Garcia v. Vilsack
Garcia v. Vilsack refers to a 2000 lawsuit brought by a hundred Hispanic farmers against the
The lawsuit is often recognized in conjunction with other group lawsuits filed against the
Background
Prior to the Garcia v. Vilsack, a 1994 study of the
The case name comes from Jose Guadalupe Garcia, the primary plaintiff who was a third generation farmer from Las Cruces, New Mexico.[3] In an appearance before the US House of Representatives, Garcia stated that loan officers and neighbors had worked in conjunction to bankrupt Garcia and his brother.[3] Garcia's neighbors did eventually purchase his land.[3]
The Garcia case came a year after Pigford v. Glickman (1999) which awarded African American farmers nearly $2 billion.[3] Meanwhile, Native American farmers filed a class action lawsuit against the USDA, also known as Keepseagle v. Vilsack. Keepseagle was ultimately settled in 2010 for $680 million.[3]
Rulings
A 2002 ruling by the district court did not classify the Hispanic/Latino farmers as a class therefore, Hispanic farmers who still wanted to file against the
In 2011, the USDA and the Department of Justice began allowing Hispanic and Latino farmers to participate in a voluntary claims process that would:
- set aside $1.33 billion to compensate eligible farmers and their discrimination claims[1]
- provide $160 million in debt relief[1]
- provide awards ranging from $50,000 or $250,000. This amount varied depending on the claim filed.
- provide tax relief and loan forgiveness to some farmers whose claims were accepted
- provide tax relief and loan forgiveness to some farmers whose claims were accepted[1]
The deadline to file a settlement claim ended on March 25, 2013.[2] As of 2015, the USDA had only approved 14.4% of the 50,000 claims filed.[4] A common response by the USDA in denying claims was the following: "You failed to provide sufficient documentation, or the documentation that you provided was not sufficient to meet the requirements under the Framework".[5]
Some Hispanic farmers believe that the settlement offer In the 2011 ruling was not enough compared to the settlement offered in the Pigford case.[2] Because of this, some farmers used the fifth amendment to file a lawsuit claiming that the Garcia settlement offer was itself discriminatory.[2] However, this lawsuit was dismissed by a federal district court.[2]