COLOR OF LAW CENTER
Reclaiming Our Courts
Color of Law Center Opposes the Nomination of
The Color of Law Center has maintained, in confidence, first hand accounts of African American litigants who lodged judicial misconduct complaints due to discriminatory treatment. Each litigant had their complaints disposed of, with no cognizable investigation and no action taken to rectify the referenced conduct. Garland dismissed each complaint citing that there was no pattern of discrimination, despite the complaints alleging similar conduct by the same judge (Judge Richard Leon) aimed at the same group of people (African Americans).
Hardaway v. Hartford Public Works Dept 2nd Cir.,
With the help of the Color of Law Center: An unanimous three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit against the city of Hartford, Connecticut’s Department of Public Works by a former maintenance worker, Curtis Hardaway, who claims he was fired for complaining that he and other black employees were subjected to hazardous conditions.
HARDAWAY V. DC HOUSING AUTHORITY, NO. 14-7144 (D.C. CIR. 2016)
With the help of the Color of Law Center and GEORGETOWN LAW, CIVIL RIGHTS APPELLATE CLINIC.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeal. Confirmed targeted discrimination and interference of federally protected rights by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
By forcing a non-lawyer to act as a lawyer for an Autistic American
By filing the pro se medical record on the public docket. Only given to the court to facilitate a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
continues to suffer the same injury that she sustained at the outset of the litigation by DC Housing Authority.
Circuit Judge TATEL-
"Instead, attempting to foist its burden onto the Hardaways, it argues that they have offered no evidence to prove that the Authority will rescind the voucher. Appellee’s Br. 19. This tactic ignores the Supreme Court’s command that “the party asserting mootness” must carry the “heavy burden” of proving mootness through cessation. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 189. At bottom, the Authority’s argument amounts to a meager “promise not to” revoke the voucher. See Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, 701 F.3d 718, 725 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Unfortunately for the Authority, courts never permit parties to deprive them of jurisdiction through a mere “wave of [the] hand.” Id. at 724."
At Color of Law Center, we are dedicated to art. We serve individuals with developmental and psychiatric disabilities who have an interest in art. We have pop up workshops in Connecticut, Washington DC, New York, Maryland and Virginia individuals with developmental and psychiatric disabilities who have an interest in art.