Following a ruling Friday by a federal judge, thousands of farmers who endured racial discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the 1980s and 1990s should start receiving portions of a $1.25 billion settlement.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his written opinion that the proposed settlement, which creates a system of compensation for black farmers and their descendants who joined the class-action suit claiming discrimination by the government, is fair and workable.

“Historical discrimination cannot be undone,” Friedman wrote.

There are two compensation streams available to the farmers, depending on the individual paper trail in each case. The first stream, known as “Track A” would provide an uncontested payout of $50,000 to qualified claimants. The second stream, known as “Track B,” could provide up to $250,000, but requires more documentation of wrongdoing. Farmer must choose one track or the other, and it is estimated that nearly 70,000 farmers across the nation will be eligible for compensation. More details regarding the plan can be found in an earlier report by The Iowa Independent.

The black farmers’ case is an outgrowth of Pigford v. Glickman, a federal class-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999. The farmers alleged that the USDA had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by maintaining a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American farmers.  Such pattern and practice delayed, denied, or otherwise frustrated the efforts of African American farmers to obtain loan assistance and to engage in the vocation of farming, they said.

The Obama administration agreed in February to provide a second round of damages to people who were denied earlier payment because they had missed  filing deadlines. The person who pushed to allow more black farmers to join the case and for more money to be set aside for settlements was Iowa’s own U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley. In a February press release, Grassley noted that “many people were shut out of the process.”

But not all elected officials have been similarly supportive. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, while on a recent tour of flooded areas near the Missouri River in Iowa, characterized the government settlement with black farmers as fraud. Bachmann and King, while noting the damage done by the flooded Missouri, said the money set aside for the discrimination settlements could have been put to better use if it had been given to the flood victims.

It isn’t the first time that U.S. Rep. Steve King and Bachmann have beat on this particular drum. Bachmann sent out a press release last November alleging that the numbers of farmers involved in the settlement didn’t add up, because there were many more claims than black farmers — a claim nearly identical to what has been made by King. In addition, King has referred to the settlement as “slavery reparations.”

King said in November 2010 that the American people should be outraged by the development, since it sends the message that “if you’re a minority, you deserve a check from the government.”

The Obama administration is “focused on race,” King said in an interview with WHO-AM’s Jan Mickelson. Essentially, the entire lawsuit was pitched to black farmers as their “40 acres and a mule,” he added, referencing the Civil War era practice of providing land to former slaves who became free as Union armies occupied areas of the Confederacy.

“The Department of Agriculture has admitted that discrimination occurred,” Grassley said during a Senate floor speech on the matter. “We are obligated to do our best in getting those who deserve it, some relief. This is a chance for people who believe they were wronged to show their case before a neutral party and have it judged on the merits. It’s time to give justice to these claimants who were previously left out, and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.”

Final approval for the settlement came after a fairness hearing in early September. Although some farmers argued they should be allowed to pursue higher damages, Congress left little flexibility into the plan, which prevented Friedman from pursuing such alternatives.

In a statement distributed by the White House, President Obama said, “The U.S. District Court’s approval of the settlement between the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and plaintiffs in the Pigford II class action lawsuit is another important step forward in addressing an unfortunate chapter in USDA’s civil rights history. This agreement will provide overdue relief and justice to African American farmers, and bring us closer to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on. I especially want to recognize the efforts of Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Holder, without whom this settlement would not have been reached.”

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he is “thrilled” by the court’s decision, and looks forward to the process being completed.

Since my first day at USDA, I made it a priority to treat all Americans with respect and dignity and to ensure equal access to our programs. Court approval of the Pigford settlement is another important step to ensure some level of justice for black farmers and ranchers who faced discrimination when trying to obtain services from USDA. President Obama, Attorney General Holder and I are thrilled by the court’s approval so we can continue turning the page on this sad chapter in USDA history. In the months and years ahead, we will not stop working to move the Department into a new era as a model employer and premier service provider for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.

Government officials estimate that it will take a year, if not more, for all the affected farmers to work their way through the compensation process.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Faegre & Benson, LLP, sent a letter to the Anoka-Hennepin School District on Friday threatening to take the district to court if it does not allow a lesbian couple elected by the student body to walk together during the Champlin Park High School Snow Days coronation ceremony on Monday.

The district changed the ceremony after two lesbian students, Desiree Shelton and Sarah Lindstrom, were elected by the student body to be a part of the event. For years, students walked in as couples, and students could choose who they wanted to walk with, but when Shelton and Lindstrom were elected, the district changed the policy.

“We are writing to notify you that the school’s actions violate their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act,” the groups said in a letter to the district. “If the school does not notify Desiree and Sarah before 12:00 noon on Friday, January 28, 2011, that it is rescinding these discriminatory actions, we will file an action for a temporary restraining order with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.”

The Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“We are simply asking that these two students be granted the same rights as every other student, as they are due under both state and federal law,” said Sam Wolfe, lead attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center. “It is an absolute shame that the school and school district have tarnished what should be a joyous celebration through these discriminatory actions. Hopefully, they will see the error in their ways, and correct it immediately.”

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, added, “Dez and Sarah were chosen by their peers as ‘royalty’ for the Snow Days Pep Fest and Coronation, and Champlin Park High School’s refusal to accept them as a couple shows that the school administration’s attitudes lag far behind those of the students they serve.”

Here’s the letter:

SPLC_Anoka_letter012811

Update: Lawsuit filed on behalf of lesbian couple

Rep. Tim Walz, the highest ranking enlisted soldier to ever serve in Congress, spoke on the House floor on Wednesday urging his colleagues to pass a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Walz said that comments from Republicans that soldiers on the ground could not handle serving with fellow gay and lesbian soldiers were offensive. The House voted on Wednesday evening to repeal the law which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in all branches of the military 250 to 175.

“I am offended by the idea and the notion that they are not able to handle change in policy,” Walz told his House colleagues. “These men and women make up the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. They accept and complete missions every day that require incredible discipline and bravery.”

He called for the repeal saying that DADT was harming, not helping, the military.

“This discriminatory policy is hurting our military readiness and weakening our nation, such as releasing dozens of Arabic linguists simply because they were homosexual,” he said. “Serving in the military we believe in duty, honor and country. asking these brave people to lie goes against all of our value. Our military heroes know it’s time to end this policy, the American people know it’s time to end this policy.”

Minnesota’s congressional delegation voted for the bills except for Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Erik Paulsen.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act changes existing law cited in a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that cases of discrimination in the workplace have a 180-day statute of limitations in which someone can make a claim. Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for 18 years in Alabama, and she discovered just before her retirement that she had been paid less than all of the other men in her workplace. Because she didn’t have access to her co-workers’ salaries, she had no way of knowing that they were being paid more for doing the same job.

For that reason, she couldn’t have filed a discrimination complaint within 180 days, even though the evidence showed she did indeed suffer discrimination in pay.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg made that point in her dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear: “The problem of concealed pay discrimination is particularly acute where the disparity arises not because the female employee is flatly denied a raise but because male counterparts are given larger raises. Having received a pay increase, the female employee is unlikely to discern at once that she has experienced an adverse employment decision. She may have little reason even to suspect discrimination until a pattern develops incrementally and she ultimately becomes aware of the disparity.”

The Lilly Ledbetter Act changes that statute of limitations. Instead of having 180 days from the time a discriminatory action is made by an employer, employees would instead have 180 days from each paycheck. Each paycheck would constitute a new action of discrimination.

The Paycheck Fairness Act makes it illegal to reprimand employees for discussing salary and compensation; it also puts gender discrimination on par with other forms of discrimination.

The Ledbetter bill passed at 247-171 and the Paycheck Fairness Act at 256-163 with almost all Republicans voting against them. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said it didn’t have anything to do with gender discrimination, but instead handouts to lawyers. “It’s the first step to begin rewarding the special-interest allies who helped give the Democratic Party control of Washington,” he said.

Amy and Sarah Monson have been together for seven years and are raising a daughter together. They co-own a business, have joint finances, and had a commitment ceremony in 2002. They have drafted estate plans for themselves and their daughter, and Sarah changed her last name to Monson.

The Rochester Athletic Club had a policy that only married couples could apply for a family membership package. The courts have said that since unmarried heterosexual couples also cannot get the discounted membership the policy does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation. But the Monsons contend that since they don’t have the option to marry, they should not be compared with unmarried heterosexual couples who have the option to marry.

After four attempts to resolve the matter with the club, the Monsons filed suit in 2007, alleging a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the 1993 law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals denied their argument on Tuesday and upheld a previous Olmstead County judge’s decision.

The case highlights another instance of legal discrimination in Minnesota: Because the Monsons cannot marry, they can legally be discriminated against.

Even the judge in the original decision saw the flaws in the system. Judge Kevin Lund called the health club’s policy “anachronistic” and an “unrealistically narrow definition of family” that “fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons’ relationship,” a relationship that he said functions “as a loving family unit and would otherwise be married or have entered into a permissible legal domestic partnership if allowed by our Legislature.”

The Monson may appeal the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The Monsons, a lesbian couple raising a daughter in Rochester, Minn., were denied family membership since they are not legally married in Minnesota. While they hold a Canadian marriage certificate, Minnesota law doesn’t give them that ability. They sued the health club under Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in housing, accommodations and employment.

In November, Olmsted County Judge Kevin Lund found for the health club but also issued a scathing rebuke of its policies. A heated comments section at the Rochester Post-Bulletin demonstrates widely disparate views on the merits of the appeal.

One unmarried man, along with several other commenters, took issue with the lawsuit and the responses are indicative of the balance of rights the case presents.

“OMG people give it up, if my girlfriend and I with 3 kids (2 hers and 1 mine) cannot get a family membership because we are not married why should two unmarried lesbians??? The judge was right to dismiss the case and the attorney is wrong for taking their money and wasting the courts time!”

Another commenter responded, “Cuz u can go today and get a marriage license and get the family membership rates, and their family can never get the family membership rates. The RAC needs to get into the 21st century and treat all families equally and with respect. If Rochester’s northgate health club, Family Y, and Mayo’s healthy living center can do it, so can the RAC.”

Indeed, that is the crux of the argument. Even Judge Lund, who rejected the Monsons’ argument, noted the harsh nature of the policy and the laws. Calling it “anachronistic,” he called the health club’s policy an “unrealistically narrow definition of family” that “fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons’ relationship,” a relationship that he said functions “as a loving family unit and would otherwise be married or have entered into a permissible legal domestic partnership if allowed by our Legislature.”

On Sept. 26 a white man in his 20s allegedly hurled racial slurs against Barnes in his church. According to Barnes’s wife, Dena, the pastor tried to calm the assailant, who used to attend the church, but that didn’t stop the man from physically assaulting Barnes.

“A fight ensued, 911 was called, both men went to jail,” said Dena. But what happened next ticked off many people, including some white residents of the town.

The attacker, identified only as “Allen” in a police report obtained by Minnesota Monitor, was released almost immediately on his own recognizance. Barnes, on the other hand, said he had to wait hours to see a judge before he was released.

“The biggest problem [in this town] is the police,” said Danny Barnes, “They don’t want me in this community. They don’t want my programs.”

Read moreA native of St. Paul, Barnes, 51, ministered in St. Cloud for years before he moved to Wheaton in 2004 to run his Pentecostal church, Thy Kingdom Come World Ministries. There he runs drug, alcohol and anger-management programs. He said he also works with people suspected of sex offenses.

By all accounts, his approach to treating people is controversial but fruitful. Stanley Gallagher is a native of  Wheaton and has been the town’s physician for 30 years. He said the procedures used by Barnes are disapproved by almost everyone in the community.

But, he said he has “personally witnessed [Barnes] doing Christian deeds that far exceed any other minister or lay person in the city… I’ve seen alcoholics recovering from drinking binges in his living room, vomiting and sick, and he has had them there for two to three days… I don’t know anybody else in town who would do that.”

Repeated harassment

Since he moved into the area with his wife, who is half Native-American and half German, Barnes said his church has been vandalized several times. One time, someone scrawled “KKK rules” on the church’s billboard. His car was vandalized and, he said, racial epithets are almost routine.

In all cases, Barnes said, the police identified suspects but no one was ever charged.

Repeated calls to the Wheaton police chief, to the Traverse County sheriff and to the county attorney were not returned.

“This town needs the Gospel — the true unadulterated Gospel,” said Dena Barnes, who said they moved to Wheaton because God called them.

People acquainted with Barnes say the frequent harassment and the isolation he feels have taken a toll on him and prompted him to easily lose his temper. A few months ago, Barnes was charged with head-butting a police officer. That case is still pending, and the country attorney offered him a shocking plea deal: 10 years behind bars.

Barnes denies the charges.

“That officer was not injured — not even one bandage,” said Gallagher, the physician. Still, “sometimes [Barnes] has an explosive temper. He would consider roughening someone up if they don’t do the right thing.”

But Gallagher said the charges against Barnes were always disproportionate. Wheaton, which has a population of nearly 1,800, has fewer than half a dozen blacks, and some older whites “fear the unknown,” he said.

Other churches

Wheaton has six other churches. Barnes says most of them don’t preach “the true word of God that repudiates racism.”

Interestingly, as other churches were losing congregants, Barnes’s church has been gaining. And though his programs might be controversial, people are trickling in for treatment.

And that discomforts other churches, said Gallagher. Drug abuse, alcohol and alleged sexual offenses — including incest — were considered taboo subjects until Barnes’s arrival.

“Most other churches were not addressing these issues,” said Barnes.

Whether there truly is an effort to drive him out of Wheaton or not, Barnes said that he intends to “either die there or in jail.”