Critical Race Theory at the Center of Racial Discrimination Class Action Filed Against California State Agency

On October 13, 2020 The Pivtorak Law Firm filed a class action and taxpayer lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against the heads of one of California’s largest state agencies, alleging that they created racially discriminatory policies and practices that are steeped in Critical Race Theory. The suit alleges that Wade Crowfoot, the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency and Charlton Bonham, Director for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, implemented policies that create racial preferences in connection with recruiting, hiring, and other conditions of employment for state employees and which overtly treat people as racial categories rather than individuals.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that, 

[a]fter the national upheaval stemming from the death of George Floyd Defendants started engaging in racially divisive messaging to their employees through work-related emails to class members, official blog posts, and seminars. These communications describe existing and future policies that, on their face, are rooted in [Critical Race Theory]. Defendants’ policies and customs created an atmosphere of racial intimidation in their agencies that caused, and continue to cause, significant harm to Plaintiff and the Class.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants introduced and justified these policies using methodologies straight out of the Critical Race Theory playbook. The pattern, illustrated by Defendants’ communications to their employees, is revealed in the lawsuit and shows a dialectical structure that mirrors Critical Race Theory’s indoctrination formula. The complaint alleges:

“First, Defendants bring up examples of isolated incidents that they claim, without evidence, are rooted in racism. Second, Defendants use those incidents as ‘proof’ of their conclusory allegation that any racially disparate outcomes in society are the product of racism, even when the claims are belied by empirical evidence.” As alleged, Defendants applied their confirmation bias to inflammatory, aberrational incidents to claim that their white employees were guilty of bolstering “systemic racism” and “white supremacy” purely based on the color of their skin. Further, the Defendants accused these employees - civil servants who have dedicated their entire lives to protecting California’s natural resources - of “perpetuating the violence of the system.” In essence, according to the complaint, Defendants equated all white employees with people who commit actual racial violence if they did not engage in Defendants’ preferred method of political activism.

According to the lawsuit,

Defendants vilify “white folks” not just as racists but as a stand-in for a monolithic oppressor that targets all minority groups like people of “different sexual orientation.” This is one of the fundamental principles of Critical Race Theory: That “whiteness” is a property – a social and institutional status and identity imbued with legal political, economic, and social rights and privileges that are denied to others. As such, all “white folks,” by pure accident of birth, are complicit in racism and personally responsible for its existence and continuation in society.

Using these racially inflammatory beliefs as a backdrop, “[third] Defendants propose to ‘dialogue’ about the issues while making it clear that any opinions opposing the [Critical Race Theory] narrative will be met with retaliation.” Finally, the complaint alleges that Defendants use these baseless accusations against white Americans to justify their ultimate plan: “to implement [Critical Race Theory] in their Agencies through the means of race-based hiring, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment.” In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants admit to creating these policies that make race a central factor in employment decisions like recruitment, hiring, promotions, and salaries.  

This lawsuit is brought pursuant to federal civil rights laws, including, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 [First and Fourteenth Amendments] and the California Constitution, Article I, § 31, which prohibits discrimination or the endowment of preferential treatment on the basis of race by state government.

The action also alleges a cause of action under the Taxpayer statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 526a, which allows lawsuits to stop the government from wasting tax resources on policies and laws that are unlawful.

A copy of the complaint can be found HERE.