Miner, Barnhill and Galland is one of the nation's leading employment law firms. Partners Judson Miner, Charles Barnhill, Sarah Siskind,  Jeffrey Cummings , and George Galland, all devote a substantial percentage of their time to this practice group. The firm is known particularly for its representation of plaintiffs in large-scale, high-profile class actions or multi-plaintiff cases brought under the federal employment discrimination laws. Some of the matters handled by the firm over the years include:

    Evans v. Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America ( George Galland ). The firm represented the 27 private plaintiffs in this lawsuit, which was settled in 1997 and which was perhaps the largest and most widely publicized sexual harassment lawsuit in the nation's history.
    In re Burlington Northern, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation ( Charles Barnhill ). The firm was counsel for the plaintiff class in this nationwide class action, which was settled for approximately $60 million in damages and injunctive relief and remains one of the largest pre-trial settlements of any race discrimination case.
    Ridgeway v. Local 134, IBEW ( Judson Miner ). The firm has represented the plaintiff class in this race discrimination class action against the Electrical Workers' Union, which was settled through a decree that has opened the Chicago area electrical construction industry to blacks.
    Orlowski v. Dominick's Finer Foods Inc. ( Judson Miner , Jeffrey Cummings ). The firm is counsel for the plaintiff class in a sex discrimination lawsuit against one of the midwest's largest grocery store chains.
    Isaacs v. Caterpillar, Inc. ( George Galland ). The firm represented 69 plaintiffs in this "opt-in" class action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act challenging a series of reductions in force. The case was settled in 1992.
    Hany v. General Electric Co. ( Charles Barnhill , George Galland ). The firm was counsel for ten plaintiffs who lost their jobs in a series of reductions in force. After a series of victorious jury trials and an appeal, the case was settled in 1993.
    Liberles v. Miller ( Charles Barnhill , George Galland ). The firm was counsel for the plaintiff class in this race discrimination case on behalf of African-American employees of the Illinois Department of Public Aid. The case resulted in what was at that time the highest race discrimination judgment in Illinois history.
    Mays v. Motorola ( Charles Barnhill , Judson Miner ). The firm represented the plaintiff class in this race discrimination class action challenging the hiring practices of the defendant. After plaintiffs won the liability trial, the case was settled during the appeal for approximately $15 million.
    Meiresonne v. Mariott Corp. ( Sarah Siskind , Charles Barnhill ). The firm represented the plaintiff class in this sex discrimination class action involving dsicrimination in the promotion of women, which was settled in 1991 for $3 million.
    Allen v. Marshall Field & Co. Inc. ( Charles Barnhill ). The firm was counsel to 64 plaintiffs in this case, which was one of the first age discrimination "opt-in" class actions settled in the midwest.
    Anderson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. ( Charles Barnhill ). The firm represented 39 plaintiffs in this opt-in class action brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which was settled in 1987.
    Chaffee v. A&P Tea Co.  The firm was counsel to the class in this race discrimination class action involving the improper segregation and layoff of black meat-cutters, which was settled after plaintiffs prevailed in a liability trail.

In addition to these large class action cases, the firm has handled hundreds of claims by smaller groups of plaintiffs or individual plaintiffs.

and

The firm is one of the best-known and most experienced firms in the country in large-scale voting rights cases. This practice, led by Judson Miner and which includes Jeffrey Cummings has achieved important victories in race discrimination lawsuits challenging redistricting of Chicago's aldermanic districts and Illinois congressional districts. These cases include:

    In re Congressional remap , 81 C 3915 (N.D.Ill. 1981).
    Ketchum v. Byrne , 740 F.2d 1398 (7th Cir. 1984) (Chicago ward remap).
    Prosser, et. al v Elections Board, et. al , 92-C-0078( U.S.D.C., W.D. Wis. )( Wisconsin legislative remap ).
    Hastert v. State Board of Elections , 777 F. Supp. 634 (N.D.Ill. 1991); 794 F. Supp. 254 (N.D.Ill. 1992), aff'd in part and rev'd in part , 28 F.3d 1430 (7th Cir. 1994) (Illinois congressional remap).
    Barnett, et. al., v. City of Chicago, et. al. , 835 F. Supp. 1063 (N.D.Ill. 1993), rev'd , 32 F.3d 1196 (7th Cir. 1994), on remand , 969 F.Supp. 1359 (N.D.Ill. 1997), vacated and remanded in relevant part , 141 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 2372, on remand , 17 F.Supp. 2d 753 (N.D.Ill. 1998).

The firm has also represented plaintiffs in a wide variety of other civil rights litigation, including police misconduct litigation and First Amendment cases. The firm is now involved in a highly publicized case, challenging strip-searches performed by Customs agents at O'Hare Airport.

And we know that Obama was involved in some of these voting rights cases.

Community organizers are not addressing the audience of The Nation readers.

I am a big Sarah Paretsky fan. I think her novels do a good job of illuminating some of the difficulties of working within a setting where corruption and injustice are so rife. But mostly I enjoy where she shoots or beats up some bad guy.

The problem, as you know, that it is quite possible to remove slum conditions but at the same to remove the slum dwellers. Who will move to another slum. That is the paradox of gentrification: A quarter in bad condition is put into good condition, but most of its former inhabitants don't profit from this change.

I think the analysis looks simple here: It's not the neighbourhood, it's the poverty. Or well, it's the neighbourhood too, but mainly it is the poverty.

I am reminded of the city housing company in Malmoe that a decade or so ago struck a deal with the tenants association that improvements that can be postponed (change of wallpaper and such) will only be done when the tenant asks for it, but that will also be reflected in the rent. Now the city housing company feels there is a problem, because to many tenants choose not to have wallpaper and similar changed, preferring the low rent. It is quite easy to understand the city housing company not wanting to get slum on their hands, but it is also easy to understand tenants that choose low rent over improvemtns. I would guess that looking at incomes of the tenants who choose low rent you would find the real problem.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

So the sum evidence is that Smith's "does not add up" is a smarmy bit of mendacious smearing.