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

Poughkeepsie, NY, Aug. 30, 2023—As classes began this week, most of the women full professors at Vassar College spoke out about long-standing pay discrimination, culminating in their filing today of a class action lawsuit.  The case, filed by 5 named plaintiffs along with 35 additional women full professor supporters, claims pervasive and long-standing gender-based disparities in pay between Vassar’s male and female full professors. A copy of the lawsuit, along with the statement of the 35 supporters affirming the pattern of pay discrimination at Vassar and expressing their support for the class action, can be found here.

The professors allege that 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.

According to the professors, average salary data reflect a gender pay gap at Vassar in every year for the last two decades.  Most troublingly, the professors allege this gap has grown over time, with the most recent data reflecting a 10 percent gender pay disparity at Vassar.  The gender pay gap is only one of multiple long-term inequitable practices at the College, including substantial differences in the starting salaries of men and women, a merit ratings system that is biased against women, and a discriminatory promotion system that systematically prevents or delays the advancement of women professors relative to their male counterparts who are considered for and promoted earlier than comparable women.

The lawsuit describes how women professors at Vassar have attempted for at least 15 years to work discreetly and collaboratively with the College to remedy the gender pay gap, but that the College has both ignored the problem and taken steps to decrease the level of pay transparency in recent years, in an apparent attempt to mask the disparity.

“It’s unfortunate we have to be here today, but standing up for the rights of women is part of why these professors came to teach at Vassar in the first place,” said Jessica Ramey Stender, Policy Director and Deputy Legal Director at Equal Rights Advocates and co-counsel representing the plaintiffs. “These women have dedicated much of their lives to teaching, to this college, and to uplifting students at a school founded on values of gender equality. They deserve to be paid fairly and equally.”

Co-counsel Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser stated, “Plaintiffs—and all Vassar female full professors—are leaders in their fields and highly regarded by both their contemporaries and their students.  For too long, Vassar has refused to equitably value their contributions to the College.  We hope this case will prompt Vassar to finally live up to the storied role in the movement for gender equality that it so publicly claims.”

Named Plaintiffs 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) explained their motivation in bringing this lawsuit on behalf of other Vassar professors:  “Through this action, we seek to achieve what we were prevented from accomplishing through private internal channels:  gender equity for ourselves and other female full faculty, and the adoption of fair processes to ensure that future generations of faculty are paid, promoted, and evaluated fairly.”

The Plaintiffs:

Plaintiff Wendy Graham is a Professor of English.  Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here.

Plaintiff Maria Höhn is a Professor Emerita of History.  Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here.

Plaintiff Mia Mask is a Professor of Film.  Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here.

Plaintiff Cindy Schwarz is a Professor of Physics.  Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here.

Plaintiff Debra Zeifman is a Professor of Psychological Science.  Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here.

To speak with counsel, contact Blake Case at (601) 832-6079 or blake@emccommunications.com.

###

About Equal Rights Advocates

Equal Rights Advocates fights for gender justice in workplaces and schools across the country. Since 1974, they have been fighting on the front lines of social justice to protect and advance rights and opportunities for women, girls, and people of all gender identities through groundbreaking legal cases and bold legislation that sets the stage for the rest of the nation.  Additional information about Equal Rights Advocates is available at equalrights.org.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Lieff Cabraser is one of the country’s most successful firms exclusively representing plaintiffs in civil litigation, including in some of the most significant employment cases of the last decade. Partners Kelly Dermody and Michelle Lamy, co-counsel here, represent female workers in both the Goldman Sachs gender discrimination class action that resulted in a $215 million settlement for women at the company (Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, No. 10-cv-6950-AT-RWL), and in the Google gender pay equity litigation that resulted in a $118 million settlement for women at Google (Ellis v. Google LLC, No. CGC-17-561299). Kelly also represented plaintiffs in the high-tech wage conspiracy case alleging an agreement among prominent technology companies not to poach each other’s employees, which resulted in settlements totaling $435 million (In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-cv-2509-LJK).  Additional information about Lieff Cabraser is available at 144.202.114.179.

The class-action litigation accuses San Diego State University (SDSU) of unequal athletic financial aid, inferior treatment, and retaliation against female student-athletes. Judge Robinson not only allowed the suit to proceed, but also granted the students the right to seek monetary damages.

Title IX, enacted in 1972, was enacted to eliminate sex discrimination in education, but roughly 90% of U.S. colleges and universities still fail to comply. With the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) severely underfunded and no institution ever losing federal funding due to non-compliance, schools have faced minimal consequences for violating Title IX.

Previously, female athletes suing for sex discrimination primarily sought injunctive relief, via court orders directing a school to cease or reduce discriminatory practices. The SDSU case has now set a powerful new precedent, allowing female athletes to include demands for monetary damages in Title IX-grounded lawsuits.

This pivotal change provides athletes suffering discrimination the opportunity to seek to create powerful financial incentives for schools to end discriminatory practices or face costly lawsuits. In the SDSU case alone, female athletes could potentially win nearly $1 million per year in damages. Across 49 NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision schools, female athletes were illegally deprived an estimated $23.7 million in 2020-21 alone.

In the wake of this landmark shift, schools across the nation will have to reevaluate their practices and prioritize gender equity in athletics. The potential for significant damages not only empowers female student-athletes to fight for their rights, but also holds universities accountable for ensuring equal opportunities and treatment for all.

Filed by Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel in 2017 under California’s then-newly-amended Equal Pay law, the Google Gender Discrimination class action broke new ground in tech employment law as it addressed two pernicious and long-standing practices – the under-leveling of women relative to comparable men at hire, and using candidates’ past salary information to determine their pay rate, the latter a process that perpetuated inequity as women on average have historically been paid significantly less than men.

As part of the settlement, Google agreed to compensate class members with a $118 million payout, with the amount of relief paid to each class member to be determined by a calculated formula. Equally important, the settlement mandates that Google accept third-party monitoring in order to ensure equitable treatment of its employees going forward. The settlement also includes measures to facilitate policy and practice changes at Google.

Read the full article on the Law360 (subscription) website.

The Google Gender Discrimination Lawsuit and Settlement

You can learn more about the Google Gender Discrimination lawsuit and the legal rights of women who feel they have been harmed by gender discrimination by visiting www.googlegendercase.com.

“Sutter Health is under fire,” noted the report, describing “serious allegations” against Sutter, one of the largest health care providers in California. The first lawsuit, filed by Lieff Cabraser on behalf of Palo Alto-based ophthalmologist Dr. Omondi Nyong’o in June of 2021, raises allegations that include racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. “[T]here’s really no other place to turn. I filed the lawsuit because I know that other Black doctors have felt that they are unable to speak and there are not internal channels. They have been closed,” Dr. Nyong’o told KCRA 3. A second suit, filed in August 2021, claims the hospital system used “… false allegations and intimidation tactics to target their own doctors–especially Black and other minority doctors–to ‘keep them in line.'”

[T]here’s really no other place to turn. I filed the lawsuit because I know that other Black doctors have felt that they are unable to speak and there are not internal channels. They have been closed.
–Dr. Omondi Nyong’o

Dr. Nyong’o has worked for Sutter for 14 years. According to the complaint in his lawsuit, although “he was the first and only Black physician to ever chair any department within the Palo Alto Medical Foundation region of Sutter Health,” he was demoted. “I was suddenly replaced by two white doctors,” he stated. “I was told by Sutter leadership that they were not ready for Black leadership.”

“Specifically, what I was told is that it might be 10 years before people like me could enter into leadership,” he added.

KCRA’s report includes statements from other California doctors about how they have been treated by Sutter Health’s while working for its care systems, statements that echo the same frustrations and mistreatment cited in the lawsuits.

“I just want it to be known that this is not a rare thing that happens. It happens quite often.”
–Anonymous ex-Sutter Health physician quoted in KRCA’s report

You can read the full story and watch the video report on KCRA’s website.

Detailed information on Dr. Nyong’o’s lawsuit can be found here.

On March 17, 2022, District Court Judge Analisa Torres issued an Order in the ongoing Goldman Sachs gender discrimination case (originally filed in 2010) with significant positive ramifications for the plaintiffs and the Class. Most significantly:

First, Judge Torres denied the defendants’ motion to decertify the case. The case proceeds on behalf of nearly 2,000 female Associates and Vice-Presidents in revenue-producing divisions who have worked at Goldman Sachs in New York City since 2002, and in the rest of the country since 2004.

Second, the Court rejected almost all of Goldman Sachs’ attempts to narrow the case, confirming that there will be a trial on gender discrimination in Goldman’s promotion practices (from Vice-President to Managing Director), forced ranking (“manager quartiling”), and 360 review process, as well as on the claim that gender discrimination was Goldman’s standard operating procedure.

Third, the Court rejected Goldman’s attempts to separate and carve out pieces of the company’s personnel practices that are inseparable parts of a whole, which if permitted would have created artificial and improper analyses of subparts of data. This ruling also means that plaintiffs’ own statistical proof will receive full consideration at trial.

Fourth, the Court excluded from trial the entire opinions of Goldman’s industry expert and its job analysis expert.  It also excluded certain opinions of Goldman’s statistical expert, including “methodologically flawed” statistical analyses which disaggregated data down to the business unit level, and analyses where Goldman’s expert just removed top-earning VPs and Associates (almost all men) from the studies without a methodologically sound basis for doing so.

Fifth, the Court rejected almost all of Goldman’s attempts to trim plaintiffs’ expert opinions, including rejecting Goldman’s attacks on how plaintiffs’ statistical expert modeled the data.  The Court agreed with plaintiffs that plaintiffs’ expert on climates for harassment and bias may testify at trial that Goldman’s climate is tolerant of gender bias and harassment.

The Order may be read in full here.

A trial date has not been set, but could happen as early as this year.

Lieff Cabraser partner Kelly Dermody, who serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the case, noted, “We are gratified by this Order and look forward to the opportunity to seek a liability verdict for the Class at trial.”

For more information on the case and its procedural history, visit goldmangendercase.com.

“Causation standards sound highly technical, but are important in practice — especially in the real world context of employment relationships,” said Lieff Cabraser partner Rachel Geman, who specializes in employment law.

“The development (driven by a series of judicial decisions) of different causation standards under different anti-discrimination law runs the risk of confusion in the courts,” noted Geman. “The legislature has rightly stepped in.”

Read the full piece on the Law360 website.

About Rachel Geman

A partner in Lieff Cabraser’s New York office, Rachel Geman’s practice is dedicated to employment law, consumer protection, and recovering money for the government lost to fraud through False Claims Act litigation. On behalf of her clients, Ms. Geman has filed qui tam suits in multiple courts involving numerous industries that are under investigation, and is presently involved in active litigation involving off-label and kickback claims in the pharmaceutical industry. Her current class action cases involve employment discrimination, consumer civil rights, and consumer protection.