[fusion_builder_container type="flex" hundred_percent="no" equal_height_columns="no" hide_on_mobile="small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility" background_position="center center" background_repeat="no-repeat" fade="no" background_parallax="none" parallax_speed="0.3" video_aspect_ratio="16:9" video_loop="yes" video_mute="yes" border_style="solid"][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type="1_1" type="1_1" background_position="left top" border_style="solid" border_position="all" spacing="yes" background_repeat="no-repeat" margin_top="0px" margin_bottom="0px" animation_speed="0.3" animation_direction="left" hide_on_mobile="small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility" center_content="no" last="no" hover_type="none" min_height="" link=""][fusion_text]

Fonseca v. Wal-Mart

Case Background

On March 28, 2024, Jesus Fonseca filed a defamation lawsuit against Walmart after he was falsely accused of workers' compensation fraud and wrongfully terminated him. The case was filed in the California Superior Court, San Bernardino. Judge Carlos Cabrera presided over the case. [Case number: CIVDS1909501]

Cause

Plaintiff Jesus Fonseca, a resident of San Bernardino County, California, worked as a truck driver for Defendant Walmart Associates, Inc. and Defendant Walmart Inc., both corporations operating under California law. Over 14 years of employment, Plaintiff earned recognition for his dedication, outstanding performance, and safety practices. His achievements included quarterly bonuses, safety awards, and departmental leadership roles, such as mentoring drivers and serving on various committees. In 2008, Plaintiff was honored to represent his distribution center at an event in Bentonville, Arkansas. On June 19, 2017, while working for Defendants, Plaintiff was rear-ended in a vehicle accident and sustained injuries requiring hospitalization. Shortly after, he filed a workers' compensation claim. From June 26, 2017, until his termination, Plaintiff adhered to modified work restrictions, including limits on lifting, pulling, and commercial driving. Despite being informed of these restrictions, Defendants failed to accommodate his requests or explore alternative positions. Plaintiff went on medical leave starting June 20, 2017, and requested modified duties, such as an office role he had performed before his injury. Defendants denied these requests and instead accused Plaintiff of fraud in January 2018, alleging he violated driving restrictions. Plaintiff clarified that his limitations applied only to commercial driving, not personal activities. Nonetheless, Defendants terminated his employment on March 29, 2018, citing gross misconduct. Following his termination, the Plaintiff faced challenge