Parents Claim Child's IEP was Ignored Leading to the Student's Death: Estate of Kody Townsend v. CPS

The parents of 10-year-old Kody Townsend have sued the public school system in Cook County Circuit Court (Case No. 2025L007034), alleging the school's staff ignored their son's seizure-care plans, left him unsupervised at lunch, and mishandled the resulting medical emergency, causing his death.

Estate of Kody Townsend v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

Court: Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court

Case No.: 2025L007034

The Plaintiffs: Townsend v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Chicago Public Schools)

The Estate of Kody Townsend, through parents Travis Townsend and Lakeisha Jones-Townsend, seeks damages for wrongful death. Kody had Lennox-Gastaut seizure disorder and developmental delays; his Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Seizure Action Plan required constant adult supervision (especially while eating), and included step-by-step emergency protocols.

The Defendant: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The defendant, Chicago Public Schools, operates Henry R. Clissold Elementary, where Kody was enrolled as a student. The lawsuit contends district employees willfully ignored written medical directives and then failed to provide (or relay to paramedics) the care specified in those directives.

The Case: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The Townsend family listed claims of negligence and wrongful death based on willful and wanton misconduct. They also included more details regarding their key allegations, including:

• Unsupervised Meal: On Oct 18, 2024, Kody ate without the required one-to-one monitor as specified in his IEP, suffered a seizure, choked on food, and went into cardiac arrest.

• 9 Minute Delay: Staff waited about nine minutes before attempting the first seizure-response step; when that failed, they neither advanced to the next step nor called 911 promptly.

• Airway Oversight: Staff failed to inform arriving EMS that Kody's airway was obstructed, resulting in a delay in life-saving care.

• Known Risk: Personnel were fully aware (from the IEP and Seizure Action Plan) of Kody's heightened danger during meals, yet disregarded those documents.

The wrongful death lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and systemic changes to enforce IEP compliance throughout the district.

The Main Question: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Did Chicago Public Schools act with reckless disregard by ignoring Kody Townsend's documented need for meal-time supervision and by failing to follow or communicate seizure protocols, thereby causing his fatal cardiac arrest?

FAQ: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Q: What specific protections did Kody's IEP and Seizure Action Plan mandate?

A: Continuous adult supervision during meals, step-wise seizure-response procedures (two distinct interventions), and immediate EMS notification if the first step failed.

Q: How long did the staff wait before taking action?

A: The complaint says approximately nine minutes elapsed before any seizure protocol was attempted, well beyond best-practice response times for airway obstruction and seizures.

Q: Why is failure to tell EMS about the blocked airway significant?

A: Clearing the airway is the first priority in this type of medical emergency. Failing to advise paramedics that an airway is blocked risks wasting critical minutes on ineffective interventions.

Q: The parents claimed "willful and wanton" misconduct; what standard must be met to prove this type of claim?

A: To prove a "willful and wanton" misconduct claim, they must show that the school staff knew about Kody's health risks, and consciously disregarded the information. If the plaintiffs can prove the school staff knew and disregarded Kody's condition/associated health risks, it becomes more than merely an act of negligence.

Q: Could this lawsuit lead to broader policy changes?

A: Yes. Wrongful-death suits often push districts to tighten IEP enforcement, retrain staff on medical plans, and adopt stricter emergency-response protocols.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Plantation Slur Case: Pierce v. Tesla Settlement

In Pierce v. Tesla Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal., Case No. 22-03177), a Black production-line worker alleging pervasive racial harassment at Tesla’s Fremont factory has reached an undisclosed settlement with the automaker after court-ordered mediation.

The Case: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

The Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 22-03177

The Plaintiff: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Raina Pierce, who installed door latches at the Fremont, California facility, said she endured daily racial slurs—both spoken and written on walls and bathroom stalls—and was disciplined for conduct tolerated in non-Black colleagues. A supervisor allegedly greeted crews with phrases like “welcome to the plantation.”

The Defendant: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Tesla Inc. operates the Fremont assembly plant where Pierce worked. While the company denies wrongdoing, it has faced multiple race-bias suits from current and former employees, including the high-profile Diaz verdicts and a pending class action on behalf of thousands of Black workers.

The Case: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

The plaintiffs included multiple claims alleging they experienced a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation; all violating federal and California labor law. The key allegations included in the case details were racial epithets and graffiti visible thoruhgout the factory, a manager that consistently used racially charged greetings, and unequal disciplinary actions when compared to non-Black employee disciplinary actions.

A Timeline of the Case Milestones: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

May 2022: the complaint was filed in federal court.

Discovery revealing corroboratig witness statements.

April 17, 2025: Involved parties notified the court the mediator's proposal was accepted. The terms of the agreement remain confidential (pending final paperwork).

The Main Question: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Did Tesla permit a racially hostile environment and unequal discipline practices at its Fremont plant, thereby violating civil rights laws, and, if so, what compensation or reforms were warranted? The confidential settlement ends the litigation without a trial.

FAQ: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Q: What did Pierce allege was the worst conduct?

A: She cited a supervisor’s “plantation/slave house” greetings, ubiquitous racist graffiti, and harsher discipline than non-Black peers.

Q: Are the settlement terms public?

A: No. The parties agreed to keep monetary amounts and any non-financial provisions confidential.

Q: Does settlement mean Tesla admitted guilt?

A: Typically, private settlements include no admission of liability; they merely resolve the claims.

If you are experiencing workplace discrimination and need to talk about filing a California lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Chair Denied, $11 M Verdict: Roque v. Octapharma

A San Diego County jury awarded more than $11 million to a 74-year-old medical screener who claimed that Octapharma Plasma, Inc. refused a simple accommodation (a chair for her back pain) and then fired her due to her age.

The Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2021-00020936-CU-WT-CTL

The Plaintiff: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Raquel Roque (age 74) worked as a medical screener at an Octapharma plasma-donation center. She suffered chronic back pain and repeatedly asked to sit while conducting screenings.

The Defendant: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Octapharma Plasma, Inc. operates plasma-collection centers nationwide and sets the on-site procedures and working conditions for staff who conduct donor eligibility screenings.

The Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Claims: failure to accommodate a disability, disability discrimination, age discrimination, and wrongful termination under California’s FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act).

Key Allegations: There were 2 key allegations in the case, 1) Octapharma denied Roque's request for a chair forcing her to stand for extended shifts, and 2) When Roque persisted, she was terminated (the company cited performance, but she alleged it was age bias)

The Main Question in the Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Did Octapharma Plasma unlawfully refuse a reasonable accommodation (a chair) and terminate Roque because of her age, warranting compensatory and punitive damages under FEHA?

FAQ: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Q: Is providing a chair considered a reasonable accommodation?

A: Yes. Under FEHA (and the ADA), an employer must offer adjustments, such as seating, that enable an employee with a medical condition to perform essential job functions, unless the change causes undue hardship.

Q: Does the absence of economic loss usually limit verdicts?

A: Not in California. Juries can—and frequently do—assign substantial noneconomic and punitive damages even when wage loss is minimal or nonexistent.

Q: What takeaway does this verdict offer employers?

A: Swiftly evaluate and, if feasible, grant minor accommodations; document the process; and ensure performance issues are legitimate and well-supported before terminating protected workers.

If you are experiencing workplace discrimination and need to talk about filing a California lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Injury, Leave & Demotion: Miller v. CDCR Disability Case

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, has affirmed summary judgment for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Miller v. CDCR (Case No. E081230), holding that the agency lawfully placed an injured correctional officer on unpaid leave after she could no longer perform the essential duties of her job.

The Case: Miller v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

The Court: California Fourth Appellate District Division Two

The Case No.: E081230 (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2000221)

The Plaintiff: Miller v. CDCR

Maria Miller, a correctional officer injured in a 2016 slip-and-fall, exhausted workers' comp benefits by 2018. Facing permanent medical restrictions (that were later compounded by a disclosed mental-health condition), she declined CDCR's offer of a "medical demotion" to a lighter-duty position and remained on unpaid leave. In 2020, she filed a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The Defendant: Miller v. CDCR

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Miller's employer, is responsible for ensuring correctional-facility security while accommodating employees' disabilities in compliance with FEHA.

The Case: Miller v. CDCR

Claims: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.

Trial Court (Riverside County): Granted summary judgment for CDCR, finding Miller could not perform essential correctional-officer functions and that CDCR offered reasonable accommodations she refused.

Court of Appeal Ruling: Affirmed.

Key points: An employer may take adverse action when an employee's disability renders it impossible to perform essential duties.

CDCR met its burden by offering a medical demotion; disability retirement is not a reasonable accommodation under FEHA. Even if the interactive process was imperfect, liability requires proof that a feasible accommodation existed and was withheld.

The Main Questions in the Case: Miller v. CDCR

When an employee's permanent medical restrictions prevent them from performing essential job functions, can an employer satisfy the FEHA by offering alternative positions, and by doing so, can they avoid liability? Does it change the situation if the employee refuses the alternate position and alleges flaws in the interactive process? After considering these essential questions, the appellate court ruled in favor of CDCR.

FAQ: Miller v. CDCR

Q: Why wasn't disability retirement considered a reasonable accommodation?

A: FEHA defines a reasonable accommodation as a workplace adjustment enabling the employee to perform the job, whereas disability retirement removes the employee from the workforce altogether, contrary to FEHA's goal of keeping employees working when possible.

Q: Does an employer's imperfect interactive process automatically create liability?

A: No. An employee must demonstrate a specific, objectively available accommodation that the employer failed to provide; absent that, procedural flaws alone are insufficient.

Q: What is a "medical demotion," and is it legal?

A: A medical demotion reassigns an employee to a lower-level role compatible with medical restrictions, often with reinstatement rights if health improves. Courts view it as a legitimate accommodation when higher-level duties can't be performed.

Q: Can failure to accommodate double as disability discrimination?

A: Not necessarily. An employer may be liable for failing to accommodate without being liable for discrimination if no adverse employment action stems from bias.

Q: What lessons does this case offer California employers?

A: Document essential job functions, explore all viable accommodations—including reassignment—and remember that FEHA liability hinges on whether a workable accommodation existed, not on perfection in the dialogue.

If you have questions about filing a workplace discrimination complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Lively v. Wayfarer: Harassment & Defamation Showdown

Actor Blake Lively has sued Wayfarer Studios, its co-founder Justin Baldoni, and associated PR firms in the Southern District of New York, alleging workplace sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign that damaged her reputation and business interests (Case No. 1:24-cv-10049).

The Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

The Court: Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y)

The Case No.: 1:24-cv-10049

The Plaintiff: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Blake Lively, star and producer of the film It Ends With Us, asserts that during production, Baldoni engaged in un-rehearsed physical contact, sought to add intimate scenes without an intimacy coordinator, and later orchestrated a media strategy to discredit her after she complained, causing sales of her hair-care brand to drop sharply.

The Defendant: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, and affiliated crisis-PR consultants are named as defendants. Lively contends that they hired public relations professionals to suppress her allegations and “bury” her public image. At the same time, the defendants deny any misconduct and claim they acted to protect their reputations.

The Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Lively’s claims (Dec 2024 filing): sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, and business losses tied to an alleged smear campaign.

Procedural status:

An emotional-distress count was dismissed on June 3, 2025, but core harassment and retaliation claims remain.

Defendants countersued in January 2025 for defamation and civil extortion, seeking $400 million. Most of that countersuit was dismissed on June 9, 2025, leaving only potential contract-interference allegations for possible refiling.

Lively has subpoenaed internal text messages and phone records; defendants have sought third-party communications they say support their defense.

Related litigation: A crisis-PR consultant and a former Wayfarer PR firm have filed separate actions over the dispute, alleging defamation and breach of contract. None of these suits directly involves Lively’s wage-and-hour or labor claims, but they could impact discovery and public perception.

The Main Question in the Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Did Wayfarer Studios and Justin Baldoni engage in unlawful workplace harassment and retaliatory reputation-damage tactics against Blake Lively, and, if so, are they liable for the resulting economic and emotional harm? Conversely, did Lively’s public statements cross the line into actionable defamation against the defendants?

FAQ: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Q: What behavior does Lively allege constituted sexual harassment?

A: She says Baldoni improvised intimate physical contact and tried to add nudity and graphic scenes without prior discussion or an intimacy coordinator, creating an unsafe work environment.

Q: What is meant by a “retaliatory smear campaign”?

A: Lively claims the defendants hired PR professionals to release or amplify negative stories, monitor social-media chatter, and otherwise undermine her credibility after she complained about on-set conduct.

Q: Why was the emotional-distress claim dismissed?

A: The court ruled that, as pleaded, it did not meet the legal standard for a separate tort; however, the underlying harassment and retaliation counts were allowed to proceed.

Q: What remains of the defendants’ $400 million countersuit?

A: The court threw out the defamation and civil-extortion counts but allowed defendants an opportunity to replead limited claims of interference with contractual relationships.

Q: Could third-party subpoenas affect the outcome?

A: Yes. Phone records, text messages, and PR-firm documents may provide key evidence of either a coordinated smear effort (supporting Lively) or benign reputation management (supporting the defendants), which could influence liability and damages.

If you have questions about filing a workplace discrimination complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

On-Call Meal Breaks Disputed: Garrett v. Core Analytics

In Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 24CV103976), hourly imaging-services employees claim they were kept on duty during meal and rest breaks—allegedly violating a wide swath of California wage-and-hour statutes.

Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Case No.: 24CV103976

The Plaintiff: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Lere Garrett has worked for Core Analytics Radiology since July 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee at the company’s clinical-laboratory and mobile X-ray operations in Alameda County. On behalf of a putative California class, Garrett seeks back wages, penalties, and expense reimbursements for uncompensated break time and other alleged payroll shortfalls.

The Defendant: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Core Analytics Radiology, Inc. operates diagnostic imaging services, including mobile X-ray units, throughout California. As an employer, it must comply with Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 351, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802, as well as the applicable Wage Order governing meal and rest periods, minimum wages, overtime premiums, wage statements, and expense reimbursement.

The Case: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Forum & Status: Pending class action in Alameda County Superior Court.

Core Allegations:

• Employees were required to stay on duty or be on call and face interruptions during off-duty meal breaks.

• Second meal periods were not provided on shifts exceeding ten hours.

• Overtime, minimum wage, and business-expense reimbursements were allegedly shorted.

• Pay stubs allegedly omitted required details (hours, rates, periods) in violation of § 226.

Statutory Hooks: Labor Code §§ 201–203 (waiting-time penalties), 226 (wage statements), 226.7 & 512 (meal/rest), 2802 (expenses), plus minimum- and overtime-wage provisions.

Relief Sought: Unpaid wages, premium pay for missed breaks, statutory and civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, and complete reimbursement of class members’ losses.

The Main Question: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Did Core Analytics Radiology’s on-call scheduling and payroll practices—especially its failure to provide uninterrupted, off-duty meal and rest periods—violate California Labor Code requirements, thereby entitling Garrett and similarly situated employees to wages and statutory penalties?

FAQ: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Q: What constitutes an “off-duty” meal break under California law?

A: The employee must be relieved of all work duties and employer control for at least 30 uninterrupted minutes. Being required to stay on call—or getting pulled back mid-break—invalidates the meal period and triggers premium pay.

Q: How much is the meal-break premium if my employer violates the rule?

A: For each workday an employer fails to provide a compliant meal or rest break, they owe the worker an extra hour of pay at the employee's regular pay rate (Labor Code § 226.7).

Q: Can missed meal breaks also affect overtime calculations?

A: Yes. If on-duty meal periods extend the total hours worked beyond eight in a day or 40 in a week, those extra minutes count toward overtime, which must be paid at 1.5 times or 2 times the regular rate, as applicable.

Q: What details must appear on a compliant California wage statement?

A: Pay stubs must list total hours worked, all hourly rates, gross and net wages, pay-period dates, employer name and address, and accrued paid-sick-leave balances. Missing or inaccurate data can result in penalties on a per-pay-period basis under § 226.

Q: Are business-expense reimbursements part of this lawsuit?

A: Yes. Garrett alleges that Core Analytics failed to reimburse employees for required expenses (e.g., mobile service mileage, equipment, or phone use), a violation of Labor Code § 2802, which can result in repayment plus interest and attorneys’ fees.

If you have questions about filing a wage and hour complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Carr v. 2nd Street USA: Wage-Statement Class Action

In Sterling Carr v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al., a pending class action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, employees claim that the second-hand retail chain systematically violated multiple California wage-and-hour protections, most notably the requirement to provide accurate, itemized wage statements.

The Case: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV12806

The Plaintiff: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

Sterling Carr, an hourly employee of 2nd Street USA, Inc., brings this suit on behalf of himself and similarly situated workers. He alleges that the company’s wage practices—reflected in faulty pay stubs; short-changed employees and masked other Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

2nd Street USA, Inc. operates “2nd STREET” resale boutiques throughout California. As Carr’s direct employer, the company is responsible for complying with California Labor Code §§ 201–203, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 2802, as well as the applicable Wage Orders.

The Case: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

The wage and hour class action was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The complaint included several allegations, including:

• Failure to pay minimum and overtime wages

• Failure to comply with meal and rest breaks laws

• Failure to reimburse business expenses

• Failure to pay sick wages and all wages when due

• Failure to furnish accurate wage statements—pay stubs allegedly omitted hourly rates, total hours worked, and pay-period dates, violating Labor Code § 226(a)

The plaintiff filed suit seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff also seeks civil penalties under PAGA.

The Main Question in the Case: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

Did 2nd Street USA’s pay-stub format—and the underlying payroll practices it concealed—violate Labor Code § 226 and related provisions, thereby entitling Sterling Carr and other employees to statutory penalties and back wages?

FAQ: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

Q: What information must appear on a California wage statement?

A: According to Labor Code § 226, California wage statements must include: total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates, gross and net wages earned, payroll dates, and employer identification details. Missing any of these can trigger statutory penalties.

Q: Can an inaccurate wage statement alone support a lawsuit?

A: Yes. Even if all wages were paid, employees may sue for penalties if the employer fails to provide accurate, itemized statements, because transparency is a right protected by California law.

Q: How does a class action benefit workers in wage-statement cases?

A: A class action lets employees pool smaller individual claims (often just a few hundred dollars each) into one lawsuit, increasing leverage and reducing legal costs while ensuring uniform relief for all affected workers.

Q: What penalties could 2nd Street USA face if Carr prevails?

A: The company could owe per-pay-period penalties under § 226(e), waiting-time penalties for any late final wages, reimbursement for unpaid expenses, and additional civil penalties under PAGA—plus attorneys’ fees and interest.

Q: Do employees have to show they were underpaid to win wage-statement penalties?

A: Not necessarily. California courts hold that the mere failure to provide required information—causing difficulty in verifying pay—can constitute “injury,” making the employer liable for statutory damages even when wage amounts are otherwise correct.

If you have questions about filing a wage and hour complaint, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.