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 challenges securing new employment. On November 14, 2018, during job interviews, he disclosed his termination reason, which prospective employers viewed unfavorably. Consequently, Plaintiff did not receive callbacks or further consideration. Defendants’ actions severely impacted Plaintiff’s professional reputation and career prospects.

Damages

The Plaintiff sought comprehensive remedies against each Defendant for the harm suffered. First, the Plaintiff requested compensation for all proven financial losses. These included actual, consequential, and incidental damages, such as lost earnings and employment benefits, along with applicable prejudgment interest.

In addition, the Plaintiff pursued declaratory relief to affirm their legal rights under the circumstances. They also claimed compensatory, general, and special damages, including front pay, with amounts to be determined by evidence presented at trial. To deter misconduct, the Plaintiff demanded punitive damages, emphasizing the egregious nature of the Defendants’ actions.

The Plaintiff further requested statutory attorneys’ fees, as provided by law, alongside prejudgment and post-judgment interest based on applicable statutes and supporting proof. They also sought reimbursement for litigation costs, including expert witness fees under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Lastly, the Plaintiff appealed for any additional relief the Court found just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Jesus Fonseca
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Michael David DeRubertis | Mohamed Eldessouky
  • Defendant(s): Walmart Associates, Inc. | Walmart Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Stefan H Black | Shanda Y Lowe | Shannen T Garrett

Key Counsel Arguments and Remarks

David M. deRubertis, a trial lawyer for Fonseca, stated that the evidence demonstrated Walmart’s actions were “part of a broader scheme to force injured truckers back to work prematurely or terminate them to reduce workers’ compensation costs.”

Mohamed Eldessouky, another attorney for Fonseca, commented that the verdict “sends a clear message.” He further stated, “If a company decides to question someone’s character and integrity, it must do so carefully and honestly. Walmart should rethink how it treats the hardworking drivers who are the backbone of its business.”

Claims

1. Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by terminating his employment due to his disability, violating California Government Code § 12940(a).

2. Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA

Defendants breached their statutory duty by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff’s disability, despite knowing his medical needs.

3. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA

Defendants failed to engage in a good faith interactive process to identify accommodations enabling Plaintiff to perform his essential job duties.

4. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA

Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating him after he requested medical leave and opposed disability discrimination.

5. Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of FEHA

Defendants neglected their duty to take reasonable steps to prevent and address discriminatory conduct, violating California Government Code § 12940(k).

6. Interference in Violation of CFRA

Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s rights under CFRA by obstructing or denying his ability to take legally protected leave.

7. Retaliation in Violation of CFRA

Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for attempting to take CFRA-protected leave, including terminating or demoting him as retaliation.

8. Hostile Work Environment Harassment

Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a hostile workplace by allowing unwelcome, discriminatory conduct based on his protected characteristics.

9. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment in retaliation for asserting CFRA rights or opposing unlawful workplace practices.

10. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Defendants intentionally engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress and suffering.

11. Defamation

Defendants made false statements about Plaintiff, damaging his reputation and professional standing through harmful oral or written communication.

Defense

Defendants denied all allegations in Plaintiff Jesus Fonseca’s Complaint, asserting no damages resulted from their actions.

  • General Denials and Defenses
    Defendants claimed the Complaint failed to state a valid cause of action and invoked defenses including business necessity, after-acquired evidence, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages.
  • Affirmative Defenses
    Defendants argued their actions were justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and bona fide occupational qualifications. They denied knowledge of discrimination, invoked statute of limitations protections, and asserted Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.
  • Defamation and Emotional Distress
    Defendants rejected claims of defamation and emotional distress, asserting any statements were true, privileged, unpublished, or opinions.

Jury Verdict

On November 19, 2024, the jury found Walmart liable in this defamation lawsuit. It was determined that Walmart had falsely accused him of violating its integrity policy under its statement of ethics.

  • Past economic loss: $522,323
  • Future economic loss: $677,926
  • Past non economic loss: $3.5 million
  • Future non economic loss: $5,000,000

On November 20, 2024, the jury awarded Jesus Fonseca $25 million in punitive damages against Walmart, bringing the total award to $34,700,249.

Court Documents:

Available for purchase upon request