WASHINGTON— On Wednesday, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and a coalition of five prominent civil rights groups filed an amicus brief in Alexandre et. al v. Amazon, defending a private grant program designed to “reduce barriers to entry for Black, Latinx, and Native American” entrepreneurs who own full-time package-delivery businesses partnering with Amazon. The Lawyers’ Committee contends that allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their challenge against Amazon’s grant program would fly in the face of the ideals that core civil rights laws are meant to promote.
The Lawyers’ Committee filed the brief with pro bono co-counsel Crowell & Moring LLP, the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (MBELDEF), LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Public Counsel, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF).
The brief highlights how programs like Amazon Diversity Grant Program Inc., serve to strengthen Black citizens’ and other communities of color’s rights to participate equally in the marketplace, furthering the intent and purpose of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was passed after the Civil War. Congress explicitly designed the Act to further the aims of the Thirteenth Amendment by creating a remedy for discrimination that hampered Black Americans’ ability to enter into contracts and fully participate in the nation’s economy.
“Anyone who knows anything about business should reject these kinds of attempts to subvert Section 1981—our nation’s oldest civil rights law—to deny Black entrepreneurs and business owners of color access to private grants meant to remedy pervasive economic discrimination,” said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “If small businesses are the engine of the American economy, then equitable programs are the fuel that makes that engine run, ensuring not only that our economy survives but also that everyone has a chance to thrive.”
Plaintiffs, who are white business owners, allege that Amazon’s Diversity Grant Program, under which Black, Latinx, or Native American business owners who have been accepted to the company’s Delivery Service Partner (DSP) program are eligible for a $10,000 stipend, is discriminatory. The Southern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“This case attempts to compromise what economic prosperity, well-being, and opportunity could look like for all Americans,” said Sabrina Talukder, senior counsel with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Not only have the plaintiffs manufactured a legal injury against a program they were unwilling to apply for, but they have also weaponized the very provision that was enacted to address the economic inequities that persist from slavery and the Black Codes, and more modern-day discrimination. Allowing this case to move forward without requiring plaintiffs to show any actual harm will only embolden those who seek to limit access to the American Dream by dismantling the very principles that have strengthened our economy.”
“This lawsuit is yet another example of weaponizing a law that was expressly intended to expand economic opportunity to stymie private businesses from participating in redressing the gross underrepresentation of Latino, Black, and Native American entrepreneurs,” said Lourdes M. Rosado, president and general counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF. “LatinoJustice remains resolute in supporting businesses, like Amazon, that expand opportunity to underrepresented groups.”
“Business owners and entrepreneurs of color have been the victims of severe and pervasive discrimination for centuries,” said Sarah von der Lippe, pro bono counsel for MBELDEF. “It would be a grave miscarriage of justice to permit those same businesses to be harmed by the very civil rights laws enacted to protect them. Our nation needs all of our businesses and entrepreneurs to build wealth in every community, strengthen our democracy, and realize our full potential to flourish and compete.”
“The Ninth Circuit should affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss this lawsuit. Civil rights laws, born out of the struggle to dismantle slavery and systemic racism, are pillars of justice – not weapons to harm the very communities that they were designed to uplift. The Court must stand firm in ensuring that civil rights laws remain tools of empowerment, not instruments of regression.” Nikki Endsley, special projects attorney, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF)
“This case is one of many attacks against remedial programs for entrepreneurs from Black, Hispanic, and Native American communities, who are using these programs to build jobs, economic stability, and create new opportunities in under-resourced communities,” said Keith Harrison, partner at Crowell & Moring. “It is both ironic and perversely wrong that these attacks try to use the Civil Rights Act to undermine efforts to promote economic equality for those who have been historically denied economic opportunity.”
The DSP program’s multitiered, competitive process is explicitly race-neutral, accepting less than 3% of applicants. Among those selected, DSP business owners who voluntarily self-identify as Black, Latinx, or Native American could be considered for the diversity grant provided they have already secured a DSP contract. Eligible recipients of the grant have successfully completed the rigorous application process, accepted an opportunity in a high-need location, and signed a DSP contract.
Alexandre et. al v. Amazon, is part of an alarming trend of cases filed in federal courts across the country where plaintiffs manufacture legal injuries to challenge race-remedial programs. Courts are largely dismissing the claims because plaintiffs are unable to show they are harmed by the grant programs. In this case, which will now be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the district court decisively rejected plaintiffs’ claims, calling them “merely hypothetical and conjectural” because the plaintiffs admitted they were unwilling to apply to become Amazon Delivery Service Partners, a necessary requirement to be eligible for the Diversity Grant Program.
###
About the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law— Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to mobilize the nation’s leading lawyers as agents for change in the Civil Rights Movement. Today, the Lawyers’ Committee uses legal advocacy to achieve racial justice, fighting inside and outside the courts to ensure that Black people and other people of color have the voice, opportunity, and power to make the promises of our democracy real. The Lawyers’ Committee implements its mission and objectives by marshaling the pro bono resources of the bar for litigation, public policy, advocacy and other forms of service by lawyers to the cause of civil rights.
