---
title: "Labor and Employment Law | Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
meta:
  "og:title": "Labor and Employment Law | Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
---

Jury Verdict Categories

### **Jury Verdict Articles**

Explore jury verdict articles and case studies.

## **Search**

## **Filters**

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Wilson_et_al.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/fresno-city-employee-wins-154m-in-race-bias-lawsuit)

[**Personal Injury**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/personal-injury) [**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law)

April 13, 2026

###### [Fresno City Employee Wins $15.4M in Race Bias Lawsuit](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/fresno-city-employee-wins-154m-in-race-bias-lawsuit)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/fresno-city-employee-wins-154m-in-race-bias-lawsuit)

A federal jury in California's Eastern District found the City of Fresno liable for racial discrimination, workplace harassment, and retaliation against two municipal employees. Plaintiff La-Kebbia Wilson walked away with $15 million in non-economic damages after the jury found her race drove adverse employment actions against her, including a formal reprimand and a personnel investigation. Her coworker Charles Smith received $400,000 after the jury found the city transferred him to the tire team in retaliation for standing up against the same unlawful practices. The verdict, returned March 11, 2026, rejected the city's argument that it would have taken the same actions regardless of race or protected activity.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/AUREN_DANN1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/skincare-brand-settles-8m-worker-misclassification-lawsuit)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Class Action**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/class-action)

April 10, 2026

###### [Skincare Brand Settles $8M Worker Misclassification Lawsuit](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/skincare-brand-settles-8m-worker-misclassification-lawsuit)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/skincare-brand-settles-8m-worker-misclassification-lawsuit)

A major legal battle against skincare giant Rodan + Fields reached a conclusion in San Francisco Superior Court as a judge approved an $8 million settlement. The case centered on the brand's army of "Independent Consultants," who alleged the company operated a "pervasive control" model that legally transformed them into employees under California law. Plaintiffs argued they were forced to pay monthly fees and perform extensive marketing labor without receiving minimum wage, overtime, or expense reimbursements. While Rodan + Fields maintained the consultants were independent entrepreneurs, the court-approved settlement provides multi-million dollar relief for thousands of workers who claimed the company’s digital-sales model bypassed essential labor protections.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/DAN_BECK_ET_AL1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/38m-wage-class-action-settlement-approved-by-sf-court)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

April 10, 2026

###### [$3.8M Wage Class Action Settlement Approved by SF Court](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/38m-wage-class-action-settlement-approved-by-sf-court)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/38m-wage-class-action-settlement-approved-by-sf-court)

The University of San Francisco reached a court-approved $3,888,888 resolution in a long-running wage and hour class action brought by two former employees on behalf of hundreds of part-time adjunct instructors and remote workers. Filed in early 2021 in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the lawsuit alleged that the University systematically violated California labor laws by failing to properly calculate overtime pay, denying mandatory meal and rest breaks, issuing inaccurate wage statements, and shorting departing employees on their final paychecks. Plaintiffs Dan Beck and Bienvenida Salazar argued that the school's payroll system excluded non-discretionary compensation from the "regular rate of pay," resulting in years of underpayment for non-exempt workers who kept the campus running. After extensive discovery and arm's-length negotiations, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement that received final approval from Judge Ethan P. Schulman on February 14, 2025. The Gross Settlement Amount of $3,888,888.00, inclusive of the Defendant's share of payroll taxes, covers three distinct classes: an Unpaid Wage Class of part-time adjunct instructors employed between January 4, 2017 and September 8, 2020, a Wage Statement Class covering adjuncts from January 4, 2020 through September 8, 2020, and an Expense Reimbursement Class for employees who worked remotely in California between March 11, 2020 and July 31, 2021. No class members objected, and only five individuals opted out.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Hamood.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/muslim-teacher-wins-605k-after-veil-firing-by-nonprofit-)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Discrimination**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/discrimination)

April 9, 2026

###### [Muslim Teacher Wins $605K After Veil Firing by Nonprofit](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/muslim-teacher-wins-605k-after-veil-firing-by-nonprofit-)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/muslim-teacher-wins-605k-after-veil-firing-by-nonprofit-)

A Michigan federal jury delivered a powerful verdict in favor of Sudoos Hamood, a Muslim-American single mother and English instructor who lost her job after refusing to remove her veil while teaching virtual classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hamood worked for the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) since 2016 and offered three reasonable accommodations when her employer demanded she teach on camera with her face uncovered. ACCESS rejected every option and fired her for insubordination in October 2021. After a trial before Judge Linda V. Parker, the jury found ACCESS failed to reasonably accommodate Hamood's sincere religious beliefs and rejected the nonprofit's claim that doing so would have caused undue hardship. Jurors awarded $1.8 million in damages, later reduced to $605,471 after the Court applied Title VII's statutory cap based on ACCESS's employee count of more than 500 workers.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Cardenas.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/flsa-overtime-pay-lawsuit-jury-verdict-and-case-summary-)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

April 3, 2026

###### [FLSA Overtime Pay Lawsuit: Jury Verdict and Case Summary](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/flsa-overtime-pay-lawsuit-jury-verdict-and-case-summary-)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/flsa-overtime-pay-lawsuit-jury-verdict-and-case-summary-)

Misael Cardenas Rico, a long-time employee of Performance Auto Wholesalers LLC, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that his employers failed to pay him overtime wages for a decade of service. Cardenas, who worked as a car detailer, claimed that he regularly exceeded 40 hours per week while cleaning vehicles for interstate sale. He pointed to a fragmented payment system involving multiple bi-weekly and monthly checks as evidence of a scheme to mask his true hours. The Defendants, led by Fernando Ivan Prado and Mateo Prado, denied the allegations, arguing that the business was exempt from federal overtime laws and that Cardenas had not worked the extra hours claimed. Following a trial in March 2026, a Miami jury sided with the Defendants, finding no violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Domski.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/religious-exemption-victory-awards-12m-in-vaccine-case-)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Discrimination**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/discrimination)

April 2, 2026

###### [Religious Exemption Victory: Awards $12M in Vaccine Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/religious-exemption-victory-awards-12m-in-vaccine-case-)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/religious-exemption-victory-awards-12m-in-vaccine-case-)

After three decades of service as an IT specialist, Lisa Domski faced an ultimatum from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan: receive the COVID-19 vaccine or lose her job. Despite working 100% remotely and citing sincerely held religious beliefs that guided her medical decisions through prayer, the company denied her request for an accommodation. Following what was described as an "ambush" interview regarding her faith, the company terminated her in January 2022. A federal jury in Detroit ultimately found the company’s actions were discriminatory, concluding that the insurer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation and wrongfully fired Domski based on her religion. The resulting $12.69 million verdict included $10 million in punitive damages, sending a significant message regarding workplace religious protections.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Rockmond_Dunbar.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/rockmond-dunbar-loses-lawsuit-over-covid-19-vaccine-mandate)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Media Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/media-law)

April 2, 2026

###### [Rockmond Dunbar Loses Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/rockmond-dunbar-loses-lawsuit-over-covid-19-vaccine-mandate)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/rockmond-dunbar-loses-lawsuit-over-covid-19-vaccine-mandate)

When the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Hollywood studios to implement strict mandatory vaccination policies, veteran actor Rockmond Dunbar sought exemptions based on his deeply held religious beliefs and medical history. As a longtime star on the hit drama 9-1-1, Dunbar requested reasonable accommodations to continue working without the injection. However, after the studio denied his requests and subsequently wrote his character out of the show, Dunbar launched a high-profile lawsuit alleging religious and racial discrimination. He claimed the studio’s actions not only cost him his position but also resulted in an industry-wide "blacklisting" that derailed his future projects. The legal saga reached its climax in a California federal court, where a jury weighed the balance between workplace safety mandates and an individual’s right to religious freedom.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Hara_v_Curaleaf.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/executive-wins-598k-severance-lawsuit-over-carbone-dinner)

[**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law)

April 1, 2026

###### [Executive Wins $598K Severance Lawsuit Over Carbone Dinner](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/executive-wins-598k-severance-lawsuit-over-carbone-dinner)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/executive-wins-598k-severance-lawsuit-over-carbone-dinner)

When cannabis giant Curaleaf terminated executive Mitchell Hara, they pointed to a dinner at Miami’s high-end Carbone restaurant as the reason. By labeling the firing "for cause" based on an expense voucher dispute, the company avoided paying out a million-dollar severance package. Hara sued, alleging the investigation was a pretext to cut costs during corporate downsizing. In a significant victory for executive rights, a federal jury found that Curaleaf’s investigation was inadequate and that denying the severance violated the "reasonable expectations" of the employment contract, resulting in a judgment of nearly $598,026 for the plaintiff.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/RANKIRITLANE.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/live-in-caregiver-overtime-class-action-fails-at-jury-trial)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

March 30, 2026

###### [Live-In Caregiver Overtime Class Action Fails at Jury Trial](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/live-in-caregiver-overtime-class-action-fails-at-jury-trial)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/live-in-caregiver-overtime-class-action-fails-at-jury-trial)

A live-in caregiver who worked 24-hour shifts caring for a 94-year-old client sued her employer for unpaid overtime, alleging the agency paid a flat daily rate with no overtime, excluded sleep and meal time without written agreements, and ignored her nightly sleep interruptions. The jury found the caregiver failed to prove her actual hours worked exceeded forty per week and returned a defense verdict on all counts.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Mancillas.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/city-performance-defense-wins-in-harassment-retaliation-suit)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wrongful Termination/Employment**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/category/wrongful-termination-employment)

March 5, 2026

###### [City Performance Defense Wins in Harassment Retaliation Suit](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/city-performance-defense-wins-in-harassment-retaliation-suit)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law/jury-verdict/city-performance-defense-wins-in-harassment-retaliation-suit)

In the matter of Mancillas v. City of Ontario, a probationary customer service representative alleged she was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and requesting mental health leave. Mancillas claimed coworkers subjected her to misogynistic insults, referencing characters from "Jersey Shore," and that HR dismissed her concerns as being "antisocial." Despite her claims of a hostile work environment and violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the City maintained her dismissal was strictly performance-based. On September 3, 2025, a San Bernardino jury delivered a defense verdict. While acknowledging her protected activities, the jury concluded that her job performance was the "substantial motivating factor" and that the City would have made the same termination decision regardless of her complaints.

1

2

3

...

15