The damages included $25 million in punitive damages and $9.7 million for future and past economic and non-economic losses.

Walmart issued a statement on the outcome: “This outrageous verdict simply does not reflect the clear and undisputed facts of this case. Accordingly, we will pursue all available remedies.”

According to both the original complaint and the prepared statement from deRubertis’ law firm, Fonseca’s conflicts with Walmart began in June 2017 when he was struck from behind while driving a Walmart truck. Because of his injuries, Fonseca was limited in his duties at Walmart but continued to work. Restrictions recommended by his doctor included weight limits on what he could pull and push and a ban on driving commercially.

Request changed tasks

“All of these restrictions were properly communicated to (Walmart),” the first complaint states. “(Walmart) failed to comply with each and every one of Plaintiff’s requests for accommodation.”

“Fonseca specifically requested permission to assume modified duties and inquired about a transfer to an office position where he could perform desk duties or another position that would accommodate his limitations,” the original lawsuit said pointed out that he had exercised his office in the past.

At the end of January 2018, Fonseca was informed that there had been a report of fraud, according to the lawsuit. At issue was the fact that Fonseca had been seen driving a vehicle – which, according to Fonseca, was his personal car and not a commercial vehicle – “and that his restrictions stipulated that he was not allowed to drive.” Two months later he fired.

In Fonseca’s lawsuit, he said he subsequently applied for other jobs but was “forced to disclose that he was terminated from Walmart for gross misconduct and integrity because he was suspected of fraud.” He was not hired for these positions.

A violation of “integrity.”

While there are multiple causes of action in the lawsuit, deRubertis’ law firm’s press release focuses on one of the more high-profile allegations: Walmart’s actions amount to defamation of Fonseca.

The lawsuit argues that Fonseca was considered an outstanding employee before his injuries and the conflict that followed.

But when Walmart’s ethics department investigated allegations that Fonseca had committed fraud and was guilty of a breach of “integrity,” Walmart “could skip its normal progressive disciplinary process and proceed to summary termination and deem Fonseca unsuitable for reinstatement, which.” “destroyed his hard work.” has earned a good reputation at Walmart.”

“At trial, Fonseca’s attorneys, deRubertis and (Mohammed Eldessouky, the other attorney who represented Fonseca), argued that Walmart committed defamation by falsely branding Fonseca as a breach of ‘integrity,’ one of the most serious wrongdoing at Walmart,” the firm said in its prepared statement. “They also argued that Fonseca’s termination was part of Walmart’s policy of committing defamation by falsely portraying injured workers like Fonseca as having acted ‘willfully dishonest’ whenever they were found to have engaged in an activity while on leave.” “contrary to the work restrictions.”

DeRubertis’ prepared statement said that based on his meetings with Walmart employees, 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 at work.”

“According to the evidence at trial, when interviewed, Walmart’s fraud investigator concluded that Fonseca was credible and honest,” the attorney’s statement said. “Walmart’s internal fraud investigators declined to turn Fonseca over to the state for possible criminal prosecution.”

But internally, deRubertis said, the company treats “findings of activities outside the restrictions as acts of ‘willful dishonesty,’ even if the investigation has not determined that the injured worker acted intentionally dishonestly, fraudulently or fraudulently.”

Several of the other claims in the lawsuit were related to Fonseca’s allegations of violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which, according to the driver’s attorneys in a statement of claim, “prohibits employers from firing or otherwise discriminating against an employee.” Disability in Remuneration, Terms, Conditions or Privileges of Employment.”

More articles by John Kingston

The case of the Werner Atom verdict in Texas is of enormous importance, says F3’s lawyer

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 crash in South Carolina