WASHINGTON — With the proposed settlement terms drawing ire from plaintiffs, the final outcome of a class action discrimination lawsuit is still in limbo.

Settled in 2010, Keepseagle v. Vilsack was initially filed in 1999 by a group of Native American farmers who claimed the United States Department of Agriculture discriminated against them while applying for farm loans. Some were denied loans that were given to white farmers with similar histories while others received loans but received little if any service in the process. The plaintiffs have received $760 million in the settlement, but with fewer claimants successfully able to prove their case than expected, $380 million remains to be spent, prompting class counsel to embark on a series of listening sessions across Indian Country throughout August to solicit feedback.

Under the terms of the negotiations with the USDA, all parties involved must agree to the settlement provisions. Both the federal government and the courts have balked at a second payout, prompting class counsel to suggest the creation of a foundation that would be managed by court-appointed trustees. Individuals could not directly receive funds from the proposed trust but could be an indirect recipient, such as through a grantee’s scholarship program.

With many noting that they would not be able to directly benefit from it, the suggestion has received a frosty reception at several of the listening session, leading many participants to bring in outside legal aid.

Citing their dissatisfaction with class counsel’s actions in the negotiations process, more than 350 successful Keepseagle claimants have retained the Washington-based law firm of Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz PC and are attempting to intervene in the case to force a second payout. With more and more successful claimants not approving of the proposed foundation, the group now accounts for about 15 percent of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs.

“The USDA’s discriminatory lending practices impacted multiple generations of some of the country’s poorest farmers and ranchers,” attorney Stewart Fried said. “Remedying that is critically important and if there’s leftover funds, the successful claimaints should be the beneficiaries, not 501(c)3 entities.”

The group has filed a written motion with the District of Columbia’s district court but no action has been taken on it as of press time. 

In addition to the motion to intervene, several plaintiffs have written letters directly to the court in an effort to sway the discussions in favor of providing additional direct assistance to farmers who were subjected to discrimination.

Among the letter writers was Donald Kay, a 79-year-old farmer from Lindsay, Okla., was among the attendees at the Catoosa, Okla., meeting. Like many, he left the session early when his questions were not answered.

“This trust won’t help me, my kids or my grandkids, so please give all claims another look,” he wrote. “Please, we are still being discriminated against. Please do not put it in a trust. Who will appoint them? Who will govern them?”

A status report is scheduled to be filed with the court during the week of Sept. 17.