Walmart driver wins defamation suit against retailer for nearly $35 million

The award consisted of $25 million in compensatory damages and $9.7 million for future and past economic and non-economic losses.

Walmart issued a statement about the outcome: “This outrageous verdict simply does not reflect the straightforward and undisputed facts of this case. Therefore, 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 limited in his duties at Walmart, although he continued to work. Restrictions recommended by his doctor included weight limits on what he could tow and push, as well as no commercial driving.

Asking for changed duties

“All of these restrictions were properly communicated to (Walmart),” according to the original complaint. “(Walmart) could not accommodate plaintiff’s every request for accommodation.”

“Fonseca specifically requested to be allowed to work modified duties and asked to be placed in an office position where he could perform desk duties or any other position that could accommodate his limitations,” the original lawsuit said, noting , that he had previously worked work.

In late 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 required that he could not drive.” Two months later, he was fired.

In Fonseca’s lawsuit, he said he had looked 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 these positions.

A ‘breach of integrity’

While there are several causes of action in the lawsuit, the press release from deRubertis’ company focuses on one of the more sensational allegations: that Walmart’s actions amount to defamation against Fonseca.

The lawsuit says Fonseca had been considered an excellent employee prior to his injuries and the conflict that followed.

But when Walmart’s ethics department investigated allegations that Fonseca had committed fraud and was guilty of an “integrity violation,” “Walmart was able to skip its normal progressive disciplinary process and proceed with immediate termination and deemed Fonseca unfit for reinstatement, which ruined his hard-earned reputation within Walmart.”

“During the trial, Fonseca’s lawyers deRubertis and (Mohammed Eldessouky, the other lawyer representing Fonseca) argued that Walmart committed defamation by falsely labeling Fonseca as having committed an ‘integrity breach,’ one of the most serious offenses at Walmart. said in their prepared statement. “They also claimed that Fonseca’s termination was part of a policy at Walmart of defamation by falsely labeling victims. workers such as Fonseca as having acted with ‘willful dishonesty’ whenever they were found to have engaged in any activity while on leave that contravened work restrictions.”

The prepared statement from deRubertis said that, based on his meetings with Walmart staff, Fonseca “understood that he was allowed to drive personal vehicles and that the work restrictions were intended 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 prosecution.”

But internally, according to deRubertis, “the company treats findings of off-limits activity as acts of ‘willful dishonesty,’ even though the investigation did not show that the injured worker was 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 a lawsuit “prohibits employers from firing or otherwise discriminating against an employee on the basis of disability in compensation , terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”

More articles by John Kingston

The case of the Werner nuclear sentence in Texas is enormously important, says lawyer at F3

UPS was fined by the SEC over its internal valuation of UPS Freight prior to the TFI sale

Another win for brokers: No liability for Echo Global in fatal South Carolina crash