Judicial Watch Files Class Action Lawsuit over Reparations
https://www.judicialwatch.org/reparations/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=weekly+update&utm_term=members
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Flinn et al. v Evanston (No. 1:24-cv-04269)).
https://www.judicialwatch.org/reparations/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=weekly+update&utm_term=members
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Flinn et al. v Evanston (No. 1:24-cv-04269)).
Judicial Watch Files Class Action Lawsuit over Reparations
https://www.judicialwatch.org/reparations/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=weekly+update&utm_term=members
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Flinn et al. v Evanston (No. 1:24-cv-04269)).
0 Comments
0 Shares
573 Views