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
Roberts et al v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company et al
Overview
Plaintiffs brought a class action challenge to Defendant’s program that offers grants of $25k to Black-owned small businesses to put toward purchase of a commercial vehicle.
Details
The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing, and Plaintiffs have appealed that decision. Plaintiffs contend that they have the right to sue for the past harm of being unable to apply to the program due to its race-based criteria.
Defendants argue that the district court correctly dismissed the case, emphasizing that Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit more than two months after the application window had closed and failed to provide evidence that a similar race-conscious grant would be offered in the future, undermining any claim of future harm. Regarding the alleged past harm of being unable to apply during the last application window on equal footing, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs lack standing because they did not demonstrate they would have been eligible to compete for the grant absent the racial criteria.
Court
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Status
Filed May 29, 2024 | Ongoing
Relevant Law
Section 1981Topic
Targeted programsLitigation History
Significance
This case illustrates that arguments based on standing can be a powerful tool in defending some anti-DEI lawsuits.