Columbia Legal Services

What it reported doing in 2025

See schedule olegal services: through community-led movement lawyering and a systemic approach, we are supporting communities and movements by bringing deep legal expertise that is grounded in and strongly guided by an understanding of race equity.cases in litigation or that have been litigated during 2025: united farm workers of america, et al v. Greenwood mushroom sunnyside ia, llc: this lawsuit is to enforce the little norris-laguardia act and retaliation protections for union activity.the workers who are impacted are immigrants and largely women. These workers are fighting for better working conditions free of harassment and retaliation and they want to improve the workplace by organizing. This lawsuit aims to empower workers by addressing the unequal bargaining power between workers in particular immigrant workers and employers. This case is currently on appeal to the Washington supreme court. The Washington supreme court will decide whether an arbitration agreement the workers signed after the company they were working for was taken over by greenwood to stay employed is unconscionable. No fees have been sought at this time.evelia gonzalez, et al v. Greenwood mushroom sunnyside ia, llc: this is a class action to enforce the farm labor contracting act (flca) which affords civil penalties to farm workers whose employers/contractors fail to register with the state.the case alleges that greenwood was a contractor of instar and was required to register as a farm labor contractor. The failure to register was a violation of the act, as well as their failure to carry and exhibit a farm labor contractor license, failure to disclose the existence of a bond, and failure to provide the class with required disclosures. These flca requirements protect farm workers, as these disclosures help workers understand who they are working for and what they will be paid, among other things. No fees have been sought at this time.ramon torres hernandez and familias unidas por la justicia afl-cio v us department of labor: this case was filed in the eastern district of Washington state to enforce h-2a worker wage protections in light of the annual department of labor (dol) calculations for the 2019 wages.this lawsuit was filed to compel dol to properly calculate prevailing wages in Washington h-2a contracts. Dol's calculations undermine farm worker wages as they result in lower minimum hourly wages instead of traditionally higher earnings based on piece-rate wages (workers compensated based on the number of pounds or bins of fruit harvested per day). The proper calculation would ensure millions of dollars in harvest wages are paid to thousands of farm workers.a fee petition was filed seeking $437,432.99 in attorney fees. However, the district court cut the fee request and only awarded $109,358.25. The district court's order was appealed. On june 25, 2026, the appeals court reversed the district court's fee award and remanded the case back to the district court for an upward adjustment of the fee award. Familias unidas por la justicia afl-cio v us department of labor: this case was filed in the western district of Washington state to enforce h-2a worker wage protections in light of the annual department of labor (dol) calculations and to challenge new prevailing wage regulations that took effect on november 14, 2022. This lawsuit was filed to compel dol to properly calculate prevailing wages in Washington h-2a contracts. Dol's calculations undermine farm worker wages as they result in lower minimum hourly wages instead of traditionally higher earnings based on piece-rate wages (workers compensated based on the number of pounds or bins of fruit harvested per day). The proper calculation would ensure millions of dollars in harvest wages are paid to thousands of farm workers. In addition, the case seeks to challenge a new rule that eliminates prevailing wages after one year leaving no prevailing wage in place and reducing the wages for farmworkers. No f

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 42.6%; rating input score 43
• Program expense ratio: 64.1%; rating input score 64
• Fundraising efficiency: $77.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
  • Compensation committee: Missing
  • Independent consultant: Pass
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
  • Written employment contract: Missing
  • Compensation survey or study: Pass
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: Limited
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 36.1%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.37; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings