A California-based driver for Walmart has been awarded $34.7 million in a lawsuit in which he alleged the giant retailer had defamed and discriminated against him after he suffered an injury while on the job.
Jesus “Jesse” Fonseca had been a driver out of Walmart’s distribution center in Apple Valley, California. That city is in San Bernardino County in the area known as the Inland Empire. It was a jury in San Bernardino County that handed down the award; the lawsuit originally had been filed in federal court.
“We believe the evidence at trial showed that Walmart’s defamation of Jesse was part of a broader scheme to use false accusations to force injured truckers back to work,” attorney David deRubertis, who represented Fonseca, said in a prepared statement. “Hopefully, this historic verdict will be the beginning of change from Bentonville,” he added, referring to the Arkansas headquarters of Walmart (NYSE: WMT).
The award broke down as $25 million in punitive damages and $9.7 million for future and past economic and noneconomic losses.
Walmart issued a statement about the outcome: “This outrageous verdict simply does not reflect the straightforward and uncontested facts of this case. Accordingly, we will pursue all available remedies.”
According to both the initial complaint and the prepared statement released by deRubertis’ law firm, Fonseca’s conflicts with Walmart began in June 2017, when he was rear-ended while driving a Walmart truck. As a result of his injuries, Fonseca was restricted in his duties at Walmart, though he did continue to work. Restrictions recommended by his doctor included weight limitations on what he could pull and push, as well as no commercial driving.
Asking for modified duties
“All of these restrictions were properly communicated to [Walmart],” according to the initial complaint. “[Walmart] failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s each and every request for accommodations.”
“Fonseca specifically requested to be allowed to work modified duties and inquired about being placed in an office position where he could perform desk duty or any other position that could accommodate his restrictions,” the original lawsuit said, noting he had in the past done office work.
At the end of January 2018, according to the lawsuit, Fonseca was told there was a report of fraud. At issue was the fact that Fonseca had been seen driving a vehicle – which Fonseca said was his personal car, not a commercial vehicle – “and that his restrictions provided that he could not drive.” Two months later, he was fired.
In Fonseca’s lawsuit, he said he had applied for other jobs after that but was “forced to disclose that he was terminated from Walmart for gross misconduct and integrity because he was suspected of committing fraud.” He was not hired for those positions.
An ‘integrity’ violation
While there are several causes of action in the lawsuit, the news release from deRubertis’ firm focuses on one of the more sensational charges: that Walmart’s actions amount to defamation against Fonseca.
The lawsuit makes the case that Fonseca had been considered a stellar employee prior to his injuries and the conflict that followed.
But when Walmart’s ethics department investigated the claims that Fonseca had committed fraud and was guilty of an “integrity” violation, “Walmart was able to skip its normal progressive discipline process and move to immediate termination and deemed Fonseca ineligible for rehire, destroying his hard-earned reputation within Walmart.”
“At trial, Fonseca’s lawyers deRubertis and [Mohammed Eldessouky, the other attorney who represented Fonseca], argued that Walmart committed defamation by falsely branding Fonseca as having committed an ‘integrity’ violation, one of the most serious offenses at Walmart,” the firm said in their prepared statement. “They also argued that Fonseca’s termination was part and parcel of a policy at Walmart to commit defamation by falsely labeling injured workers like Fonseca as having acted with ‘intentional dishonesty’ any time they are found to have engaged in any activity while on leave that was contrary to work restrictions.”
The prepared statement from deRubertis said Fonseca, based on his meetings with Walmart personnel, “understood that he was allowed to drive personal vehicles and that the work restrictions were meant to prevent him from driving a semi-truck on the job.”
“According to evidence at trial, Walmart’s fraud investigator found Fonseca to be credible and honest when interviewed,” the attorney’s statement said. “Walmart’s internal fraud investigators declined to turn Fonseca over to the state for potential criminal prosecution.”
But internally, according to deRubertis, the company “treats findings of activity outside of restrictions as acts of ‘intentional dishonesty’ even if the investigation did not bear out that the injured worker was being intentionally dishonest, deceptive or fraudulent.”
Several of the other claims in the lawsuit were related to what Fonseca said involved violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which the driver’s attorneys said in one cause of action “prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee on the basis of disability in compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”
More articles by John Kingston
Werner nuclear verdict case in Texas is hugely significant, says attorney at F3
UPS hit with SEC fine over its internal valuation of UPS Freight before TFI sale
Another win for brokers: No liability for Echo Global in fatal South Carolina crash