulatory power to “financially blacklist” the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech. The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions were meant to silence the NRA – using “guidance letters,” backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to “drop” the Association.

The NRA's First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial court’s ruling, the Second Circuit struck down the NRA’s claims. The court ruled that in an era of “enhanced corporate social responsibility,” it was reasonable for New York's financial regulator to warn banks and insurance companies against servicing pro-gun groups based on the supposed “social backlash” against those groups’ advocacy. The court also ruled that Vullo’s guidance – written on her official letterhead and invoking her regulatory powers – was not a directive to the institutions she regulated, but rather a mere expression of her political preferences.

On February 7, 2023, the NRA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit decision. On November 3, 2023, the Court granted review of the case.

Twenty-two amicus briefs representing more than 190 individuals and organizations were filed in support of the NRA’s position, including a filing by several of the nation’s foremost First Amendment scholars. The amicus briefs also included a joint filing by dozens of congressional Republicans and filings by 25 state attorneys general. The support came from across the political spectrum.

On Monday, March 18, 2024, the Court heard oral arguments in the case. ACLU National Legal Director and NRA counsel David Cole argued that Vullo and other New York officials abused their authority in violation of the First Amendment, telling the justices: “There's no question on this record that they encouraged people to punish the NRA.” Cole said, “It was a campaign by the state’s highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy.”

Eugene Volokh joined Brewer and the ACLU in representing the NRA, along with Brewer partners Sarah B. Rogers and Noah Peters.

Related News

 

 

Firm Prevails for Client in Major Dallas Development Project

 
iStock-589102284.jpg

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors assisted a client with advancing a major, downtown Dallas development project that now plays a central role in the city’s urban renaissance and revitalization. The firm achieved a court victory that resulted in a settlement, which paved the way for the Forty Five Ten luxury retail boutique to open its doors along historic Main Street. 

The firm successfully represented defendants in FC WP Building LLC v. Headington Realty and Capital LLC, Elm at Stoneplace Holdings, LLC, Headington Resources, Inc. and Dallas Demolition Co. II, filed in July 2015 in Dallas County District Court, 68th Judicial District. 

The suit was filed by an affiliate of real estate company Forest City, FC WP Building LLC. Plaintiffs’ alleged that the development of Forty Five Ten would harm the neighboring Wilson Building, owned by the affiliate of Forest City. 

Brewer attorneys argued there was no legal basis for the lawsuit and that it was brought in bad faith. At the same time, the firm’s public relations team worked to promote the client’s interests with media outlets such as The Dallas Morning News and Dallas Business Journal.

“In Texas, you are allowed to develop your property and utilize it to its best effect.”
— Partner William Brewer told the Dallas Business Journal.

The court granted summary judgment for the Firm’s claims and dismissed plaintiff’s nuisance claims that alleged the new building resulted in the denial of access, light and a view for the Wilson Building. 

The parties agreed to dismiss the case in July 2017. That action allowed the ambitious project to move forward – a project that had been warmly embraced by the City of Dallas Urban Design Peer Review Panel. Forty Five Ten opened in late 2016 to great acclaim, attracting national attention from publications such as Vogue magazine.

Related NewS

 

Firm Prevails in Multimillion Dollar Trade Secrets Jury Trial for Client FLIR

 
shutterstock_140867215.jpg

←back to cases

A years-long dispute over infrared camera technology culminated in a jury trial victory for Brewer, Attorney & Counselors’ client, the infrared technology company FLIR Systems, Inc. 

In 2007, Raytheon sued FLIR and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Indigo Systems Corporation, for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for the alleged misappropriation of 31 alleged trade secrets relating to the production of infrared cameras. 

During a 17-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, FLIR introduced evidence of numerous patents and public disclosures to disprove the existence of valid trade secrets. FLIR employees and other industry witnesses also demonstrated that Raytheon’s misappropriation claims were without merit. 

In addition, FLIR provided documentation of the lengthy brainstorming and experimentation FLIR employees undertook to develop its assembly processes independently. The evidence also demonstrated that the parties used dramatically different recipes. 

On November 24, 2014, an 11-person jury deliberated for just a few hours before siding with FLIR. The jury determined unanimously that FLIR did not misappropriate any trade secrets, as had been alleged. Furthermore, the jury found that 27 of the 31 alleged trade secrets were, in fact, not trade secrets. Importantly, Raytheon was entitled to no damages from FLIR and Indigo. 

The jury verdict validated FLIR’s position that Raytheon lacked valid trade secrets, and that FLIR independently developed its infrared camera technology and processes. FLIR’s position was further validated first by the trial court’s denial of Raytheon’s post-trial motions, and then by the United States Court of Appeals for The Federal Circuit, which affirmed the jury verdict by denying Raytheon’s post-trial motions. The Federal Circuit published its precedential opinion on July 12, 2018. 

The case was titled Raytheon Company v. Indigo Systems Corp., et al.

Related News

 

3M Prevails Against Meda AB in Sale of 3M European Pharmaceutical Business Case

 
shutterstock_47795860.jpg

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors successfully represented 3M in trial proceedings relating to the $854 million sale of its European pharmaceutical business to Meda AB (“Meda”), a Sweden-based global pharmaceutical company. 

The case was resolved in 3M’s favor on every count, as the court found that the company honored its contractual obligations in connection with the sale of the business. In so doing, the court denied an estimated $200 million in damages being sought by Meda. 

Meda alleged that 3M’s failure to disclose a non-public provision of a document produced by France’s drug-pricing authority caused Meda to overpay for the business by more than $200 million. Plaintiff further alleged that 3M failed to make certain disclosures regarding the potential re-pricing of a cardiac drug known as Tambocor in most of the world and Flecaine in France. The drug was included in the portfolio of assets acquired by Meda in the transaction, dated November 8, 2006. 

Following a nine-day bench trial, the court’s decision confirmed that 3M acted appropriately in connection with the sale of the business. The opinion validated that 3M provided Meda with access to all the critical information it required to assess the viability of this business. 

As the opinion noted, such pricing adjustments are important because in France “the government provides reimbursement for the price of over 90% of drugs on the market…one of the most important objectives of pharmaceutical companies introducing a drug to market is to convince the French government to agree to a high reimbursement price.” 

3M successfully proved that Meda should have known about any pricing adjustments due to the availability of public information, that the company appropriately prepared offering materials, and that Meda failed to exercise due diligence in connection with its pursuit of the business. 

The court wrote, “…Meda’s diligence related to drug pricing was not thorough or meticulous.” Significantly, Meda never took full advantage of an electronic “data room” established by 3M that included approximately 8,800 documents for the benefit of potential purchasers of the business. 

“In short, although Meda was provided with a significant resource to conduct due diligence, the Court finds that it did not take full advantage of that resource, nor did it engage in diligence regarding drug pricing in a careful or thorough manner,” wrote Judge Nathan. 

Partner William Brewer said that the case outcome was “an important validation of 3M’s business procedures and confirms that the company acted in full compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements in connection with this transaction.”

Related News 

 

 

Firm Prevails in High-Profile Hawaii Edition Hotel Management Dispute

 
iStock-514630022.jpg

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors has represented internationally known hotel management companies, owners, developers, franchisors, and investors in some of the highest-profile cases in the industry. 

Not only has the firm’s work in this area changed the state of the law, but it has resulted in the formulation of creative solutions to myriad problems confronting the industry. 

For example, in M Waikiki LLC v. Marriott International, the firm represented the owner of a Honolulu, Hawaii, resort in connection with the 2011 termination of a long-term hotel management agreement with Edition, the joint lifestyle hotel brand of Marriott International and Ian Schrager. 

The lawsuit alleged that after the hotel was opened as the first Edition brand hotel in late 2010, it suffered from poor occupancy, a brand name with virtually no identity, and Marriott’s unwillingness to control expenses. According to the owner, during a three-month period of May to July 2011, the hotel sustained staggering operating losses of $1.9 million.

“We believed that promises made during the launch of Edition were broken - leaving our client with significant damages which were further compounded by Marriott’s inability to effectively manage the property. Therefore, our client sought to remove Marriott from the management of the hotel.”
— William A. Brewer III

The lawsuit was filed by owner M Waikiki LLC in New York Supreme Court on May 26, 2011. 

As a result, Edition was ousted from the property and a new management company was installed at the resort. The firm then represented the owner as special litigation counsel in bankruptcy, including a weeklong estimation hearing. The firm also represented its client’s interests in the public arena, generating favorable media coverage from outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and local Hawaii news outlets. 

In August 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported that the owner made a dramatic, early morning move to install new management. The firm maintained that the owner had the legal right to take action, a peaceful transition that positioned the hotel for future success. 

The hotel was renamed The Modern Honolulu. Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors directed a PR campaign to promote the new direction of the hotel. That campaign helped the client generate local and national visibility for the property, leading to increased exposure, reservations, and business opportunities. 

Industry trade publication Travel Weekly highlighted the case in an article about hotel owners ousting hotel operators in high-profile hotel management disputes. In that article, Brewer commented that with many high-profile legal decisions going against major brands, owners may now feel more comfortable with going to court to push out faltering managers. 

The case helped establish the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved in these types of disputes.

Related News

 

3M Resolves Environmental Lawsuit Involving States of Guernsey

 
iStock-183834847.jpg

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors directed a legal team that planned, filed, and ultimately prevailed in a three-year case against the States of Guernsey in 3M UK v. States of Guernsey. 

The case centered on Guernsey’s use of 3M Light Water Brand Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) and allegations that the 3M product polluted the island’s drinking water. 

The trial began on January 18, 2016, in the High Court of Justice for England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court in London. 

At trial, 3M successfully demonstrated that Guernsey failed to follow safety instructions and routinely discharged AFFF into the environment. 3M also presented evidence that the presence of perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in Guernsey presented no harm to the community or environment. It was also demonstrated through witness testimony that 3M acted responsibly in the sale and production of the AFFF products. 

Three weeks into the trial, on February 4, 2016, Guernsey dismissed its claims with prejudice and agreed to make a substantial contribution to 3M’s legal costs.

Related News 

 

Firm Scores Landmark Victory Against City of Farmers Branch

 
shutterstock_49320484.jpg

←back to cases

In 2014, the Brewer Storefront, the firm’s community service affiliate, prevailed in an almost eight-year campaign to oppose the unconstitutional “immigration ordinances” adopted in the City of Farmers Branch, Texas. 

On March 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari of an appeal by the City. The decision marked the end of a successful campaign by the Brewer Storefront to challenge multiple versions of the city’s immigration ordinance – bringing to a close a case that captured national headlines.

TAKING A STAND

The Storefront had successfully opposed several versions of the ordinance since 2006. 

The City of Farmers Branch had appealed an en banc opinion issued on July 22, 2013, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that affirmed a trial court decision striking down the city’s third attempt at the immigration ordinance. 

The ordinance would have required renters in Farmers Branch to register their presence with the city and prove that they were legal residents in order to retain an occupancy license. The ordinance came under fire for being unconstitutional and discriminating against the Latino community. 

The courts repeatedly agreed with the Storefront’s central argument that the ordinances were preempted by federal law and unconstitutional because they attempted to regulate immigration, which can only be performed by the federal government. 

The City of Farmers Branch requested an en banc rehearing in April 2012, and arguments were heard before the full court in September 2012. 

The en banc decision came more than a year after a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the same lower court ruling. In an opinion filed on March 21, 2012, Judge Thomas Reavley wrote, “We conclude that the ordinance’s sole purpose is not to regulate housing but to exclude undocumented aliens, specifically Latinos, from the City of Farmers Branch and that it is an impermissible regulation of immigration.” 

In March 2010, United States District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that Ordinance 2952 was unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of the ordinance. Ordinance 2903, the predecessor to Ordinance 2952, was previously ruled unconstitutional by United States District Court Judge Sam Lindsay.

LASTING IMPACT

The Farmers Branch decision has dissuaded other communities throughout the nation from considering similar unconstitutional – and discriminatory – measures. 

In addition to the federal court actions alleging the ordinance was unconstitutional, the Storefront pursued state court actions alleging that the city violated the Texas Open Meetings Act. The Storefront also helped lead a community awareness campaign about the ordinance. 

The Storefront also won a landmark victory against Farmers Branch in August 2012, when United States District Court Judge Sidney Fitzwater ruled that the city violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by using an at-large voting system to elect its City Council. 

The victory resulted in the creation of five single-member districts, including one district with a Latino majority. On May 12, 2013, Latina candidate Ana Reyes was elected to the Farmers Branch City Council by a decisive margin. 

In 2015, Texas Lawyer recognized the Brewer Storefront as a “Litigation Department of the Year” for its efforts in Farmers Branch.

Related NewS

 

Firm Prevails in Lawsuit Against Transamerica in Life Insurance

 
WSJ_Life_Race_5959_HIREZ.jpg

←back to cases

In 2018, a California federal court entered a final judgement in favor of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors client DCD Partners, LLC. The judgment arose out of a suit filed in 2015, which alleged that Transamerica Life Insurance Company (“Transamerica”) imposed unprecedented and exorbitant increases in premiums on thousands of life insurance policies in 2013. The judgment represented a defining chapter in a case that captured national headlines.

The lawsuit and legal strategy

DCD Partners sued Transamerica in 2015, alleging Transamerica improperly increased life insurance premiums by 50 percent in 2013 on more than 2,000 insureds – predominantly African-Americans from South Los Angeles, who were parishioners of the Praises of Zion Missionary Baptist Church, and other community churches. 

Issued in 2004, the policies were part of a charitable life insurance program that provided family members money for burial expenses and funds for the charitable activities of the non-profit Personal Involvement Center and other non-profit groups in that community. 

Following a trial, on September 13, 2017, a jury rendered a verdict for DCD Partners on its claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

On August 1, 2018, the Court denied Transamerica’s post-trial motions for new trial and for judgment as a matter of law. 

On December 13, 2018, the Honorable Christina A. Snyder of the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered the final judgment. 

In addition to the award for DCD Partners, the Court also enjoined Transamerica from continuing to charge excessive rates, based on an increase the jury determined breached the insurance policy. The injunction was the first entered against Transamerica in any rate increase litigation since Transamerica began raising its life insurance rates in the late 2000s.

“The jury verdict and final judgment send a clear message to Transamerica: insureds have contractual rights that cannot be ignored in Transamerica’s seemingly endless pursuit of profits. This case underscores the rights of insureds.”
— William A. Brewer III

Justice for all

This case attracted national attention because of the emerging focus on life insurance companies that improperly increase rates on policyholders in order to make up for diminishing investment returns and faulty underwriting practices. 

Rev. Benjamin Hardwick, founder and senior pastor at the Praises of Zion Missionary Baptist Church, established the program to ensure that families in his community would not be burdened with burial expenses when their family members passed away. 

In seeking an insurance company to help establish the program, Rev. Hardwick has stated he was concerned about “redlining,” the practice of charging policyholders in the same policy class higher rates than others in the class based on characteristics of their community or ethnic background, as his congregation consists mostly of African-Americans. 

An article in The Wall Street Journal, “Federal Jury Rules Against Transamerica in Battle Over Rates,” dated September 15, 2017, reported that the lawsuit “…was a closely watched case that challenged the leeway life insurers have when raising rates on old policies.” 

“This legal victory enables the life insurance program to continue to provide benefits for the community, the individual insureds, and the investors who have sustained the program,” Brewer said. “It also establishes precedent that will inform future decisions about the rights and responsibilities of parties involved in these types of arrangements.”

Related News

 

Firm Helps Historic Manhattan Small Business – Jim’s Shoe Repair

 
iStock-174768567.jpg

←back to cases

Every now and then, our advocacy positively impacts the future of a family, a business, and even a city. 

In one such case, attorneys and communications professionals from the Brewer Storefront, the firm’s community service affiliate, represented Jim’s Shoe Repair, a historic New York City business that was facing certain closure. 

Jim’s Shoe Repair has been described as the oldest and most famed cobbler in New York City. It has operated at its current Midtown Manhattan location since 1940 and has been in business since 1932. 

Despite the popularity of Jim’s and its standing as one of New York’s oldest family-owned businesses, in 2014 the business faced imminent closure. 

Jim’s was in danger of losing its 1,000-square-foot shop at 50 E. 59th Street, due to the expansion of a Duane Reade pharmacy located next door. Attorneys from the Storefront became involved, undertaking a legal and advocacy campaign to help secure the store’s future. 

Jim’s fight for survival became a closely-followed case in New York City – emblematic of the struggle faced by small businesses swept away in the corporatization of the city.

Legal and Public Affairs Campaign

The Storefront represented Jim’s in the courtroom, pro bono, and engineered a grassroots petition drive to help save the business. The Storefront attempted to seek a landmark designation for Jim’s. 

The Storefront then filed a petition in Manhattan Supreme Court on April 8, 2014, on behalf of the business, against the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The petition sought to overturn a decision by the Commission to deny Jim’s a landmark designation. 

At the same time, the firm’s public affairs team engineered a PR campaign that gave a voice to the historic business. The team arranged for desk-side briefings, pursued media coverage, and launched a petition drive that captured major attention. The team also secured an on-site visit and proclamation for Jim’s from New York Assemblyman Dan Quart. 

The campaign received coverage from several leading media outlets, including The New York Times, CNBC, New York Daily News, and the New York Post, to name just a few, as the community rallied to save one of the city’s most famed businesses.

The Storefront also defended Jim’s in eviction proceedings. And, after much negotiating, Jim’s and its landlord, SL Green Realty Corp., settled all claims as a condition of a new lease agreement in January 2015. The terms of the deal were not disclosed.

A Historic Victory

Jim’s was founded in 1932 by Italian immigrant Vito Rocco; he named his shop “Jim’s” because he believed an American-sounding name would be good for business. At the time, prejudice against Italian immigrants was common. Now in its fourth generation, Jim’s still retains its “Old World” charm. 

The shop utilizes its original gold cash register and antique wooden compartments for customers waiting on shoe repairs. The founder’s youngest son, Joseph Rocco Sr., and his two brothers, Giulio and John, ran the business for years before Giulio and John passed away.

“Jim’s is a business that embodies the American Dream,. The victory is for all those who value family-owned businesses in this country.”
— William A. Brewer III (partner at the Storefront and long-time Jim’s customer)
 

Firm Secures Wins in Voting Rights Act Cases in North Texas Communities

 
shutterstock_12758041.jpg

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors is dedicated to upholding the promise of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 and has a long history of bringing successful lawsuits on behalf of Latino and African American voters across North Texas.

The Brewer Storefront, the firm’s community service affiliate, has successfully brought pro bono lawsuits against school districts and city council election systems that are in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuits are brought under Section 2 of the Act, which prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate against voters based on race, ethnicity, or language. 

The lawsuits challenge mostly at-large election systems and some unfairly drawn single-member districts. They charge that such systems denied voters of color a fair opportunity to meaningfully participate in the electoral process and elect school board representatives or city council members of their choosing. 

The lawsuits argued that the election systems allowed white voters to vote as a bloc and deny political opportunity to voters of color and their favored candidates.

The Scorecard – A Record of Positive Outcomes

Our advocacy often results in the creation of single-member districts that afford minority voters a fair opportunity in the election process, giving voters a stake in the political process. 

At trial, the Storefront has used demographics and voting experts to demonstrate that electoral districts could be drawn with a majority of Latino U.S. Citizens of Voting Age Population (CVAP). They proved the Latino and/or African American population in each community was significantly large and compact enough to constitute a majority in a district. 

Furthermore, attorneys and experts demonstrated in several cases that the existing flawed election systems consistently resulted in the defeat of candidates favored by voters of color by white (non-Hispanic) candidates. The lawsuits were resolved at trial or with settlements, usually resulting in the creation of single-member districts with a Latino majority CVAP. 

The lawsuits and subsequent redrawn election systems have resulted in greater diversity on the elected boards of many of the impacted communities. In the school district cases, the districts already served student bodies where students of color made up the majority of students enrolled. 

The Storefront secured trial victories in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in voting rights lawsuits brought against the Irving Independent School District in 2014, the City of Farmers Branch in 2012, and the City of Irving in 2009. 

Lawsuits also resulted in settlement agreements and adjusted election systems in the Richardson Independent School District in 2019, the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District in 2015, the City of Grand Prairie in 2015, and the Grand Prairie Independent School District in 2014.

“These verdicts and outcomes represent a victory for voters of color who seek a voice in the political process. These communities are representatives of the changing demographics across the United States. We hope these cases are instructive to other municipalities and school districts that deny minority populations the opportunity for fair representation.”
— William A. Brewer III

 

After a majority-Latino single-member district was created in Farmers Branch following a trial victory, voters elected the first Hispanic to the City Council in city history, Ana Reyes. 

“Together, we can do great things and move forward,” Reyes told The Dallas Morning News after her historic win.

Key Representative Cases

The following are key voting rights cases all filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that resulted in progress:

  • Paige Dixon v. Lewisville Independent School District, et al. (Filed in 2022): Brewer Storefront filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of plaintiff Paige Dixon against the Lewisville Independent School District (LISD) and its trustees, alleging that the school district’s at large election system violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it denies fair representation to voters of color. In August 2023, the Storefront announced a settlement with LISD resolving all claims and resulting in a new electoral system consisting of five single-member districts and two at-large seats. The new election system includes one single-member district comprised of a majority of eligible minority voters. Dixon, who is African American, is an active member of her community, a U.S. Army combat veteran, and a mother of two children who have attended LISD schools. She previously served as PTA President at Rockbrook Elementary School in Lewisville ISD from 2017 to 2021. She ran for Place 1 on the LISD school board in May 2021 and lost.  In 2020, a similar lawsuit against LISD brought by the Storefront was dismissed by a judge who found that the plaintiff, Frank Vaughan, who is white, lacked standing. That decision did not speak to the merits of the argument or whether LISD’s voting system complied with the Voting Rights Act.

  • David Tyson, Jr. v Richardson Independent School District, et al. (Filed in 2018): In January 2019, the Storefront settled Voting Rights Act and Texas Open Meetings Act lawsuits brought against the Richardson Independent School District filed on behalf of plaintiff and former Richardson ISD school board trustee David Tyson, Jr. The settlement results in greater political opportunity by replacing the district’s at-large election system with a new system consisting of five single-member districts and two at-large districts. The new election system also includes two single-member districts, each comprised of a majority of eligible minority voters. The Richardson ISD school board additionally agreed to complete training to help ensure its compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act at an open board meeting in 2019. In November 2019, voters elected Regina Harris as District 4 trustee. Harris is the first African American woman to serve on the RISD board. In May 2020, Debbie Rentería was sworn in as District 3 trustee, becoming the first Hispanic to ever serve on the RISD board.  

  • Ramos v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District, et al. (Filed in 2015): The Storefront filed suit against the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District challenging the at-large election system. Plaintiff Guillermo Ramos is a graduate of the district’s Newman Smith High School, and grew up attending district schools. At the time, the school district enrollment was about 55 percent Latino, but there were no Latinos on the seven-member board. The lawsuit claimed that since at least 1995, bloc-voting by whites resulted in the defeat of every Latino candidate. 

    In September 2015, the Storefront announced that a settlement had been reached. The settlement included replacing the at-large election system with a cumulative voting system. In a cumulative system, voters receive as many votes as there are seats in an election, and may distribute those votes as they wish. As a part of the settlement, one member resigned and Ramos joined the board. In May 2016, Ramos was elected to the board under the new cumulative system. Candace Valenzuela, who is Mexican American and African American, was also elected to the board in May 2017.

  • Rodriguez v. The City of Grand Prairie, et al. (Filed in 2015): The lawsuit filed on behalf of plaintiff Victor Rodriguez argued that the Grand Prairie City Council election system of six single-member districts and two at-large districts violated the Voting Rights Act. At the time, the eight City Council members and mayor were all white, although the population was almost 43 percent Latino as of the 2010 Census. The lawsuit claimed that since 1990, bloc-voting by white voters resulted in the defeat of every Latino candidate. In July 2015, the City Council agreed to settle the lawsuit and redraw district boundaries with greater opportunity for Latino voters in Districts 3 and 5. The District 3 seat has since been held by a Latino representative, Mike Del Bosque.

  • Rodriguez v. Grand Prairie Independent School District, et al. (Filed in 2013): The Storefront filed suit against Grand Prairie ISD on behalf of resident Victor Rodriguez. Since 1999, only one Hispanic candidate had been elected to the board by defeating a white candidate. In that time period, bloc-voting by white voters resulted in the defeat of at least four other Hispanic candidates. The parties reached a settlement in September 2014, establishing a new election system with five single-member districts and two at-large districts. The new election system included two single-member districts wherein a majority of eligible voters are Latino U.S. citizens. In May 2015, Hispanic candidate David Espinosa defeated an incumbent and was elected to District 5, one of the newly established Hispanic opportunity districts.

  • Manuel A. Benavidez v. Irving Independent School District, et al. (Filed in 2013): Plaintiff Manuel Benavidez, a Mexican-American who had unsuccessfully run for the Irving Independent School District board, challenged the district’s 5-2 election system. The district used an election system with five single-member districts and two at-large seats. Following a three-day bench trial in July 2014, U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater ruled that the Irving Independent School District’s system of electing school board trustees violated the Voting Rights Act and denied fair representation to Latino voters. The 5-2 system was created after Benavidez sued the district in a prior voting rights lawsuit brought by the Storefront in 2008. Judge Fitzwater ruled that despite the school district’s contention, District 6 was not a sufficiently drawn single-member district containing a majority of eligible Hispanic voters, and therefore was not a true “opportunity” district. The Storefront successfully argued that the district used misleading data to craft the district and counted Hispanics who were not U.S. citizens and were therefore ineligible to vote. Following the decision, the Irving ISD voted to convert to an election system with seven single-member districts, including a Hispanic “opportunity” district comprised of a majority of Hispanic eligible voters.