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

The panel will feature experts in labor and employment law with insights from management, employee, in-house, union, and governmental perspectives with panels discussing topics ranging from #MeToo 2.0, employment law issues in an aging workforce, to the ethics of AI.

For more information and to register for the event, visit their website.

About Anne Shaver

Anne Shaver is a partner in Lieff Cabraser’s San Francisco office with a practice focusing on employment law cases. She has taken a leading role in gender class action lawsuits that challenge business practices and work cultures at some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world, including Google, Goldman Sachs, and KPMG. Her passion for upholding worker rights has most recently been focused on gender discrimination “impact litigation,” where she represents clients seeking to alter core business practices in ways that transform not just individual companies, but entire industries.

On Thursday, January 16, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released their Joint Antitrust Guidelines for “Business Activities Affecting Workers,” replacing prior HR-focused antitrust guidelines. This comprehensive document lays out updated principles for enforcing antitrust laws in labor markets, focusing on practices that harm workers through suppressed wages, restricted mobility, and diminished bargaining power.

The document provides a detailed framework for identifying and addressing anticompetitive practices that affect workers. Key sections of the guidelines include:

1. Defining Anticompetitive Labor Practices:

• No-Poach Agreements: Agreements where employers agree not to hire or solicit each other’s employees, which restrict worker mobility. The guidelines make clear that such agreements are often illegal under the per se rule if they occur between competitors.
• Wage-Fixing Agreements: Agreements between employers to set wages or salary caps at a certain level. These are treated as serious violations akin to price-fixing in product markets.
• Non-Compete Clauses: The document also scrutinizes non-compete clauses, particularly those that excessively limit a worker’s ability to change jobs or start their own business, noting that these may be subject to rule-of-reason analysis.

2. Scope of Application:

The guidelines expand the reach of antitrust enforcement to include franchise relationships, staffing agencies, and other intermediaries that play a role in shaping labor markets. This is a key advancement in recognizing the modern complexities of employer-employee relationships.

3. Clarity on Enforcement Standards:

The guidelines delineate when antitrust violations should be analyzed under the per se rule (automatically unlawful) versus the rule of reason (a more contextual evaluation). For example, naked no-poach and wage-fixing agreements are presumed per se illegal, while other agreements may require deeper scrutiny.

4. Emphasis on Deterrence:

The document underscores the need for strong enforcement mechanisms, both civil and criminal, to deter anticompetitive practices. It highlights the DOJ’s increasing focus on criminal prosecutions in labor antitrust cases, supported by civil actions to secure damages for affected workers.

These updates reflect a growing acknowledgment of the unique challenges workers face in today’s labor markets and aim to close gaps in prior enforcement efforts.

Lieff Cabraser’s Role in Shaping These Guidelines

The guidelines prominently feature precedents set by Lieff Cabraser. Over the years, the firm has successfully litigated cases that have defined how antitrust laws protect workers, including:

High-Tech Employees Case (ND Cal): This groundbreaking case set the standard for workers to recover damages from collusive agreements between employers. It shaped how damages are assessed in cases of wage suppression and worker mobility restraints.

Franchise Cases (BK, 11th Cir.; McD, 7th Cir.): These cases established that no-poach agreements within franchise systems can be per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, paving the way for greater accountability in franchise labor markets.

These cases form the backbone of the legal standards codified in the new guidelines, underscoring Lieff Cabraser’s pivotal role in advancing worker protections.

Continuing the Fight for Worker Protections

Lieff Cabraser remains a leader in labor antitrust litigation, with ongoing cases that align closely with the new guidelines:

Med Center No-Poach Case: The civil counterpart to the DOJ’s first criminal no-poach prosecution, this case seeks to re-establish deterrence through civil liability.

McDonald’s No-Poach Case: Applying the Seventh Circuit’s new legal standard, this case advances worker protections within franchise systems.

Academic Journals Case: This litigation challenges anticompetitive practices in the academic publishing industry that suppress pay for scholars and scientists.

The DOJ/FTC Joint Antitrust Guidelines highlight the increasing importance of protecting labor markets through antitrust enforcement. By integrating precedents established by Lieff Cabraser, these guidelines set a clear roadmap for addressing anticompetitive practices and ensuring fair treatment for workers.

To explore the full guidelines, visit the DOJ’s website here.

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

Los Angeles, CA–(BUSINESSWIRE)–On June 12, 2024, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Burgess Law Offices filed an eight-count complaint against SpaceX and Elon Musk on behalf of eight SpaceX employees who submitted an open letter to SpaceX management challenging the illegal hostile work environment endemic to the company. After transmitting their letter to SpaceX management, these employees were summarily terminated for daring to seek changes to simply align the workplace culture with state and federal law. The complaint alleges that Musk personally ordered the Plaintiffs’ terminations.
“SpaceX management knowingly permitted and fostered a work environment rife with sexual harassment,” notes Lieff Cabraser partner Anne B. Shaver, who represents the plaintiffs in the action. “To have been terminated for protesting SpaceX’s utter failure to take basic measures to prevent sexual harassment is patently retaliatory, wrong, and actionable.”

As detailed in the Complaint, Elon Musk trumpets SpaceX as the leader to a brave new world of space travel, but runs his company in the dark ages—treating women as sexual objects to be evaluated on their bra size, bombarding the workplace with lewd sexual banter, and offering the reprise to those who challenge the “Animal House” environment that if they don’t like it they can seek employment elsewhere.

Laurie Burgess, who also represents the workers, said, “Musk thinks he’s above the law. Our eight brave clients stood up to him and were fired for doing so. We look forward to holding Musk accountable for his actions at trial.”

Plaintiff Paige Holland-Thielen said, “Filing this suit marks an important milestone in our quest for justice, for holding leadership accountable, and for implementing responsible changes in workplace policies for our colleagues at SpaceX who continue to toil in a hostile work environment. We hope that this lawsuit encourages our colleagues to stay strong and to keep fighting for a better workplace.”

The lawsuit states claims including hostile work environment, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment, gender discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination, and seeks declarative, compensatory, and injunctive relief.

Source/Contact

Anne B. Shaver
Lieff Cabraser
ashaver @ lchb.com

Laurie M. Burgess
Burgess Law Offices
lburgess @ burgess-laborlaw.com

Lieff Cabraser attorneys Kelly M. Dermody and Jessica Moldovan will present at the 2024 American Bar Association (ABA) National Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity Law, taking place from March 19-22, 2024 in Boston, Massachusetts.

Ms. Dermody will present on the panel titled “Pay Equity: Are We There Yet?” which will examine progress, current status, and future challenges in achieving pay equity, reflecting on the impact of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Ms. Moldovan will moderate the panel, “Affirmative Action and DEI: Where Do We Stand After SFFA v. Harvard” Panelists will examine current federal and state employment laws and guidance from the EEOC and OFCCP, consider potential changes to those laws and guidance, and explore other avenues to continue to promote efforts to create diversity and equal opportunity in the workplace.

Lieff Cabraser partner Tiseme G. Zegeye was the Program Chair for the event, and in addition to presenting, Ms. Moldovan was involved on the content committee and in helping plan the conference.

Click here for the full 2024 National Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity Law agenda.

Lieff Cabraser attorney Annie Wanless took the lead of briefing difficult, fact-intensive issues, and her work led to a tentative opinion that found for plaintiffs on almost all issues.  Lieff Cabraser attorney Christopher Coleman argued on behalf of plaintiffs, and as a result of his compelling, strategic oral advocacy, Judge Wu not only affirmed his tentative in plaintiffs’ favor, he added a few choice words regarding counsel for Stryker:  “In attempting to zealously argue its position, Defendant often misstated or overstated the relevant case law or evidence in the record,” he said.

The litigation will proceed forward.

Learn more about the Stryker Corporation Overtime Pay Class Action Lawsuit.

In addition to the May 2023 settlement with Goldman Sachs, the firm also finalized a notable $118 million victory against Google in October 2022. This suit, addressing equal pay disputes, led to significant ripple effects, influencing business practices and salary structures across California.

Anne B. Shaver, a partner in the firm’s employment practice group and co-lead counsel in both the Goldman Sachs and Google cases, highlighted the influence of these cases on similar litigation, including a California Equal Pay Act suit against Disney. The firm’s strategies in these cases are shaping the enforcement of equal pay laws and setting precedents for future actions.

As noted by Kelly M. Dermody, a partner at Lieff Cabraser and former Chair of the firm’s Employment Law practice group, both wins exemplify how class action litigation — the group’s specialty — can challenge the “pernicious practice of undervaluing women.”

“They reinforce, in my view, that collective action can make incredible, seismic change,” Dermody noted. She also worked as co-lead counsel on both cases.

Law360 also notes that Lieff Cabraser is focusing on expanding its benefits litigation, particularly in cases under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. A notable case in this area is the federal class action filed against Save Mart Supermarkets in August 2022, alleging an illegal rollback of medical benefits for retirees. Shaver said the firm has been contacted by hundreds of Save Mart employees who shared their sense of betrayal following the recent decision by the company, particularly after they had spent decades of their lives working there and being promised those benefits.

“I just feel personally very strongly about the case, but I also think it’s an excellent case for Lieff Cabraser because it’s such a clear example of what should be a class action,” Shaver said.

Read the full profile on Law360’s website (subscription).

About Lieff Cabraser’s Employment Practice Group

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a 125+ attorney AV-rated law firm founded in 1972 with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich. Lieff Cabraser’s nationally-recognized employment practice group is litigating many of the most significant employment class action lawsuits in the U.S. today, cases challenging gender and race discrimination; policies requiring hourly workers to report to work early, stay late, or work through breaks for no pay; policies improperly classifying employees as salaried and thus exempt from overtime pay; and pension plan abuse claims on behalf of employees and retirees. Our firm has repeatedly prevailed in and obtained record-setting recoveries for our clients in precedent-setting cases against the largest corporations in the U.S. and throughout the world, including Walmart, Google, Goldman Sachs, IBM, Federal Express, Smith Barney, and Home Depot.