Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these grant terminations violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, as well as statutes that govern agencies’ missions and grantmaking and the Administrative Procedure Act. As detailed in the Complaint, these abrupt cancellations of already awarded grants “ignored or contradicted the purposes for which Congress created the granting agencies and appropriated funds, and dispensed with the regular procedures and due process afforded grantees under the Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Trump Administration’s political ‘cost-cutting’ agenda and ideological purity campaign.”

According to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional law scholar and co-counsel on the case, “President Trump and DOGE have arbitrarily cut off funding to researchers throughout the University of California system in clear violation of the Constitution and federal laws. There has not been a semblance of due process or compliance with the procedures required by federal statutes and regulations. This has caused great harm to a large number of faculty and other researchers and the UC research enterprise as a whole, with potentially grave consequences to everyone in society who benefits from the research in a myriad of disciplines.”

As described by Plaintiff Dr. Neeta Thakur, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at UCSF, “The EPA has abruptly terminated a three-year grant that was supporting research on how wildfire smoke affects the lungs, heart, and brain of all Californians. My colleagues and I at UCSF and UC Berkeley have worked on this important project for two years, and its sudden end — communicated through a simple form letter — puts our progress in danger. This decision disrupts our ongoing work with community-based organizations and stops us from generating life-saving information designed to improve public health and protect the well-being of all Californians, especially those living in at-risk communities.”

Plaintiff Jedda Foreman, the Director of the Center for Environmental Learning at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, explains, “My team and I at the Lawrence Hall of Science earned NSF grants to make science education more accessible to all learners. Instilling a love of science is critical to envisioning and creating a better future for us all. In one day, we lost two projects, and nearly 75% of our funding, because of terminations by NSF. A week later, NSF terminated yet another one of our projects. These terminations haven’t just affected our team, but also our longtime community partners and thousands of students across the United States.”

These are just two of hundreds of examples of the damage wrought by the Trump Administration’s illegal and unconstitutional terminations.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, seeks a return to the pre-Trump Administration process of orderly grantmaking that aligns with congressionally authorized purposes, and affords due process to grant-funded researchers. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and the class of UC researchers who have suffered unlawful grant terminations, an injunction restoring their lost funding, providing them sufficient time to complete the work for which their grants were originally approved, and preventing further illegal grant terminations. Plaintiffs will be filing a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 5, 2025.

The case, No. 3:25-cv-4737, is assigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin.

Background on the Lawsuit

Each year, researchers in the UC system receive hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the full spectrum of federal agencies, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency, to the National Science Foundation, to the National Institutes of Health. These grants fund the production of new knowledge and fuel the development of discoveries that greatly benefit society at large. The grants have also been key to the innovation that has consistently earned the UC system pride of place among research institutions, including first place in the list of universities with the most utility patents. They have also made the UC Berkeley campus the number one ranked public research in institution in the world for nine of the past ten years.

Before President Trump took office, federal grantmaking proceeded under the authority of Congress, which appropriated taxpayer funds for specific public purposes. For decades, agencies carried out these statutory directives and observed due process in making, renewing, and (only seldom) terminating grants. They each adhered to their own grant regulations and followed Administrative Procedure Act processes when modifying such regulations. On the rare occasions when agencies terminated grants, they did so pursuant to predictable, regularized processes and terminated grants only for reasons stated in the regulations. All of this changed abruptly on January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day).

After January 20, 2025, Defendants Donald J. Trump and DOGE, through a flurry of Executive Orders and other directives, commanded the Federal Agency Defendants to terminate scores of previously awarded research grants. As the Complaint notes, the “abrupt, wholesale, and unilateral termination of these grants has violated the Constitution’s bedrock principle of separation of powers and its guarantees of freedom of speech and due process; flouted the Impoundment Control Act limits on the Executive’s ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated money; ignored statutory requirements that agencies fulfill their substantive missions and fund congressionally specified activities; contravened agency-specific grant-making regulations that cannot by law be revised on an abrupt, unexplained, chaotic basis; and violated the Administrative Procedure Act through this arbitrary, capricious, and ultra vires conduct.”

As further detailed in the Complaint, grounds the agencies have offered for such terminations were spurious. In some cases, agency correspondence to grantees asserted that grant termination would reduce public costs and promote government efficiency, although no evidence was provided to support this claim. In other cases, agency communications made it clear that grants were being terminated to further Defendant Trump’s political objectives, which included the elimination of research on climate, environmental justice, “gender ideology,” and “DEI.” These grant terminations are occurring not because the grant-funded research departed from its originally approved purpose, but because that purpose now offends the political agenda and ideological requirements of the Trump Administration. In terminating these grants, the agencies have violated the Constitution, numerous federal statutes, and their own regulations.

Plaintiff UC researchers have suffered concrete financial, professional, and other harms from Defendants’ unilateral termination of grants for projects to which they have already dedicated time and effort; for research upon which they have staked careers and reputations; and for work with research teams through which they endeavored to train a next generation. These terminations have impaired and will impair the public-serving research mission of the UC system and the concern for public welfare that undergirds it. Named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class will continue to suffer such harms on an ongoing basis, and will experience increasing and irreparable harm absent the court declaration and injunction they seek through this lawsuit.

Source/Contact

Elizabeth J. Cabraser
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

Anthony P. Schoenberg
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP

Media Contact
ACLU-D.C.: media@acludc.org
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein: media@LCHB.com
Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch: carcos@jaffepr.com
Democracy Forward: press@democracyforward.org

The complaint, filed today before the Merit System Protection Board, was brought on behalf of the federal employees by the ACLU of the District of Columbia (ACLU-D.C.); Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch PC; and Democracy Forward. The complaint was filed in tandem with numerous charges of discrimination filed by federal employees before federal Equal Employment Opportunity offices.

On January 20 and 21, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, which instructed the Office of Personnel Management to terminate all government activities related to DEI and mandated that federal agencies compile lists of the government’s DEI programs and activities in existence as of November 4, 2024.

Today’s complaint alleges that the resulting mass terminations and other attacks on federal employees who are alleged to have participated in DEI activities violates federal employees’ rights under the First Amendment. The complaint alleges that the Trump administration targeted employees who it perceived as being associated with DEI, including those who no longer performed any DEI-related activities in their current positions and those whose only DEI-related activity was involvement in a training or employee resource group. The complaint alleges that such targeting demonstrates that the Trump administration sought to punish employees for what the administration perceived as their political views.

Today’s complaint also challenges the gender and racial impacts of the anti-DEI executive orders, which disproportionately singled out federal workers who were not white men for hostility, suspicion, job interference, and termination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

This unlawful targeting has affected federal employees across multiple federal agencies. Today’s Merit Systems Protection Board complaint was filed on behalf of Mahri Stáinnak of the Office of Personnel Management, and it also identifies other affected employees, including Dr. Paige Brown of the Department of Labor, C. Scott of the Department of Labor, and Ronisca Chambers of the Federal Aviation Administration. The federal employees are asking the Board to reinstate them in their positions and to make them whole for the wages they have lost and other damages they have experienced.

“The thousands of federal employees I have worked with in my sixteen and a half years in the federal government are incredibly passionate, skilled, and hard-working people who have dedicated their lives to making our nation safe, healthy, and prosperous,” said plaintiff Mahri Stáinnak of the Office of Personnel Management. “By illegally targeting employees across government, the Trump administration is actually hurting all the people who live and work in this country by denying them the important services we provide.”

“Targeting hard working civil servants because they are associated with an idea the government dislikes violates the First Amendment. President Trump can’t drag us back to a dark chapter in history where the government targeted people simply for their views or values,” said Scott Michelman, legal director at the ACLU-D.C. “The decision to go after people for DEI work they are no longer doing shows the administration’s true motive: to punish employees who they think hold values that clash with the president’s extremist agenda.”

“The work that the Plaintiffs and Class have performed has been critical to our country: they have assisted Americans surviving natural disasters, responded to infectious disease outbreaks threatening our public health, helped secure our borders, assisted in keeping our aircraft and skies safe for travel, ensured that people in rural communities have access to services, worked to ensure hunters and farmers can enjoy public lands, and created pathways for children needing accommodations so they can stay in school and thrive. They have also ensured that government work itself is fair and culturally competent so that public services can be cost-effective and successful,” said Kelly Dermody of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein. “It is an outrage that their ability to serve the American people has been compromised through a misguided assault on such American values as inclusion and fairness.”

“Targeting federal workers for removal because they were once assigned to DEI duties or participated in agency-sponsored DEI activities violates fundamental principles that underly the civil service—that employees should be treated fairly, without regard to perceived political affiliation, or race, or sex, and that they should be protected against actions taken for partisan political purposes,” said Mary Kuntz of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch PC.

“This case is about the Trump administration’s arbitrary governing and continued attempts to undermine the government’s ability to work for all people. No American’s life has been made easier or safer by the administration’s decision to arbitrarily terminate non-partisan civil servants. We are honored to represent our clients in this matter and will continue to use all legal tools to protect the American people,” said Skye Perryman, President & CEO at Democracy Forward.

Today’s complaint may be found here: https://www.acludc.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/mspb_class_complaint_stainnak_mahri_as_filed.pdf

The complaint details how the defendants misled six plaintiff families into paying $45,000 and traveling to the island of Antigua with the promise of a purported miracle treatment. Not one plaintiff victim’s condition improved, and three plaintiff recipients died within weeks of the blood filtrations. Plaintiffs further allege that, for those who survived, their cancers worsened, in part because all victims were told to discontinue chemotherapy in advance and subsequent to the ONCObind procedure.

“The defendants here misled desperate families battling advanced cancer into serving as human guinea pigs. Their conduct was grotesque and truly shocks the conscience,” Lieff Cabraser partner Robert J. Nelson said.

The complaint alleges that the defendants traded on elite credentials in an effort to lure the plaintiff families to what they intended to be their first in a chain of cancer-curing clinics. The complaint alleges that the defendants promised a procedure backed by strong scientific evidence, and no one provided informed consent for what amounted to human experimentation.

The complaint alleges that the facility itself was not equipped to treat patients with advanced cancer, needlessly increasing the plaintiffs’ suffering. As alleged in the complaint and as reported in the New York Times, the defendants went forward with dangerous blood filtration despite earlier warnings from an ExThera whistleblower communicated to the company’s executives that the filtrations were an unethical and unsafe human experiment.

“In addition to patients who underwent the procedure, we represent patients’ spouses who spent years navigating the medical system to give their loved ones the best possible chance to defeat their serious diagnoses. It is incredibly disturbing that this fraud took advantage of that very dedication,” Lieff Cabraser attorney Courtney J. Liss said.

The plaintiffs bring a variety of legal claims based on the misconduct, including fraud, battery and wrongful death. “We look forward to seeking and proving punitive damages at trial,” Nelson added.

The case is Hudlow, et al. v. ExThera Medical Corp. et al. and was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco/Oakland).

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert J. Nelson and Courtney J. Liss.

Source/Contact

Robert J. Nelson
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
415.956.1000
rnelson@lchb.com

The event was the opening reception for a day of continuing education titled, “Live From Nashville – An Educational Performance in Music City.”

Both TTLA and KJA work to protect the 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury – allowing any person or business to seek justice and accountability through the American court system.

About the Tennessee Trial Lawyers’ Association

For over 60 years, TTLA has worked tirelessly to ensure that everyday citizens, Tennessee families, and small businesses are never deprived of their constitutional guarantee of access to justice. The mission of TTLA is simple – we are dedicated to protecting the constitutional promise of justice for all by guaranteeing the right to trial by jury, preserving an independent judiciary, and providing access to the courts for all Tennesseans.

About the Kentucky Justice Assocation

KJA was founded in 1954 by a small group of local attorneys. Over the years, it has grown into an important, statewide voice for consumers. The Association’s more than 1100 members are committed to improving the quality of legal representation for Kentucky families by providing superior legal education and by keeping abreast of legislative and judicial proceedings.

 About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with over 125 attorneys in offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, Germany, is an internationally-recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. Repeatedly recognized as a “Plaintiffs’ Powerhouse” by Law360, Lieff Cabraser has litigated some of the most important civil cases in the United States, and has assisted clients in recovering over $129 billion in verdicts and settlements. For over 50 years, Lieff Cabraser has remained committed to ensuring access to justice for all.

Plaintiffs’ counsel Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser explained the flaws in Vassar’s motion:  “In passing its Equal Pay Law, the New York legislature stated without equivocation that it intended to expand women’s rights and expand their access to justice.  Unfortunately, Vassar—a Seven Sisters institution—asked the court to ignore that law.  The Court’s decision is therefore a significant victory both for the women of Vassar and for women seeking equal pay across New York state.  We look forward to a trial on the merits.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel Catherine Bendor, Director of Litigation at Equal Rights Advocates, stated:  “The court recognized that when the state of New York amended its equal pay law, it provided more robust protections for women seeking to be paid the same amount as men for substantially similar work.  New York’s law, and new equal pay laws being enacted by a growing number of states across the country, will help bring us closer to achieving true pay equity for women in academia and set the standard for all occupations.”

The Class:  The class is represented by five female full professors, who have also been publicly supported by 36 of their female full professor colleagues as well as by large groups of male full professors, female associate professors, students, and alumnae/alumni.  These five women—Wendy Graham (Professor of English), Maria Höhn (Professor Emerita of History), Mia Mask (Professor of Film), Cindy Schwarz (Professor of Physics), and Debra Zeifman (Professor of Psychological Science)—reacted to the Court’s ruling:

“We are grateful for District Judge Seibel’s ruling denying Vassar’s motion to dismiss the New York Equal Pay Law claim from our pay discrimination lawsuit.  Women professors at Vassar have been trying for decades to rectify longstanding and unjust gender-based pay disparities. The process of addressing the gender pay gap at Vassar has been unnecessarily long and drawn out because of Vassar’s repeated refusal to acknowledge and redress the issue.  We are saddened that Vassar attempted to dismiss the central claim of our case—asking the Court to apply a heightened and incorrect legal standard that would have harmed access to equal pay claims, not only in our case, but for women across the state.  We remain deeply committed to ensuring women’s fair pay and equal treatment at the College and hope Vassar will take immediate and meaningful steps to bring the College’s actions in line with its professed values.”

The Court’s decision comes on the heels of the U.S. Census Bureau’s release of 2023 pay data on September 10, 2024, which reflects a major backslide in terms of progress on pay equity.  The data show that most of the wage gaps for women have grown wider since 2022.

Background on the Case:  A copy of the lawsuit can be found here, and the statement of the 36 supporters affirming the pattern of pay discrimination at Vassar and expressing their support for the class action can be found here.

The professors allege Vassar has known for years that it unlawfully pays men more than women, and has for years refused to adequately address the discrimination. Vassar is one of the Seven Sisters, a group of historically women’s colleges founded on the promise of gender equity.

Discovery is underway and Plaintiffs’ counsel are preparing the case for trial.

Contact:

Kelly Dermody, Lieff Cabraser
kdermody @ lchb.com
415-956-1000

The article notes that Wilson, “specializing in litigation against fossil fuel companies and other polluters, has helped government entities, consumers, small businesses, workers, and homeowners recover a staggering sum — over $16 billion — while prompting changes in various company practices.”

“The most surprising part of my work — from the perspective of what I imagined the job to entail in law school — is how much science I have to understand,” Wilson notes. “Everything from metallurgy to fish migration, consumer spending habits, how emissions systems work, and how toxins are spread through ocean currents and the air. I also have to understand a lot of economics for the complex damages modeling that goes into my cases.”

That impressive track record includes a $1.8 billion settlement with Sempra Energy Corporation arising from the largest methane leak in U.S. history, a $230 million settlement against Plains Pipeline Company from a Santa Barbara oil spill; and a $95 million settlement with a pipeline company and various shipping companies from a spill in Huntington Beach, California. He also helped steer a series of settlements against Volkswagen, Porsche, and Audi sparked by the 2015 “clean diesel” scandal for cheating on diesel-emissions tests.

In addition, Dunlavey has helped alter the law to benefit victims of environmental disasters, including negligence, nuisance, and trespass law. He currently represents the State of California against fossil fuel companies in what may be the most important environmental litigation to date: seeking to hold major oil companies accountable for decades of deception regarding the impact of climate change.

The full profile is available online at Berkeley Law.

The full list of panelists included:

Mark P. Chalos, Lieff Cabraser Nashville Managing Partner
Janna Maples, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey Partner
John Spragens, Founder of Spragens Law
Kenny S. Byrd, Lieff Cabraser Partner

About the Plaintiffs’ Advocates & Litigation Society (PALS)

The Plaintiffs’ Advocates & Litigation Society (PALS) at Vanderbilt Law School is dedicated to broadening the career perspectives of law students beyond the conventional paths of joining corporate defense firms or working for the government or nonprofits. Recognizing the influence of institutional norms and corporate sponsorship on career choices, PALS emphasizes the option of becoming a plaintiff’s attorney. This path allows students to leverage their high-quality legal education to represent individuals against powerful corporate entities. PALS aims to introduce Vanderbilt students to this alternative legal career by organizing events that offer insights into plaintiff advocacy, collaborating with firms that align with their values, and providing resources and information that might not be available through traditional career services. Additionally, PALS focuses on connecting students with career opportunities in the plaintiff’s legal sector, an area that is typically challenging to enter.

About Mark Chalos

The Managing Partner of Lieff Cabraser’s Nashville office, Mark P. Chalos (twitter/X: @mpchalos) represents individuals who have suffered catastrophic personal injuries and families whose loved ones died due to the negligence or misconduct of others. In the national opioids litigation, Mark represents counties and cities across the U.S., as well as Native American Tribes and health benefit plans. Most recently, Mark served as trial counsel in the national bellwether trial on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, which resulted in a successful verdict for plaintiffs.

Mark has tried cases to juries and judges around the country. He serves in the leadership of numerous class actions and multidistrict litigations. He is Immediate Past-President of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association, an adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University Law School teaching The Practice of Aggregate Litigation, a frequent speaker at legal seminars nationwide on a variety of civil litigation topics, and is regularly cited by top-tier media outlets.

About Kenny Byrd

A partner in our Nashville office, Kenneth S. Byrd represents clients in mass tort cases, defective product cases and consumer fraud litigation. He is a leader in groundbreaking national litigation filed on behalf of Tennessee governments and taxpayers, among many others, against opioid manufacturers and distributors in the wake of the ongoing national opioids crisis. Kenny also serves on the Early Vetting Committee in the nationwide product defect lawsuit against 3M relating to allegations that for over a decade, 3M provided defective earplugs to men and women in the U.S. military.

In 2013 and 2014, Kenny was the lead trial attorney in obtaining several substantial jury verdicts for smokers and their families, including a $27 million jury verdict and a $41 million jury verdict. These verdicts were ranked by The National Law Journal among the Top 100 Verdicts of 2014 and paved the way to a $100 million global settlement with Big Tobacco in 2015 on behalf of hundreds of gravely injured smokers in Florida, the first smoker cases group settlement by the cigarette companies in history.

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorneys for Uber sexual assault and rape survivors across the country filed a master complaint in the Uber Passenger Sexual Assault Multi-District Litigation (MDL). The MDL was ordered in October so the over 10,000 Uber passengers who reported rapes or sexual assaults would have an opportunity to seek justice. Hundreds of lawsuits already have been consolidated in the MDL. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief to force Uber to change its practices.

The master complaint was filed in U.S District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, by co-lead attorneys at Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise (Peiffer Wolf), Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein (Lieff Cabraser), and Chaffin Luhana. As part of their duties in leadership of the Uber sexual assault litigation, co-lead counsel filed the long-form complaint to define the scope of common discovery in the case, permitting the Court to address certain common legal issues and setting forth the potential claims that individual plaintiffs are expected to assert against Uber Technologies and related entities.

An appendix to the complaint also was filed, which cites several specific examples of Uber advertisements pertinent to the lawsuit that marketed the rideshare service as a safe transportation option for young women.

Rachel Abrams, partner at Peiffer Wolf and co-lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said: “Uber’s own data proves that – contrary to its marketing – it’s not a safe platform for women, and it has never taken sexual assault seriously. Over the past decade, as Uber was receiving thousands of rape and sexual assault reports each year, at the same time it was blasting out ads aimed at young women that they should trust Uber with their safety.”

Roopal Luhana, Founder and Partner at Chaffin Luhana and co-lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said: “Every day, Uber passengers are being sexually assaulted. That’s not hyperbole, it’s simple math. Uber has known about this crisis since 2014 at least, and in the 10 years since over 10,000 rapes and sexual assaults have reported. Not even counting the significant percentage of assaults that statistically go unreported, we’re talking about a truly unimaginable amount of violence.”

The latest development follows Uber’s failed stay request earlier this month, in which the company’s attorneys “struggled” to convince the judge for a 60-day pause. In November, an unusual Uber petition to throw out the MDL also failed, with one expert opining at the time, “I just am at a loss to understand that they think they have any chance of success.”

Notably, the three plaintiff co-lead attorneys in the Uber Passenger Sexual Assault MDL are the first-ever all-female co-leadership in an MDL, and the only majority female leadership teams in the country. On December 5, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California issued an order in the MDL establishing the plaintiffs’ leadership in the case.

Background

Uber has been aware since 2014 that drivers were physically assaulting, sexually assaulting, and raping passengers. The company’s response has been slow and inadequate. While Uber has publicly acknowledged this sexual-assault crisis—including the publication of Uber’s U.S. Safety Report in December 2019—Uber has failed to implement basic safety measures necessary to prevent serious sexual and/or physical assaults. Uber has not released any sexual-assault data for 2021 or 2022. Uber’s decision to withhold that data prevents passengers and the public from understanding the true rate at which such assaults are still occurring.

Safe Rides Fee

In 2014, Uber started charging Uber passengers an extra $1 for a “Safe Rides Fee” for each trip. When Uber announced the “Safe Rides Fee,” it told the public that the fee “supports our continued efforts to ensure the safest possible platform for Uber riders and drivers, including an industry-leading background check process, regular motor vehicle checks, driver safety education, development of safety features in the app, and insurance.” Uber collected its “Safe Rides Fee” and made hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Uber did not use this money for passenger safety but instead pocketed the money for its own profits at the cost of passenger safety.

Marketing to Young Women

On a “Women’s Safety” page on its website, Uber advertised that it was “driving change for women’s safety,” specifically representing that “sexual assault and gender-based violence don’t belong anywhere in our communities, which is why Uber is committed to help stop incidents before they happen” and touting its “safety features and education” and “transparency.” Through such representations, and as the company grapples with tens of thousands of ongoing rape and sexual assaults being reported, Uber continues to encourage women to trust its services to secure safe transportation.

Uber Refused to Implement Any Available Solutions

Despite being aware of the thousands of incidents of sexual and physical assault, Uber has yet to mandate the following safety measures: in-vehicle surveillance (audio and video); extensive background checks, including fingerprinting; driver training on interactions with passengers; sexual harassment education and training; a zero-tolerance policy for drivers who deviate from expected behavior and protocols mandating immediate termination; creation and institution of a system encouraging customer reporting and reporting to local authorities; and adequate monitoring of customer complaints by well-trained and effective customer-service representatives.

###

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Max Karlin at (703) 276-3255 or mkarlin@hastingsgroupmedia.com.

Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise is a national law firm with offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, New Orleans, Cleveland, Youngstown, Detroit and St. Louis. Visit www.sexualassaultvictimadvocates.com/ for more information.

PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 426-5641
Facsimile: (415) 840-9435
rabrams@peifferwolf.com

Chaffin Luhana LLP is a plaintiffs-only national trial firm focused on representing injured survivors and their families in catastrophic and complex cases. Started by former federal prosecutors Eric Chaffin and Roopal Luhana, the firm is comprised of former state and federal prosecutors, former large defense firm attorneys, former judicial law clerks, and caring and compassionate staff including an in-house social worker. For more information, please visit www.chaffinluhana.com/.

CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP
600 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (888) 480-1123
Facsimile: (888) 499-1123
luhana@chaffinluhana.com

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein is one of the country’s largest and most successful firms exclusively representing plaintiffs in civil litigation, having secured verdicts or settlements worth over $124 billion for clients nationwide. With over 100 attorneys, the firm has led some of the most significant litigation of the last decade. For more information, go to 144.202.114.179/.