Menu Close

Supreme Court Clears Worker Injured at Yacht Club to Sue Employer

The Alamitos Bay Yacht Club in Long Beach hired Brian Ranger as a maintenance worker. He helped the club with its fleet by painting, cleaning, maintaining, repairing, unloading, and mooring vessels.

One day, Ranger used a hoist to lower a club boat into navigable waters. He stepped from the dock onto its bow, fell, was hurt, and applied for workers’ compensation. Then he sued the club in state court on federal claims of negligence and unseaworthiness.

The trial court sustained the club’s final demurrer to the second amended complaint. The trial court ruled there was no admiralty jurisdiction.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court decision to dismiss the case in the published case of Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club – 95 Cal. App. 5th 240, 313 Cal. Rptr. 3d (September 2023). The opinion concluded that “In sum, California’s workers’ compensation law is Ranger’s exclusive remedy. Congress in 1984 decreed this state law aptly covers his situation. A core part of the state workers’ compensation bargain is that injured workers get speedy and predictable relief irrespective of fault. In return, workers are barred from suing their employers in tort. The trial court correctly dismissed Ranger’s tort suit against his employer.”

The California Supreme Court reversed in Ranger II v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club 17 Cal.5th 532 (February 2025). It ruled the Longshore Act’s exclusion of club workers from the act’s coverage meant only that the state, rather than the federal, workers’ compensation system applies, but did not otherwise deprive workers of their federal right to pursue available tort remedies under general maritime law. (Ranger, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 548.)

The state’s top court wrote “To the extent the Court of Appeal’s opinion suggests that California’s workers’ compensation scheme in itself displaces general maritime remedies and constitutes Ranger’s exclusive remedy, we disagree. It is true that California’s workers’ compensation system provides ‘a comprehensive statutory scheme governing compensation given to California employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment.” (Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 562, 14 P.3d 234].) Under Labor Code section 3602, the workers’ compensation remedy “provides an injured employee’s “exclusive” remedy against an employer for compensable work-related injuries.’ (King, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 1046.) We conclude, though, that the exclusive-remedy provision does not displace federal law in this case.”

The California Supreme Court remanded the case to back to the Court of Appeal to consider: 1) whether federal jurisdiction exists; 2) whether Ranger can assert the tort of unseaworthiness; and 3) whether Ranger can assert a negligence claim against his vessel- owning employer.

On remand the California Court of Appeal in the unpublished case of Ranger III v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club -B315302 (September 2025) answered these three questions.

In answering the first question, the Court of Appeal began with the step analysis in Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1995) 513 U.S. 527 and reviewed and applied case law following that decision and held that admiralty jurisdiction applies to Ranger’s claim.

The review next turned to the Club’s contention that, even if Ranger’s claim is within admiralty jurisdiction, he cannot bring a claim for unseaworthiness because this claim can only be brought by Jones Act seamen. After reviewing case law beginning with Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, (1946) 328 U.S. 85 and following, the Court of Appeal ruled that this “argument is incorrect. Ranger has an unseaworthiness claim.”

The Court of Appeal then moved to the third question. “We turn finally to the Club’s faulty contention that Ranger cannot bring a claim against it for negligence as a vessel owner because it is also his employer.” The Club’s argument fails because it is founded in the Longshore Act, which does not cover Ranger.”

The fact that the Longshore Act only prohibits workers engaged in certain types of service to the vessel from bringing a negligence claim suggests that even covered workers not engaged in those services can sometimes appropriately sue the vessel owner for negligence. The Club has not established Ranger cannot sue the Club for negligence as the vessel owner.”

State Drug Pricing Preemption Battle Launched in 9th Circuit

AstraZeneca is suing Hawaii over a state statute that requires pharmaceutical companies to offer discounted “340B” drugs to contract pharmacies. The company claims the statute is preempted by federal law and that federal appeals courts have made it clear that federal statute regulating such drugs does not require manufacturers to provide discounted drugs to “unlimited” contract pharmacies.

Hawaii is in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction covers the western United States, including the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Thus if this case is appealed, the outcome of the appeal will likely to some degree apply here in California, at least as to the preemption issue.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program, established under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. § 256b), requires pharmaceutical manufacturers participating in Medicaid to offer discounted outpatient drugs to qualifying “covered entities” such as safety-net hospitals, community health centers, and certain clinics serving low-income or underserved populations.

These entities can contract with external pharmacies (known as “contract pharmacies”) to dispense the discounted drugs to their patients, but the federal statute itself does not explicitly mandate that manufacturers provide these discounts through an unlimited number of such pharmacies.

Over the past few years, disputes have arisen as some manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, have imposed restrictions on contract pharmacy arrangements, citing concerns over program integrity, duplicate discounts, and diversion of drugs to ineligible patients. Federal appeals courts have largely sided with manufacturers on this point, ruling that the 340B statute does not prohibit such restrictions.

In response, several states have enacted laws to protect access to 340B discounts via contract pharmacies, effectively requiring manufacturers to honor unlimited arrangements. Hawaii joined this trend on May 30, 2025, when Governor Josh Green signed Act 143 (also known as Senate Bill 3202) into law, with an effective date of July 1, 2025.

The AstraZeneca complaint cites the Third Circuit’s decision in Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC v. HHS (58 F.4th 696, 706 (3d Cir. 2023)), which held that restrictions on contract pharmacy discounts “do[es] not violate Section 340B” and enjoined HHS from enforcing a contrary interpretation. Similarly, the D.C. Circuit in Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Johnson (102 F.4th 452, 459 (D.C. Cir. 2024)) rejected the idea that Section 340B prohibits manufacturers from imposing “any conditions” on discounts involving contract pharmacies. AstraZeneca notes that Hawaii submitted amicus briefs in both cases supporting unlimited access, but the courts ruled against that position.

Should this case be favorable to drug makers, and be successfully affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it will become binding on California unless the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case.  It is therefore a case of interest to those states who are included in 9th Circuit jurisdiction.

Corrections Officer Wrongly Accused of WC Fraud Sues Employer

Yvette Fortier Bline a former correctional deputy at the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office in California, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the County and Tehama County District Attorney Matthew D. Rogers, Tehama County Sheriff Dave Kain, Tehama County Under Sheriff Jeff Garrett and District Attorney’s Office investigator, Defendant Eric Clay,

The lawsuit alleges she accepted a position in the Tehama County Sherriffs Office in September 2008. After approximately two years of employment, she became a Correctional Deputy. Bline successfully completed required training, including P.O.S.T. Certification, to serve as a Correctional Officer at the Tehama County Jail.

In February 2017, during a 12-hour training that was fairly physically intense, Bline injured her right shoulder and neck region. Bline developed numbness and tingling in both hands following her injuries, and claimed to have developed a torn meniscus as a result to the training. She filed a workers compensation claim and was provided benefits and medical treatment.

Bline was approved for neck surgery for the injuries she sustained from the previous training incident. The spinal injuries were later included in a cumulative Workers’ Compensation claim in January 7, 2023 following her spine fusion.

Joseph Ambrose, D.C., performed a Qualified Medical Evaluation on July 7, 2022. He diagnosed lumbar disc protrusion with bilateral radiculopathy; lumbar myoligamentous sprain/strain; patellofemoral syndrome, bilateral; sacroiliac sprain/strain, chondromalacia patella; and meniscus tears in both knees. He attributed this to the continuous trauma of 13 years of employment with the County. She continued to receive medical care following his report. And disputes arose between the parties over authorization for some of the recommended care.

The complaint alleges that Bline’s “medical costs had risen to approximately a half a million dollars by the summer of 2023 for her cumulative trauma sustained during her 13 years employment working with Tehama County. Because Plaintiffs medical costs and benefits, and the costs incurred due to Plaintiffs on the job injuries at Tehama County were expensive and as of January 23, 2023, and were escalating, Defendants’ allegedly decided to form a scheme to falsely accuse Plaintiff of Insurance Fraud to retaliate against her for exercising her statutory right to seek redress through the California Workers’ Compensation benefits system by procuring unlawful search warrants to gather evidence to try to convince a trier of fact that Plaintiff performed actions that, in their opinion, were evidence of malingering.”

She was ultimately charged with two counts of insurance fraud under California Penal Code Section 550(a). She claims her reputation in the community was damaged by press releases such as an article published by the Tri-County News which was based on the press release from the District Attorney’s Office. The first sentence stated: “A Tehama County Sheriffs correctional deputy is being accused of workers’ compensation fraud in excess of $500,000.” Another press release was published by the Red Bluff Daily News on August 30, 2023, the day Bline was arrested.

After Bline was arrested, she alleges she was placed on an ankle monitor during the pendency of charges, subjected to warrantless searches of her home and property, restricted in her travel, and deprived of her county salary, employment benefits, and liberty.

The prosecution was eventually terminated in her favor. After a preliminary hearing involving several prosecution witnesses Judge Laura Woods told the prosecutor: “So, Ms. Frost you have completely failed to even remotely meet your burden. As we know, a burden of proof at a preliminary hearing is incredibly low. And you haven’t even met that.”  

The court then informed the prosecutor that: “Quite frankly, I think you can tell that I’m a little irritated and annoyed and angry that I have spent all these hours, that she has been charged with a felony, that she spent the night in jail based on these charges. It’s absolutely unconscionable to me.”

The judge continued to express her dismay: “I’ve been doing this for a long time. I was a prosecutor, and I was a defense attorney, and I’ve never seen a case like this. I cannot believe this. You should be embarrassed. The S.O. should be embarrassed. And I say that having known all these guys for 25 years This is absolutely unacceptable. And I just can’t believe it. I’m probably making inappropriate comments, but this is outrageous to me. And quite frankly, I’m angry that I had to sit here and listen to this. And I didn’t even spend the night in jail. And I didn’t have to hire a defense attorney.”

“So, I think you guys need to go back to your office and really rethink what is happening. This is ridiculous. I have known Eric Clay for a long time. I don’t have any problem telling him this is unbelievable. So-I would tell Under Sheriff Garrett that, and I would tell Sheriff Kain that as well.”

Bline’s federal lawsuit makes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiracy to violate her civil rights, specifically breaches of her First Amendment rights (retaliation for protected activity), Fourth Amendment rights (unlawful seizure and searches), and Fourteenth Amendment rights (due process violations through fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution).

ACOEM Reports Long COVID Linked to Work Productivity Loss

At two years after diagnosis of COVID-19, employees who experience long COVID symptoms have substantially reduced work productivity, reports a study in the August issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Led by Hiten Naik, MD, SM, of The University of British Columbia and the Post-COVID-19 Interdisciplinary Clinical Care Network, Vancouver, the online survey study included 908 employed patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021. Of these, 165 patients were classified as having long COVID, defined as continued symptoms three months after an initial positive COVID-19 test. Work productivity loss and work performance impairment were assessed using validated questionnaires.

About 75% of participants with ongoing long COVID symptoms reported any productivity loss within the last three months, compared to 47% of those without long COVID. After adjustment for other characteristics, employees in the long COVID group were about three times more likely to report lost productivity.

Average paid productivity loss over three months was about 62 hours, including 33 hours of absenteeism and 29 hours of presenteeism (decreased productivity at work). Long COVID was also associated with high unpaid productivity loss, including activities such as caregiving and household chores: about 37 hours, on average.

About 73% of participants with long COVID reported impaired work performance within the past week, compared to 39% of those without long COVID symptoms. On adjusted analysis, employees with long COVID were four times more likely to have work performance impairment. Based on average hourly wage, the economic impact of total productivity loss was estimated at nearly $14,000 CAD over a year.

Long COVID has been described as a “global public health crisis,” affecting over 400 million people worldwide. Although studies have shown that long COVID can impair health and occupational functioning, the overall impact on work productivity loss has been unclear.

Long COVID is “associated with substantial productivity loss, even two years after the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and even in individuals who have returned to work,” Dr. Naik and coauthors conclude. “Clinicians, health systems, and employers should understand that long COVID can have long-lasting impacts on occupational functioning and requires long-term support.”

August 25, 2025 – News Podcast


Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: 6th DCA Extends WCAB Equitable Jurisdiction Beyond 60 Days. Cal. Supreme Ct. Adds More Arbitration Agreement Exception Rules. 5th Circuit Affirms the SpaceX NLRB Constitutional Based Injunction. New Employer Burdens for OBBBA Tips/Overtime Pay Taxation. New Law Allows DIR to Issue Citations to Recover Worker Tip Theft. Stanford Announces New AI Tool That Boosts Routine Ultrasound. Employer Healthcare Costs To Increase By 9% In 2026. Judge Approves Biggest – $2.8 B – Healthcare Settlement In History.

Walgreens Agrees to Continue Providing Essential Pharmacy Services

On March 6, 2025, Walgreens announced that it agreed to be acquired by private equity firm, Sycamore. The proposed transaction, which involves over 450 California Walgreens stores. Howevever a settlement was reached under Assembly Bill 853 (AB 853), which requires notice and review by the Attorney General of transactions involving retail pharmacies and grocery stores in order to assess impact on access and labor. AB 853 was authored by former Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego) and went into effect on October 8, 2023. The settlement is subject to court approval.

Walgreens is the last nationwide and statewide independent pharmacy chain – that is, a chain not owned by one of the Big Three Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), which are CVS Caremark, Optum Rx, and Express Scripts. The proposed transaction between Walgreens and Sycamore includes, but is not limited to, the following Walgreens stores in California: six in Bakersfield, 11 in Fresno, five in Huntington Beach, 13 in Los Angeles, eight in Modesto, five in Riverside, seven in Sacramento, seven in San Diego, 26 in San Francisco, 10 in San Jose, and seven in Stockton.

The California Attorney General announced a settlement with Walgreens Co. and its succeeding owner, Sycamore Partners Management, L.P. (Sycamore), that would operate as an injunction and protect competition, patients, and pharmacy-related workers.

Under the settlement, Walgreens and Sycamore agree to the following conditions for the next seven years:

– – Use best efforts to maintain all California Walgreens stores remaining as of the date of the agreement, as well as all required licenses.
– – Provide 90-day notice of sale or closure of any remaining Walgreens stores.
– – Prohibition from reselling any of the Walgreens stores in California to any of the Big Three PBMs.
– – Prohibition from using any dividend recapitalization or other distribution of profits where such a dividend recapitalization or other distribution of profits would reasonably be likely to materially impair the operations of Walgreens.
– – Use best efforts to continue participation in Medi-Cal and Medicare.
– – Use best efforts to provide financial assistance to patients.
– – Ensure best efforts regarding compliance with state staffing levels.
– – Maintain a hiring list for all employees from stores that close going forward for preferential hiring at other Walgreens stores.
– – Use commercially reasonable efforts to pay retirement contributions if collective bargaining agreements require such payments.
– – Use commercially reasonable efforts to abstain from contesting unemployment for individuals who are laid off as a result of the sale or closure of Walgreens stores if no nearby Walgreens store offers employment.
– – Use commercially reasonable efforts to bargain with any unions in good faith.
– – Comply with nondiscrimination rules in the provision of healthcare services.

This settlement is the second reached by the California Attorney General under AB 853. The first settlement was with Rite Aid and was announced on August 19, 2024. In addition, on April 14, 2025, the California Attorney General joined a bipartisan coalition of 39 attorneys general in urging the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to enact a law that prohibits PBMs, their parent companies, or affiliates from owning or operating pharmacies.

Created in the late 1960s to process claims for drug companies, PBMs were supposed to help consumers access low-cost pharmaceutical care through negotiated volume-pricing discounts, generic substitution, manufacturer rebates, and other tools. However, PBMs have overtaken the market and now wield outsized power to reap massive profits at the expense of consumers and local community pharmacies.

Owner Sets Fire to Fresno Restaurant For Insurance Fraud

Well-known Fresno restaurant owner Robert “Bobby” Salazar, 63, has been arrested on a federal complaint for arson of commercial property and arson in furtherance of a felony for directing a motorcycle gang member to set fire to an underperforming restaurant property, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant announced.

Salazar pleaded not guilty Thursday during a federal court appearance. Prosecutors also filed additional charges after investigators discovered five firearms at his home, including four with serial numbers removed and one ghost gun.

According to court documents, on April 2, 2024, a fire broke out at the vacant Bobby Salazar’s restaurant on Blackstone Avenue in Fresno. Fire investigators determined that the cause of the fire was arson, with partially burned gas cans located inside the restaurant and extensive fire damage to the interior:

According to court documents, agents learned that the person who set the fire was the president of the local Screamin’ Demons Motorcycle Club. Salazar allegedly hired the motorcycle gang member to start the fire and then claimed to his insurance company that he had nothing to do with the arson. He was ultimately paid out at least $980,739 for his insurance claim.

If convicted, Salazar faces a mandatory minimum of five years in prison and maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison for commercial arson, as well as 10 years in prison mandatorily consecutive for arson in furtherance of a felony. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Fresno Fire Department, with assistance from the Fresno Police Department, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert L. Veneman-Hughes and Brittany M. Gunter are prosecuting the case.

Burbank Blood Test Lab Owner Pleads Guilty in Fraud Case

A Burbank man has pleaded guilty to evading the payment of more than $11.2 million in federal taxes by using a shill to illegally collect Medicare reimbursement payments made to his blood-testing company, and to fraudulently obtaining nearly $100,000 in taxpayer-funded COVID-19 business relief, the Justice Department announced today.

Armen Muradyan, 60, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of tax evasion.

According to his plea agreement, Muradyan owned and operated a Burbank-based blood testing laboratory called Genex Laboratories Inc. Medicare and bank records show that Medicare paid millions of dollars in reimbursements to Genex for blood testing. The reimbursements were wired to bank accounts in the name of an individual identified in court documents as “L.S.” – Muradyan’s long-time friend to whom Muradyan had offered to pay $2,000 per month to pretend to be Genex’s owner.

Muradyan told L.S. that he needed him to submit Medicare enrollment papers to Medicare on Genex’s behalf because Medicare had banned Muradyan from submitting claims.

L.S. and Muradyan opened bank accounts for Genex in L.S.’s name, but which Muradyan controlled. L.S. neither owned nor operated Genex and visited the company’s Burbank office to collect his $2,000 monthly payment and to sometimes sign documents at Muradyan’s direction. Muradyan used the proceeds from the health care fraud conspiracy to pay the mortgage on a property he owned.

For the tax years of 2015 through 2020, Muradyan instructed L.S. to report Genex’s financial activity on L.S.’s personal income tax returns using documents that L.S. provided to his own tax preparer. The documents purportedly showed that Genex had minimal net profit or was operating at a loss, meaning the company had little or no income tax liability.

For the same period, Muradyan submitted income tax returns that reported none of Genex’s financial activity as his own and that he averaged an income of $40,000 per year. In fact, Muradyan personally received and used millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements to support his own expensive lifestyle. Muradyan also did not file tax returns for the years 2021 through 2023.

In total, Muradyan’s unreported federal taxable income was approximately $23,915,762, resulting in a total federal income tax due and owing by him of approximately $11,236,357.

In July 2020, Muradyan wired a false and fraudulent application for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) that was funded by federal taxpayers. On the application, Muradyan falsely stated that GenMed employed multiple people and generated $800,000 in income for the year 2019. In fact, Muradyan knew GenMed employed no one and generated zero income for that year. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) wired $99,900 to a bank account Muradyan controlled. He then used the money for personal expenses not permitted under the terms of the EIDL. Muradyan admitted he acted with the intent to deceive and cheat the SBA.

United States District Judge John A. Kronstadt scheduled a December 11 sentencing hearing, at which time Muradyan will face a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison for the wire fraud count, up to 10 years in federal prison for the health care fraud conspiracy count, and up to five years in federal prison for the tax evasion count. Muradyan remains free on $2.6 million bond.

IRS Criminal Investigation, the FBI, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General investigated this matter.

Assistant United States Attorney Mark Aveis of the Major Frauds Section and Trial Attorney Mahana K. Weidler of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division are prosecuting this case.

Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at (866) 720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

Jury Finds L.A. Personal Injury Lawyer Guilty of Money Laundering

A Los Angeles-area lawyer was found guilty by a jury of receiving a $2.1 million bribe while serving as an officer of Nigeria’s state-owned oil company in connection with negotiating favorable drilling rights for a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned oil company.

Paulinus Iheanacho Okoronkwo, 58, a.k.a. “Pollie,” of Valencia, who practiced immigration, family, and personal injury law out of an office in Koreatown, was found guilty of three counts of transactional money laundering, one count of tax evasion, and one count of obstruction of justice.

According to evidence presented at a four-day trial, Okoronkwo, who is a dual citizen of the United States and Nigeria, was a foreign official who served as the general manager of the upstream division of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. (NNPC), a state-owned company through which Nigeria’s government developed that nation’s fossil fuel and natural gas reserves, including through partnerships with foreign oil companies. In this role, Okoronkwo owed a fiduciary duty to the Nigerian government and was a public official.

In October 2015, Addax Petroleum, a Switzerland-based subsidiary of Sinopec, a Chinese state-owned petroleum, gas, and petrochemical conglomerate, wired a payment of $2,105,263 to an Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA) in the name of Okoronkwo’s Los Angeles law firm, purportedly for his work as a consultant who negotiated and completed a settlement agreement with the NNPC with respect to Addax’s drilling rights in Nigeria. According to the indictment, Addax calculated that it stood to lose billions of dollars if its favorable drilling rights were not secured.

The engagement letter that Addax signed that month with Okoronkwo’s law office – with a fake address in Lagos, Nigeria – was a ruse intended to conceal the fact that its payment to Okoronkwo was a bribe in exchange for his influence in securing more favorable financial terms relating to its crude oil drilling in Nigeria.

To conceal the illegal bribery scheme, Addax falsely characterized the $2.1 million payment as a payment for legal services, lied to an auditor about the payment, and fired executives who questioned the payment’s propriety. To create the false impression that the bribe payment constituted client funds, Okoronkwo received the payment in his law firm’s IOLTA.

In November 2017, Okoronkwo used $983,200 of the illegally obtained funds to make a down payment on a house in Valencia.

Okoronkwo omitted the $2.1 million bribe payment from his 2015 federal income tax return. He also obstructed justice in June 2022 when he lied to federal investigators when he told them he did not use any of the $2.1 million to purchase a house and that the money represented client funds rather than income to his law office.

United States District Judge John F. Walter scheduled a December 1 sentencing hearing, at which time Okoronkwo will face a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each illegal monetary transactions count, up to 10 years in federal prison for the obstruction of justice count, and up to five years in federal prison for the tax evasion count. Okoronkwo is free on $50,000 bond.

The FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation investigated this matter. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided assistance.

Assistant United States Attorneys Alexander B. Schwab, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, Nisha Chandran of the Major Frauds Section, and Alexander Su of the Asset Forfeiture and Recovery Section are prosecuting this case.

Tesla HR Execs’ Lawsuit Blames HR Manager for Retaliation

Former Tesla HR execs Linda Peloquin, Adam Chow, Tiara Paulino, Sharnique Martin, Gregory Vass and Ozell Murray just filed a lawsuit against Tesla Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Case 3:25-cv-06690-AMO. The lawsuit concerns the automaker’s Fremont, California, facility that has been at the center of several previous discrimination lawsuits.

These former Tesla HR professionals alleged that they were either fired or effectively forced to resign after attempting to surface other employees’ race discrimination and retaliation complaints at the company’s Fremont, California, plant.  

According to the Peloquin complaint, one of Tesla’s HR managers, Nicole Burgers, was a “common denominator” in the various claims made by the plaintiffs. They alleged that the manager, the overall HR manager for the entire Fremont facility, “had an irrational fixation on fostering the delusion that the environment and culture at Tesla is one of tolerance and innovation, rather than racism and retaliation.”

Allegations continue to say that “Much of Tesla’s workplace toxicity stems from its rapid sales growth and manufacturing demand, and the breakneck pace at which it hired employees to work in its plants and overall operation. Since its introduction in 2020, Tesla’s “Model Y,” for instance, has become the Company’s top-selling vehicle line – and, by most estimates, one of the top-selling electric vehicles in the world. Thus, there was, and remains, constant pressure to keep the Model Y’s sales trajectory high.”

“Yet, as a consequence of this desire to produce vehicles at such a rapid pace, the Company has failed to cultivate a healthy working environment at the Fremont facility, and instead fostered one that is beset with racism, sexism, cronyism, and outright physical violence.”

Plaintiffs claim “even employees that had been terminated for instances of workplace violence were loopholed back in via temp agencies. That meant, then, that oftentimes the employee who had been previously victimized had to actually resume working with their attacker and tormentor.”

“In fact, that Senior Security Manager himself was attacked and suffered a serious injury when he attempted to stop a loopholed employee – one who had been returned to work after being terminated for cause – after that employee came back aboard and attacked another worker.”

At some point plaintiffs allege that Tesla “turned its ire on the HR professionals that had merely investigated and substantiated the bases of the complaints. So, oddly, in most instances it was the HR official that wound up being penalized and pushed out for substantiating the alleged wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoer themselves. Consequently, a dizzying number of HR professionals – the Plaintiffs here: Peloquin, Chow, Paulino, Martin, and Vass, among them – have either been outright fired for substantiating complaints of discrimination and retaliation, or resigned because they saw a termination coming and did not want that type of disciplinary stain on their job history.

Details of the complaint allege “A common denominator in many of these terminations is a HR Manager named Nicole Burgers. By all accounts, Burgers has had an irrational fixation on fostering the delusion that the environment and culture at Tesla is one of tolerance and innovation, rather than racism and retaliation. By all accounts, given that Burgers was the overall HR manager for the entire Fremont facility, she believed that she would be held accountable for further instances of racism and misconduct at the Fremont location – particularly in light of the pending State, Federal, and private litigation against the Company. Thus, rather than undertake to change the culture and environment that fostered those types of instances of racism, Burgers instead undertook to weed out the HR professionals beneath her that merely investigated and substantiated the occurrence of that type of depravity.”

Page 24 of the 159 page complaint continues to provide details by writing “Karen Draper was one of the first dominos to fall in what became a long line of retaliatory terminations by Burgers and her Texas-based counterparts – Allie Arebalo, Bert Somsin, Jenifer Romero, and Leah Allen – or, instances where other HR professionals simply resigned under protest because they knew Burgers had begun to target them.