F. Outcomes (impacts)
The El Monte case resulted in the award of $4 million in back wages and punitive damages to the 72 workers. Several worker leaders from the El Monte case invested part of their settlements to create a garment cooperative that provided decent wages and working conditions in Los Angeles. The wide publicity of the El Monte case and subsequent successful litigation contributed to the enactment of California's landmark legislation in 1999, creating joint liability for garment contractors, retailers, and manufacturers. The Rosenberg Foundation supported several years of continued advocacy by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Asian Law Caucus, Sweatshop Watch, and the Garment Workers Center, to ensure successful implementation of the new law.

Building on the success of the El Monte case, the Rosenberg Foundation has supported other advocates' use of the joint liability theory in other low-wage industries such as agricultural and janitorial work.

The Rosenberg Foundation evaluated its support of the El Monte case and subsequent cases in the larger context of its other garment-related grantmaking. The foundation assesses the level of collaboration among its sweatshop grantees working on a breadth of issues, including litigation, advocacy, public education, and worker organizing. The foundation also assesses grantees' strategic thinking and development. In particular, it pays attention to whether strategies have shifted in response to changes in the economic and political climate. For more information on the foundation's evaluation philosophy, please read the Rosenberg Foundation evaluation case study in the Assessing Public Policy Grantmaking section of the Toolkit.

G. Lessons learned
The El Monte case confirmed to the foundation the importance of strategic litigation that involves the injured parties in the strategy development. Litigation is not a cure-all. Rather, to address complex issues such as sweatshop abuses, it should be coupled with complementary advocacy efforts such as public education, regulatory and legislative change, and community organizing. Legal cases help advance advocacy efforts and vice versa. In addition, these types of legal battles can take years to win, and a committed foundation must stick with the effort for the long-term.

The practice of community, social justice lawyering was also an important complementary strategy in this case. Many El Monte workers received training about their legal rights from APALC, and, in turn, have trained other sweatshop workers to win back wages and fight for fair wages and decent working conditions. One of the unexpected results of this strategy was the development of a strong sense of community and solidarity among garment workers that crossed racial and ethnic lines and language barriers.

Often, winning one legal case is not enough to change public policy or industry behavior. Although the El Monte case was a landmark decision, the Rosenberg Foundation and its grantees felt that they needed to develop a critical mass of similar decisions to have a substantial impact on the garment industry. To leverage their success, in addition to monetary compensation for unpaid wages, these cases often request changes in corporate practices to improve worker conditions and commitments to retain local garment production in California.

Since the El Monte case, the Rosenberg Foundation has continued to support both class actions suits and individual cases against garment sweatshops brought by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the Asian Law Caucus. These cases complement other advocacy strategies such as public education, worker organizing, and increasing government enforcement of labor laws in the garment industry. Two workers centers, the Garment Worker Center, in Los Angeles, and the Chinese Progressive Association, in San Francisco, have been strong allies of the legal advocates. The foundation's strategy continues to evolve in response to increasing globalization and the loss of the U.S. garment industry.