Attorneys for the plaintiffs in a major civil rights action alleging discrimination in the delivery of municipal services to Latino communities in Modesto, California announced a settlement on June 30, 2011.   The suit was originally filed in August 2004 on behalf of Modesto residents and two neighborhood organizations by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), Brian Brosnahan (currently of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman), and other private firms.

The plaintiffs resided in or represented primarily Latino communities excluded in previous annexations by the city of Modesto.   The plaintiffs sued Modesto and Stanislaus County to remedy disparities in public services between the unincorporated areas, in which they resided, and incorporated areas, alleging that their neighborhoods are forced to rely upon septic tanks that regularly overflow, and lack storm drains, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street lights and adequate police enforcement and fire protection.   After the case was dismissed in federal District Court in 2008, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed much of the lower court’s rulings and sent the case back to District Court for trial.

In its ruling, [cite as CCCI v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2009)],the Ninth Circuit established an important fair housing law precedent finding that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discriminatory actions throughout the occupancy of the residence, and not only at the time of purchase or rental.    The Ninth Circuit also found that the un-annexed neighborhoods’  exclusion was the result of intentional discrimination by the city and the County.

Shortly after this decision, the parties settled the claims regarding emergency services as law enforcement dispatch and response times had improved dramatically since the filing of the suit.  Further, the County agreed to establish objective priority criteria for undertaking infrastructure projects giving sewer projects within Latino neighborhoods high priority.   The city and County also committed to support future annexation efforts by the plaintiff neighborhoods.

“Though we would have preferred outright annexation of the neighborhoods to ensure at least an equal right to municipal services, the city and County have agreed to make substantial improvements that should produce more livable conditions in these neighborhoods and ultimately lead to annexation,” said Robert Rubin of the Lawyers’ Committee.  Ilene Jacobs of CRLA added,  “Community members bravely pressed to be treated with equal dignity and to have the benefit of the services that many of us take for granted. The residents, city and County now can work together to achieve those goals.”  For the full press release on this subject, click here.