By ALEXANDRA OLSON and CLAIRE SAVAGE, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — A former Amazon delivery driver has filed a lawsuit accusing a federal civil right agency of abruptly and unlawfully abandoning her sex discrimination case and others like it following an executive order from President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit filed by the former Colorado driver demands that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission resume investigating her claims that Amazon discriminates against female drivers by failing to provide adequate bathroom breaks.

The lawsuit is the latest example of workers and others scrambling to find recourse as federal agencies abandon their cases in response to Trump’s shake-up of the country’s civil rights enforcement infrastructure.

The EEOC, which enforces civil rights laws in the workplace, decided last month to discharge any complaints based on “disparate impact liability,” which holds that policies that are neutral on their face can be discriminatory if they impose unnecessary barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups.

Related Articles

Trump administration pledges to speed some student loan forgiveness after lawsuit

‘Massive legal siege’ against social media companies looms

One of the world’s rarest whales that makes the Atlantic its home grows in population

Man pardoned after storming Capitol is charged with threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries

GM boosts full-year outlook as it foresees a smaller impact from tariffs

The EEOC’s decision came in response to an executive order in April directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of disparate impact liability. The Trump administration argues that disparate impact assumes any racial or gender imbalance in workplaces is the result of discrimination and leads to practices that undermine meritocracy.

The former driver, Leah Cross, filed a motion Tuesday asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to stay the EEOC’s new rule prohibiting investigations and enjoin the agency from enforcing it.

The EEOC has already dropped its sole lawsuit arising from a disparate impact liability charge, a case alleging that the Sheetz convenience store chain’s background check practices discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants.

Separately, the agency has dropped lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers and subjected new complaints to a higher level of scrutiny, following Trump’s executive order declaring that the government would only recognize two unchangeable sexes.

It’s unclear how many worker complaints involving disparate impact liability or LGBTQ+ workers have been sidelined by the EEOC. In her lawsuit, Cross demanded that the EEOC, which handled more than 88,000 discrimination charges in 2024, give the court a list of the disparate impact liability charges it has shut down.

The EEOC referred questions about the lawsuit to the Department of Justice, which declined to comment.

Cross, who worked as a driver from August to November 2022, filed her EEOC charge two years ago, arguing that the company’s delivery schedules make it nearly impossible for drivers to find time to use bathrooms. An EEOC investigator told her lawyers last month it was closing her case because of the disparate impact rule, according to the lawsuit.

Amazon declined to comment on Cross’ case but referred The AP to its policies around its drivers, who deliver packages in Amazon-branded vehicles but work indirectly for the company through third-party companies called Delivery Service Partners. Amazon says its technology builds routes that ensure time for two 15-minute rest breaks and a 30-minute meal break. The company also said its Amazon Delivery app provides a list for drivers to see nearby restroom facilities and gas stations.

But in an interview with The AP, Cross said it was so hard for to her stop for breaks that she had to pack a Shewee — a portable urination device for women — as well as a change of pants “in case I ended up accidentally urinating on myself.”

Cross’ lawsuit against the EEOC argues that the agency is legally obligated to investigate all charges based on disparate impact liability, which Congress codified in the 1991 Civil Rights Act.

The EEOC “isn’t allowed to throw away an entire category of charges without looking into their facts just because the president doesn’t like the type of discrimination those charges are based on,” said Karla Gilbride, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group, one of the organizations that filed the lawsuit.

Gilbride was the EEOC’s general counsel until she was fired in January along with two Democratic commissioners in a purge that cleared the way for the Trump administration to root out diversity and inclusion programs, roll back protections for transgender workers and elevate religious rights.

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s pick to lead an office charged with protecting federal whistleblowers appeared to be in jeopardy on Tuesday after Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he hoped the White House would withdraw the nomination.

The growing opposition to Paul Ingrassia comes after a Politico report of a text chat that showed him saying the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday should be “tossed into the seventh circle of hell.” Ingrassia also described himself in the chat as having “a Nazi streak” at times.

“He’s not going to pass,” Thune told reporters.

Two Republicans who serve on the committee with jurisdiction over the nomination for the Office of Special Counsel job, Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, said they do not support Ingrassia’s confirmation.

“I’m a no. It never should have got this far,” Johnson said Tuesday. “They ought to pull the nomination.”

Related Articles

How much more difficult is the new US citizenship test? What you need to know

ICE is jailing, deporting victims of human trafficking, domestic abuse, suit says

Belize signs ‘safe third country’ agreement as part of Trump’s immigration crackdown

2026 could be breakout year for blue-collar Democratic women

Man pardoned after storming Capitol is charged with threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries

Republicans have been able to muscle through the vast majority of Trump’s nominees in roll call votes despite stiff Democratic opposition. But there have been sporadic instances when Republicans have pushed back, generally behind the scenes, showing there are limits to their support.

Most notably, Matt Gaetz withdrew as Trump’s first choice for attorney general soon after being tabbed for the job. In May, Trump pulled his nomination of Ed Martin Jr. to be the top federal prosecutor for the nation’s capital, bowing to bipartisan concerns about the conservative activist’s modest legal experience and support for Jan. 6 rioters. And last month, the White House announced it would be withdrawing the nomination of E.J. Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Antoni was supposed to succeed a BLS director who was fired following a disappointing jobs report.

According to texts viewed by Politico, Ingrassia told those in the chat that “MLK Jr. was the 1960s George Floyd and his ‘holiday’ should be ended and tossed into the seventh circle of hell where it belongs.” Politico also spoke to Ingrassia’s lawyer, who said the text messages might have been manipulated or were missing context. The lawyer did not confirm the texts were authentic.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Ingrassia’s texts, if authentic, were “foul and disqualifying” He said Trump should pull the nomination of Ingrassia, who works as the White House liaison for Homeland Security.

“He should be fired from his current job within the administration,” Schumer said after reading some of the text messages on the Senate floor. “And he should never hold a position of leadership within the Republican Party or the government ever again.”

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is scheduled to hear from Ingrassia on Thursday. It was unclear if anything on that front has changed with the panel’s chairman, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., saying “we’re going to know more on Thursday.”

The Office of Special Counsel is an investigative and prosecutorial office that works to protect government employees and whistleblowers from retaliation for reporting wrongdoing. It’s also responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act, which restricts the partisan political activities of government workers.

The office, now under the leadership of acting Director Jamieson Greer, confirmed in August that it was investigating former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith on allegations his investigation into Trump constituted political activity. Smith’s lawyers have said the investigation was “wholly without merit,” based on an “imaginary and unfounded” premise.

In May, Trump described Ingrassia in a social media post as a “highly respected attorney, writer and Constitutional Scholar.”

Ingrassia briefly served in the White House liaison position at the Justice Department. He’s also a former right-wing podcast host who promoted the false claim that the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden, was rigged.

By María G. Ortiz-Briones, The Fresno Bee

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has made changes to the naturalization civics test that will make it more challenging for immigrants to obtain their U.S. citizenship.

Related Articles

Trump’s nominee to lead a watchdog agency hits trouble over MLK and ‘Nazi streak’ text messages

ICE is jailing, deporting victims of human trafficking, domestic abuse, suit says

Belize signs ‘safe third country’ agreement as part of Trump’s immigration crackdown

2026 could be breakout year for blue-collar Democratic women

Man pardoned after storming Capitol is charged with threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries

The changes are part of the federal agency’s ongoing effort to overhaul the legal immigration naturalization process.

“These critical changes are the first of many,” said USCIS Spokesperson Matthew Tragesser.

USCIS posted in September a Federal Register notice about the implementation of the 2025 Naturalization Civics Test.

The implementation of the new test is part of President Trump’s executive order to protect the U.S. from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats signed when he took office, according to USCIS.

Immigrants who file their naturalization application Form N-400 on or after Oct. 20 will take the tougher 2025 Naturalization Civics Test. According to USCIS, the new test will better assess applicants’ knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government.

The new test is based on the 2020 test with some modifications to how the test is administered by USCIS officers.

What to know about the 2025 Naturalization Civics Test

The new civics test increased the number of potential civics test questions from 100 to 128.

The number of test questions on the exam rose from 10 to 20.

The number of correct answers needed to pass the civics test increased from 6 answers to 12.

Starting Monday, applicants who submitted citizenship applications must answer 12 questions correctly out of the 20 questions asked by a USCIS officer during their citizenship interview appointment.

According to USCIS, a computer-generated list of 20 questions is selected randomly from the bank of 128 questions.

Citizen candidates during a naturalization ceremony held at Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park to commemorate Constitution Day and Citizenship Day on Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2025. (María G. Ortiz-Briones/Fresno Bee/TNS)

Officers will only be required to ask questions until an applicant either passes or fails the test. So, if an applicant answers 12 questions correctly, the officer will stop administering the test. Similarly, when an applicant answers nine questions incorrectly and fails the test, the officer will stop administering the questions.

USCIS will update the Naturalization Test and Study Materials and Resources for Educational Programs that applicants may consult to study for the test.

Immigrants who already had filed a naturalization application or who applied before the Oct. 20 filing date will take the 2008 Naturalization Civics Test. USCIS will temporarily retain on its website the study materials for the 2008 Naturalization Civics Test to help immigrants prepare for the civic test.

The notice does not change the English language proficiency parts of the naturalization test including reading, writing, speaking, and understanding.

In the past months the USCIS has made several changes to the naturalization process including a robust vetting for all immigrants and stricter reviews of disability exceptions to the English and civics requirements. It also provided its officers guidance for immigrants’ good moral character and resumed neighborhood investigation.

©2025 The Fresno Bee. Visit fresnobee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Olivia Carville, Bloomberg News

Thousands of plaintiffs’ complaints, millions of pages of internal documents and transcripts of countless hours of depositions are about to land in U.S. courtrooms, threatening the future of the biggest social media companies.

The blizzard of paperwork is a byproduct of two consolidated lawsuits accusing Snap Inc.’s Snapchat; Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook and Instagram; ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok; and Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube of knowingly designing their platforms to addict users — allegedly resulting in youth depression, anxiety, insomnia, eating disorders, self-harm and even suicide.

The litigation, brewing for more than three years, has had to overcome numerous hurdles, including the liability shield that has protected social media platforms from facing user-harm lawsuits. The social media companies have filed multiple motions to dismiss the cases on the grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prevents them from being held accountable for content posted on their sites.

Those motions have been largely unsuccessful, and courtrooms across the country are poised to open their doors for the first time to the alleged victims of social media. The vast majority of cases have been folded into two multijurisdictional proceedings, one in state and the other in federal court, to streamline the pretrial discovery process.

The first bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in Los Angeles Superior Court in late January. It involves a 19-year-old woman from Chico, California, who says she’s been addicted to social media for more than a decade and that her nonstop use of the platforms has caused anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. Two other trials will follow soon after, with thousands more waiting in the wings. If successful, these cases could result in multibillion-dollar settlements — akin to tobacco and opioid litigation — and change the way minors interact with social media.

“This is going to be one of the most impactful litigations of our lifetime,” said Joseph VanZandt, an attorney at Beasley Allen Law Firm in Montgomery, Alabama, and co-lead plaintiffs’ attorney for the coordinated state cases. “This is about large corporations targeting vulnerable populations — children — for profit. That’s what we saw with the tobacco companies; they were also targeting adolescents and trying to get them addicted while they were young.”

Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center in Seattle, makes a similar comparison to tobacco litigation in the Bloomberg documentary Can’t Look Away: The Case Against Social Media. “In the case of Facebook, you have internal documents saying ‘tweens are herd animals,’ ‘kids have an addict’s narrative’ and ‘our products make girls feel worse about themselves.’ You have the same kind of corporate misconduct,” Bergman says in the film, which will be available to view on Bloomberg’s platforms on October 30.

Bergman’s firm was the first to file user-harm cases against social media companies, in 2022, after Frances Haugen, a former Meta product manager-turned-whistleblower, released a trove of internal documents showing the company knew social media was negatively impacting youth mental health. The first case, which is part of the consolidated federal litigation, alleged that an 11-year-old Connecticut girl killed herself after suffering from extreme social media addiction and sexual exploitation by online predators.

What set that case apart was how it got around Section 230’s immunity blanket. Bergman argued that his case wasn’t about third-party content, which the federal law protects. Instead, he said it hinged on the way social media companies were intentionally designing their products to prioritize engagement and profit over safety.

Since then, thousands of personal injury lawsuits alleging similar youth mental health harms have been filed. Almost 4,000 have been folded into the multijurisdictional proceedings — more than a quarter of them from the Social Media Victims Law Center. They have been joined by more than 1,000 school districts and about three-quarters of all U.S. state attorneys general. Some lawsuits, including one filed by New Mexico’s attorney general, are proceeding outside the framework of the consolidated cases and are also expected to go to trial early next year.

“All told, this is a massive legal siege on the social media industry,” said Previn Warren, a Washington-based lawyer at Motley Rice who is co-leading the federal cases. “We are the first major litigation to convince the court system that actually there are systemic wrongs on these platforms that victims should be compensated for. When the public becomes aware of the scale of evidence, I suspect that will have an impact on how they perceive their relationship — and their kids’ relationships — to social media.”

The pretrial discovery process closed in April, with the four defendants handing over more than six million documents and submitting to 150 depositions, including that of Meta Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel. In addition, more than 100 child psychologists, academics and experts have offered evidence.

The companies sought to bar all of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in the state cases from testifying, arguing that they’re unreliable, cherry-pick from studies and over-extrapolate from data. That argument failed in state court in late September, with all but one of the proposed witnesses allowed to testify.

The defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment in state court in August, arguing that the plaintiffs haven’t produced enough evidence to warrant a trial. The companies said the plaintiffs hadn’t shown that mental health harms were caused by social media and that some of the claims, which stretch back to when the plaintiffs first started using social media, should be barred outright by California’s statute of limitations.

Related Articles

Costco tested members with higher fees. The results are in

Bria Shea named president of Xcel Energy for Minnesota, the Dakotas

OpenAI launches web browser to compete with Google Chrome

Citi Foundation is putting $25M toward tackling young adults’ unemployment and AI labor disruptions

GM boosts full-year outlook as it foresees a smaller impact from tariffs

“These lawsuits fundamentally misunderstand how YouTube works, and the allegations are simply not true,” José Castañeda, a spokesperson for the company, said in an email. “YouTube is a streaming service where people come to watch everything from live sports to podcasts to their favorite creators, primarily on TV screens, not a social network where people go to catch up with friends.”

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the allegations raised in the lawsuits and pointed to safety tools the company has rolled out to support its youngest users, including limiting who teens can connect with and the content they see. “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these cases,” the spokesperson said.

Snap and TikTok didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the consolidated state cases, is expected to rule on the summary judgment motion in the coming weeks. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, a U.S. district court judge in Oakland, California, is overseeing the federal litigation. The first federal trial, in a case filed by a school district in Kentucky, is set to kick off in June.

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.