Pigford v. Glickman
Pigford v. Glickman (1999) was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging that it had racially discriminated against African-American farmers in its allocation of farm loans and assistance from 1981 to 1996.
The Atlantic Slave Trade brought over crops such as yams and okra that became popular in American diets, and the farming practices to produce them.
[4] Enslaved people taught colonists and natives how to farm various African crops, which was fundamental for the establishment of New World societies.
Some slaves were able to earn cash and gain marginal economic autonomy while maintaining connections to their African culinary heritage.
White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.
[8] Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.
In the USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level made the decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny local farm loan applications.
Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the elected committee members were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.
[11][page needed] The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied.
He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed.
In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.
The consent decree set up a system for notice, claims submission, consideration, and review that involved a facilitator, arbitrator, adjudicator, and monitor, all with assigned responsibilities.
Financial compensation under the consent decree did not solve structural issues of discrimination or encourage ongoing dialogue about how present-day injustices could be remediated.
As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.
The most widely used option was called "Track A",[2] which could provide a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability.
Finally, plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw from the class and pursue their individual cases in federal court or through the USDA administrative process.
Late claims were accepted for an additional year afterwards, if claimants could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing on time.
A provision in the 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits.
The news media criticized the lawyers representing the black farmers, saying that they did not provide full, fair, and adequate representation.
[11] Although considered an accomplishment by many, Pigford's settlements did not solve systemic marginalization of Black farmers and did not change existing discriminatory policies within the USDA.
Pigford settlements are unable to compensate for the avoided intergenerational transfer of wealth and financial benefit of increasing property values.
Financial payments did not solve the adverse impact on Black farmers' cultural retention, self-determination, self-fulfillment and mental health.
Legislative language was added to the 2008 Farm Bill to enable more farmers to bring suit and to authorize the government to negotiate additional monies for settlement.
[20] Since the USDA's civil rights program expanded, the face of agriculture has changed: Overall, the number of women farm operators increased 19%.
[21][22] On April 25, 2013, the New York Times reported that "the $50,000 payouts to black farmers had proved a magnet for fraud" and that "its very design encouraged people to lie".
[23] The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund responded with a press release entitled, "‘Sharon LaFraniere got it Wrong!’ Response to the coverage of the Pigford Settlement in the April 26, New York Times.
"[24] Susan A. Schneider, a professor of agricultural law, also strongly criticized the New York Times and detailed errors in the faulty reporting in this article.
