The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Alexandre et al v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al
Overview
Plaintiffs brought a class action challenge to Defendant’s “diversity grant” program in which eligible Black, Latino, and Native American “delivery service partners” (DSPs) receive $10,000 to assist with startup costs.
Details
Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's decision to dismiss their complaint. The district court found that Plaintiffs failed to show that they were experiencing concrete, specific, and actual or imminent harm by the program, and therefore lacked standing to bring their claims.
Defendants ask the Court of Appeals to uphold the district court's decision, arguing that Plaintiffs are "offended observers" who were not personally affected by the alleged discrimination, as they would not have qualified for the grant even without the disputed criteria.
Litigation History
Significance
This case is very similar to Bolduc v. Amazon and demonstrates the importance of standing as a shield against anti-DEI claims.