According to the filing, the Plaintiff reported inappropriate conduct from a male volleyball coach with the The Latin School of Chicago with female volleyball players to her supervisor, in an effort to protect young female students. The lawsuit alleges that at no point did the leadership at The Latin School of Chicago express any concerns for the female volleyball players. However, The Latin School of Chicago and its administration ignored these reports, allowing the conduct to continue.

The Complaint also further alleges that Plaintiff was discriminated against by coaches in The Latin School of Chicago’s athletics department by being marginalized, ignored and dismissed.  The Complaint alleges that the head coach of the volleyball team ensured that he only worked with male coaches at  The Latin School of Chicago by ignoring any improper behavior by male coaches, conspiring with another male coach to manufacture a complaint about the Plaintiff, all to facilitate the wrongful termination of the Plaintiff.

“This complaint describes a continued pattern of failed leadership and institutional misconduct at The Latin School of Chicago. The safety and well-being of students must always come first” said  Justin DeLuca, counsel for the Plaintiff and attorney at Ellis Legal P.C “However, The Latin School of Chicago’s reputation is more important than the safety and protection of students and the only way to  do that is to silence those who speak out about the pattern of abuse, discrimination, and toxic environment at The Latin School of Chicago.”

The defendants have not yet filed a response to the lawsuit. All allegations described in the complaint are claims made by the plaintiff and have not been adjudicated by the Court.

Bloomberg Law’s Leading Law Firms recognition highlights firms that demonstrate exceptional performance across key measures of success, including financial strength, talent, growth, and innovation. The distinction reflects a firm’s ability to deliver outstanding client service while adapting to the evolving legal and business landscape.

“We are honored for GreatLaw to be recognized by Bloomberg Law as one of its Leading Law Firms for 2026,” said Barry McFadden, Co-Managing Partner of McFadden Trachtenberg PLLC. “We are incredibly grateful to our clients, colleagues, and team members who have supported us throughout our 10 year journey as a firm.”

Founded in 2016, McFadden Trachtenberg has built a reputation for delivering sophisticated legal services with the responsiveness and efficiency clients expect from a modern law firm. The firm’s attorneys advise businesses, governmental entities, contractors, entrepreneurs, investors, financial institutions, politicians, and individuals on a wide range of matters, including corporate transactions, commercial litigation, government and public law, commercial real estate, construction, golf course industry, lending and financial services, energy, aviation and employment law.

The firm’s inclusion on Bloomberg Law’s Leading Law Firms 2026 list follows a period of continued growth and expansion, reflecting GreatLaw’s ongoing investment in talent, technology, and client service initiatives.

“It’s incredibly fulfilling to be acknowledged for the hard work our team puts into every matter, for every client,” said Brian Trachtenberg, Co-Managing Partner of McFadden Trachtenberg PLLC. “This is what happens when a great group of people likes what they do, likes doing it together, and likes who we do it for every day.”

As McFadden Trachtenberg celebrates its tenth year in practice, the firm remains committed to delivering practical and innovative legal solutions to clients for many years to come.

“As one of the fastest growing ADR firms in the country, we are continually evolving, and that means enhancing not only the services we offer clients, but how we serve our clients,” says Parag Shah, CEO of Miles. “Our new website and Adira, our new case management platform, will make it easier for clients to find the right neutral for their cases, check neutral availability, schedule mediations, access case information, and explore other services — all in one streamlined, easy-to-use place.”

The upgrades include the following features:

• Improved search functionality
  Find the right neutral for your case more quickly, with better filtering and more intuitive results.
• Real-time neutral availability
  View and compare availability instantly — so scheduling takes less time.
• Expanded access to Miles’ services
  Easily explore and book services like ADR OnDemand, arbitration, special master appointments, and private trials — all in one place.
• Simplified document handling
  Upload, access, and manage case materials more efficiently to our encrypted, secure platform.
• Practice development tools

Access to thought leadership, continuing legal education courses, and other resources to help you thrive in your legal practice.

“The idea behind these enhancements is simple: to provide an exceptional experience to the clients we serve, leaving them free to focus on their cases, and their own clients,” adds Shah. “And we look forward to continuing to respond to our clients’ needs as Miles expands.”

According to the complaint, Benson Fischer — who states he has never met or spoken to Dennis Yu, became the target of an online campaign that commenced in April 2025. The complaint asserts the conflict stems from Fischer’s work as a business and franchise consultant for 12 franchisees of Nautical Bowls, who were in a legal dispute with the parent franchising company.

Extortion and “Digital Warfare”

Benson Fischer alleges that Yu, who established a professional relationship with Nautical Bowls in 2024, used LinkedIn and various internet platforms in an effort to harass Fischer. The goal, according to the filing, was to pressure Benson Fischer into abandoning his consulting role and halt his assistance to attorney Richard Schimel in the franchisees’ pursuit of a settlement.

Fischer alleges that Yu’s conduct escalated into what it describes as a “digital warfare” strategy, including:

• Cybersquatting: The complaint alleges Yu purchased domain names including Benson-Fischer.com and BensonFisher.com without consent to use as a weapon.
• SEO Manipulation: The complaint states Yu used these domains and the name “ZivZo” in numerous URLs to elevate disparaging content in Google search results.
• Targeting Legal Counsel: The lawsuit alleges Yu also purchased the domain RichardSchimel.com to post articles criticizing Fischer’s attorney’s website and used unauthorized photographs of Schimel in his postings.

Nautical Bowls Connection

The litigation against Yu is proceeding alongside a related action. In a separate case filed in the same court, Benson Fischer has also sued Nautical Bowls Franchising Company, LLC (Case No. 8:25-cv-02286), also seeking $6 million in damages.

The second complaint alleges that Nautical Bowls Franchising Company conspired with Dennis Yu after Nautical Bowls’ attack on Fischer failed. The complaint alleges that Nautical Bowls efforts were designed to obstruct Fischer’s consulting services and interfere with the franchisees’ pursuit of a resolution.

Dennis Yu’s Refusal to Remove Content

After five days of mediation in September 2025, Benson Fischer and Richard Schimel settled all of the franchisees’ claims. According to the complaint, Yu has not removed the posts referencing Fischer and ZivZo, and Fischer’s requests for removal have been unsuccessful.

According to court filings, Yu’s year-long online activity includes more than 20 articles that the complaint characterizes as containing a “mix of fabrications and unsubstantiated statements about Fischer, his marketing firm ZivZo”, and his legal counsel, Richard Schimel.

Benson Fischer further alleges that Yu has conditioned removal of the posts on a monetary payment and the dismissal of Fischer’s federal lawsuit. Court records show that Yu did not file any counterclaims to justify such financial demand.

Over the past year, Benson Fischer has filed four Peace Order petitions (restraining orders) and obtained temporary court orders directing Yu to cease his online activity referencing Fischer and ZivZo and to remove all related posts. According to the complaint, to secure a permanent order Yu must be served by a process server or a local Sheriff’s Department, and service has been attempted nearly 30 times without success.

Dennis Yu’s Pattern of Behavior

The Maryland complaint alleges what it characterizes as a “pattern of behavior” by Yu involving other individuals and legal professionals. Fischer’s complaint references a separate case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:25-cv-80391), which the Maryland complaint describes as similar in nature.

In the Florida case, Yu engaged in similar conduct involving Lisa T. Miller and her legal counsel, including former State Attorney Dave Aronberg and attorney L.A. Perkins. The Maryland complaint alleges that, as in the Fischer matter, the Florida case involved allegations that Yu purchased domains containing the attorneys’ names.

CASE INFORMATION

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
ZivZo, LLC & Benson J. Fischer v. Dennis Yu
Case No. 8:25-CV-02075-PX

Built for litigators, Lexertia helps attorneys move from an assignment to a structured litigation document draft with ease. Attorneys provide the facts, related documents, and strategic direction; Lexertia generates the litigation work product aligned with the attorney’s inputs and case materials.

“The Avatar Associate changes the experience from prompting software to assigning work,” said Ehab M. Samuel, Co-Founder and CEO of Lexertia. “That distinction matters because it personalizes the drafting experience around the workflow attorneys already know: assigning work, shaping strategy, and refining work product.

The platform is designed to create detailed drafts of motions, oppositions, replies, and supporting litigation documents, including notices, declarations, and exhibits. Lexertia also allows users to compare multiple draft paths side-by-side, refine selected sections, and build a stronger final work product.

Key features include:

• Avatar Associate workflow for guided litigation drafting
• Structured drafts built around motions, briefs, and arguments
• Multiple draft options for comparison and refinement
• Record-grounded drafting based on user-provided facts, filings, and exhibits
• Built-in checks to help identify inconsistencies, unsupported assertions, and citation gaps

To learn more, visit lexertia.ai.

Plaintiff is a Forensic Social Worker in The Legal Aid Society’s Parole Revocation Defense (“PRDU”) Unit. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has ankylosing spondylitis and underwent medical treatment that rendered her immunocompromised. According to the complaint, Plaintiff sought a disability-based accommodation that would allow her to limit unnecessary courthouse exposure while remaining available to attend court when her physical presence was needed for client meetings, attorney support, hearings, or other court-related needs.

The complaint alleges that, rather than provide interim protection or conduct a good-faith individualized assessment, The Legal Aid Society required Plaintiff to remain physically present in court or the courthouse for up to seven hours per day during several court-coverage days, including when no client-specific or attorney-specific need required her physical presence. Plaintiff alleges that she had previously performed her job by working from The Legal Aid Society office across the street from the Bronx courthouse and attending court in-person when needed.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff requested a disability-based accommodation to work from The Legal Aid Society office during onsite court-coverage shifts and to attend court when called, rather than maintaining continuous courthouse presence. The complaint alleges that The Legal Aid Society denied her disability-based accommodation request on January 20, 2026, asserted that in-person/onsite court coverage was an essential function of the PRDU Forensic Social Worker role, and failed to provide an effective interim accommodation while the request was pending.

The complaint further alleges that The Legal Aid Society re-characterized Plaintiff’s job duties after she sought an accommodation, demanded unnecessary additional medical documentation, failed to engage in a good-faith cooperative dialogue, and retaliated against Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who requested disability-based accommodations or opposed disability accommodation practices.

Plaintiff alleges that, during the period when her accommodation request remained unresolved, she was required to continue disputed in-person court coverage without interim protection. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ refusal to provide interim protection required unnecessary or excessive courthouse exposure while she was immunocompromised and materially increased her risk of infection.

The complaint further alleges that other Legal Aid Society employees experienced similar accommodation-related practices. It seeks certification of four proposed classes: (1) a Location-Based Accommodation Class for employees who requested work-location, remote-work, reduced-presence, or exposure-limiting accommodations, (2) a Post-Request Job-Duty Recharacterization Class for employees whose duties or asserted essential functions were allegedly changed after they requested accommodations, (3) a NYCHRL Accommodation Delay Class for employees whose requests were allegedly delayed, including without interim measures, and (4) an Additional Medical Documentation Class for employees allegedly required to provide unnecessary or excessive medical documentation.

The ten-count complaint asserts claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint’s claims include: alleged failure to reasonably accommodate; retaliation; interference, coercion, threats, and intimidation; medical inquiry violations; unlawful qualification standards and screening; failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue; and aiding and abetting liability against the individual defendants under the NYCHRL.

Among other requested relief, Plaintiff seeks class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief requiring lawful, timely, individualized accommodation procedures, prompt interim measures while accommodation requests are pending, limits on allegedly unnecessary medical-documentation demands, as well as training, monitoring, and other forward-looking relief. As to declaratory relief, Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that The Legal Aid Society’s alleged conduct was willful and undertaken with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the proposed classes.

Plaintiff also seeks individual relief including back pay, front pay, reinstatement and/or full grant of the requested accommodation, compensatory damages, punitive damages under the NYCHRL, nominal damages, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs, and interest.

The case is Kubicki v. The Legal Aid Society, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03882, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint contains allegations only. The Court has not made any findings on the merits, and Defendants have not been adjudicated liable for any of the alleged conduct.

CASE INFORMATION

Southern District of New York
Kubicki v. The Legal Aid Society, et al.
Case No. 1:26-cv-03882

Overholt joins Paul Mackowski, Keith Mundrick, W. Andrew Kirtley and R. Daniel Faust, who also joined SKO in March, collectively strengthening the firm’s business, litigation and regulatory capabilities in Indianapolis.

“Suzannah joining SKO continues the strategic evolution of our Indianapolis office,” said P. Douglas Barr, member and managing director of SKO. “Her experience leading highly regulated healthcare operations and advising organizations across multiple sectors directly reinforces our ability to deliver business‑focused guidance to clients managing complex operational demands.”

Overholt’s arrival further enhances SKO’s capabilities in key sectors such as healthcare, and her multidisciplinary background reinforces the firm’s focus on providing integrated legal and business guidance to organizations managing sophisticated regulatory requirements, operational challenges and strategic growth initiatives.

SKO’s strategic transformation reflects the firm’s focus on delivering quality legal and business insight through collaborative teams that support clients across state lines and industry sectors. SKO is trusted by businesses in Indiana, Kentucky and beyond to support organizational goals and solve challenges.

About Suzannah Wilson Overholt

Suzannah Wilson Overholt brings more than three decades of experience advising clients across the healthcare, nonprofit, public and private sectors, with a practice spanning regulatory compliance, licensing, employment, corporate governance and healthcare‑related operational matters. She has guided clients through complex commercial and corporate transactions, contract negotiations, nonprofit governance issues and zoning matters involving healthcare facilities. She previously served as Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel for one of Indiana’s largest healthcare providers, where she oversaw compliance, regulatory oversight, merger integration, contracting and organizational operations supporting more than 50,000 patients.

Her background also includes significant public‑sector experience designing government reform initiatives, negotiating labor agreements and litigating employment discrimination and constitutional claims. She regularly advises clients on the False Claims Act (FCA), Anti‑Kickback Statute (AKS), Stark Law and other federal and state healthcare regulations, and represents clients in related litigation. Drawing on her combined experience in private practice, executive leadership and public service, Overholt delivers efficient, business‑aligned legal solutions grounded in practical operational insight.

Landmark verdict follows fierce liability dispute, competing medical testimony, and defense claims of unrelated, exaggerated, and overlapping injuries

Bronx, New York — April 2, 2026 — Proner & Proner announced that a Bronx County jury has returned a verdict of $36,398,000 in favor of plaintiff Honorio Rosario‑Silverio in the matter of Honorio Rosario‑Silverio v. PPC Commercial, LLC, et al., tried before the Honorable Wilma Guzman in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The verdict was rendered on February 4, 2026.

The jury awarded a total of $36,398,000, including $5,000,000 for past pain and suffering, $20,000,000 for future pain and suffering, $10,000,000 for future medical expenses, $468,000 for past lost earnings, and $930,000 for future loss of earnings.

The case arose from a serious workplace accident on October 14, 2017, at a Foodtown supermarket in the Parkchester section of the Bronx. Mr. Rosario‑Silverio was working for his employer, a non‑party to the lawsuit, installing a commercial rack refrigeration system in the store’s basement. A metal plate had been placed over the basement stairway to create a makeshift ramp so the heavy refrigeration components could be moved downstairs.

According to the evidence presented at trial, ordinary cooking oil was applied to the ramp so the equipment would slide more easily into the basement. Plaintiff contended that the oil was supplied at the direction of the supermarket owner to speed up the work. While positioned at the top of the ramp to guide the equipment, Mr. Rosario‑Silverio slipped due to oil on his shoes and fell down the incline, suffering serious injuries.

Liability was sharply contested. The defense denied that the supermarket owner was present when the work was performed and insisted that all means and methods were controlled solely by plaintiff’s employer. The defense also offered testimony that Mr. Rosario‑Silverio was injured because he chose to walk up the ramp instead of using the adjacent staircase.

What initially appeared to be a minor injury—Mr. Rosario‑Silverio was treated and discharged from Jacobi Hospital with four stitches to his forearm—developed into a complex catastrophic injury case. Over time, he was diagnosed with significant shoulder and cervical spine injuries requiring surgery and a mild traumatic brain injury.

The defense presented a neurologist and neuroradiologist who claimed that Mr. Rosario‑Silverio had sustained no brain or neck injury, that his examinations were normal, and that he was capable of returning to work.

The case was further complicated by a subsequent accident in 2020, which the defense argued caused overlapping injuries and showed that plaintiff was seeking double recovery. Defendants called the treating orthopedic surgeon from the 2020 accident, who testified that before that incident, Mr. Rosario‑Silverio had reported doing well and having returned to work.

Despite these challenges, the plaintiff’s team presented extensive expert medical evidence linking Mr. Rosario‑Silverio’s traumatic brain and orthopedic injuries to the 2017 fall in the Foodtown basement. Plaintiff’s brain‑injury expert testified that advanced DTI MRI imaging and NeuroQuant analysis objectively confirmed brain trauma and placed Mr. Rosario‑Silverio at increased risk for early dementia. A neuroradiologist corroborated those findings, and plaintiff’s treating cervical spine and shoulder surgeons testified that the surgeries were necessitated by injuries sustained in the 2017 accident, not the later event.

Throughout the trial, the defense repeatedly attacked Mr. Rosario‑Silverio’s credibility, emphasizing that he was undocumented, paid off the books, and had not accurately reported all of his earnings for tax purposes. The defense also argued that any serious injury was limited to the initial laceration to his forearm. Nevertheless, the jury returned the largest premises‑accident personal injury verdicts in Bronx County in more than seven years. It is the largest personal injury verdict in New York on record ever for an individual undocumented immigrant worker.

The case was tried by Mitchell Proner and Daisy Koch of Proner & Proner.

“This verdict reflects the jury’s recognition that serious brain and orthopedic injuries are real and life‑altering, even when defendants try to dismiss them as minor, unrelated, or the product of a later incident,” said Mitchell Proner, trial counsel for the plaintiff. “The defense highlighted his immigration status, his off‑the‑books earnings, and a subsequent accident, but the evidence showed that what happened in that supermarket basement permanently changed Mr. Rosario‑Silverio’s life.”

Proner & Proner continues to represent victims of catastrophic personal injury, traumatic brain injury, construction and workplace accidents, premises liability, and motor vehicle negligence throughout New York.

Media Contact:
Mitchell Proner, mproner@prolaw1.com. (917)751-4926
Proner & Proner

CASE INFORMATION

County of Bronx
Honorio Rosario-Silverio v. PPC Commercial, LLC. and 1489 Food Corp., d/b/a Foodtown Supermarket,
Case No. 31210/2017E

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint was brought on behalf of a former director of human resources and total rewards. Erlich Law Firm serves as co-counsel with AKW Law, P.C.

The plaintiff was hired in 2024 as a Senior Compensation Manager and, within weeks, promoted to a Director role. The Chief Financial Officer is alleged to have praised the promotion in writing. Additionally, the plaintiff’s year-end review in December 2024 as “Exceeds Expectations,” with no record of discipline or performance warnings.

Court filings allege that employees of color in the department were talked over in meetings, repeatedly misnamed, and subjected to unprofessional forms of address, while their accomplishments were minimized in comparison with white facing coworkers.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff was terminated for “conduct” concerns, which the plaintiff contends were pretextual. The company’s HR department is alleged to have contributed to derogatory remarks and poor management. The plaintiff argues that they were never notified of specific allegations, never interviewed, and were not given progressive discipline or prior counseling before being dismissed.

“These court filings allege that a company with written anti-discrimination policies failed to follow its own stated procedures when a senior leader raised concerns about race in the workplace,” said Jason Erlich of Erlich Law Firm. “The complaint contends that our client went from being promoted and rated as exceeding expectations to being fired within days of reporting discrimination. The legal question is whether that sequence, and the lack of a meaningful investigation, amounts to unlawful retaliation.”

This particular case is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination and retaliation, as well as under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and California Labor Code § 1102.5. The lawsuit seeks back pay, front pay or reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief, including policy changes, training, and the creation of independent reporting channels for discrimination and retaliation complaints.

CASE INFORMATION

U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
Wanda Williams v. Lighthouse Document Technologies, Inc.
Case No. 2:25-cv-02686

The Winter 2026 session, titled “Good Business Practices & Preventing Problem Employees,” will take place on Thursday, March 26, from 5:15 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. at the Massachusetts School of Law, Room 204. Food will be provided.

The night will begin with welcoming remarks by Michael L. Coyne, Dean of Massachusetts School of Law, and continue with instruction from a team of MSLAW business and legal experts. Topics will include:

• Establishing Systems for Documenting Performance and Discipline (Michael Leamy – Professor of Business)
• Harassment, Bullying, Violence, and OSHA’s General Duty Clause (Paula Colby-Clements – Professor of Law)
• Piercing The Corporate Veil (Joseph Devlin, Professor of Law)
• Agent Liability on Instruments (Amy Dimitriadis – Professor of Law)
• Mental Health Issues in the Workplace (Shane Rodriguez – Professor of Law)

The Winter 2026 session will be the 6th installment in The Cummings Business Law Seminar Series in partnership with MSLAW to educate the public on the interplay between business and law.

The event is free and open to the public, but registration is required. Prospective attendees can scan the QR Code below to sign up, or RSVP directly to Diane Sullivan at dianes@mslaw.edu.

Founded and operated by attorneys Amir Aghnami and Sanam Aghnami Salimnia, Aghnami Law Group is driven by a shared mission: to provide compassionate, results-driven legal representation while treating every client like family. Rather than focusing on individual recognition, the firm emphasizes collaboration, teamwork, and decades of combined legal experience across its attorneys and staff.

Specializing in personal injury and employment law, the firm represents individuals who have been harmed by negligence, misconduct, or unfair workplace practices. Aghnami Law Group’s expanded marketing efforts are designed to increase awareness of legal rights in Orange County and ensure residents know they have access to a trusted, family-oriented legal team when they need it most.

A key strength of the firm lies in its collective background, which represents large corporations and insurance companies. This experience gives the legal team valuable insight into how claims are evaluated, defended, and litigated, allowing the firm to anticipate defense strategies and build strong, client-focused cases.

The attorneys at Aghnami Law Group collaborate as a unified team, combining collective experience and perspective, led by Amir Aghnami, a dedicated personal injury and employment law attorney licensed in both California and Nevada who brings strategic insight, a client-centered approach, and a deep commitment to justice to protect clients and guide them through complex and challenging situations.

Client accessibility and trust remain central to the firm’s approach. Aghnami Law Group offers free consultations and works on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients pay nothing unless a recovery is secured. Attorney Sanam Aghnami Salimnia brings experience from defending employers in complex employment matters, providing valuable insight that strengthens the firm’s client-focused, team-driven representation.

With a strong track record of successful recoveries and a reputation for clear communication, the firm prioritizes personalized legal strategies and consistent updates throughout every case. Aghnami Law Group continues to serve clients in Los Angeles and surrounding areas as part of its broader Southern California practice.

Through these expanded marketing efforts, Aghnami Law Group reaffirms its promise to the Orange County community: dedicated advocacy, family-driven values, and a legal team that stands together for every client.

“Our new office gives us the opportunity to enhance the services we offer our Houston-area clients,” says Parag Shah, CEO of Miles. “We are looking forward to continuing to expand our Houston panel and to serve our clients’ needs in the professional, welcoming environment of our new space.”

Miles’ new 6,000-square-foot state-of-the-art office suite is located on the eighth floor of 5300 Memorial Drive. It features ten fully equipped, multiuse conference rooms including a dedicated arbitration room that provide a comfortable, neutral place to resolve disputes. The office also offers Zoom technology, sound masking, and free parking.

Miles’ Houston panel includes Ron Bankston, Robins Brice, Wiley George, Gary McGowan, Hon. Mike Miller, Hon. Margaret Poissant, Hon. Robert Schaffer, and Louis Selig.

Miles was founded in 2000 and has 12 offices throughout the United States, including Atlanta, Birmingham, Boston, Charlotte, Columbia, Denver, Houston, Jacksonville, Nashville, Savannah, St. Louis, and Tampa.

According to court documents, the claimant filed a lawsuit against a medical center and its affiliated healthcare providers, alleging that substandard care was provided during treatment for flank pain. The complaint cited failures in the standard of care and claimed that the failure to timely treat, diagnose, and treat an infection led to the claimant’s septic shock. 

The terms of the agreement, as outlined in the signed release and settlement documents submitted to the court, provide for a payment of multi-million dollars to the claimant.

“This outcome represents the conclusion of a challenging chapter for my client,” said attorney Rick Groffsky from Sommers Schwartz, P.C. “While no settlement can undo the suffering experienced, we believe this result will provide critical resources for their future needs.”

Sommers Schwartz reached a confidential settlement, and due to the terms of the settlement, the firm could not provide details about that case. The agreement reflects a mutually acceptable resolution in the interests of all parties.

This case represents one of the more significant recent settlements in the region, involving claims of medical negligence. The resolution underscores the importance of legal advocacy in ensuring that individuals affected by alleged lapses in care have access to remedies provided under Michigan law.

“This is the most outrageous set of circumstances I have ever encountered,” said attorney Scott A. Snyder of The Snyder Law Group. “We have direct video evidence showing the child abuse. The owners were aware of what was happening and did nothing. They turned a blind eye. Instead of protecting children, they chose silence and concealment.”

Abuse Reported, Evidence Ignored, Whistleblower Fired

According to the lawsuit, a staff member notified on-site ownership of the abuse on December 13, 2024, and provided video evidence. Rather than removing the caregiver, alerting parents, or contacting authorities, ownership allegedly instructed staff not to inform families and allowed the caregiver to remain in the infant classroom.

A criminal investigation began on February 20, 2025, when an Assistant Director contacted the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office after repeatedly raising concerns internally. She provided investigators with surveillance video documenting an assault. Shortly after management learned law enforcement had been notified, the whistleblower was terminated.

Limited Video Reveals Widespread Abuse

Investigators reviewing the small amount of footage preserved by the center—roughly twenty days—identified abuse involving four separate children. Each family that pursued criminal charges had a child recorded being abused multiple times. Upon information and belief, the actual number of incidents was substantially greater, but earlier footage was not retained.

History of Prior Incidents and Failed Safeguards

The lawsuit alleges the franchise owners had prior knowledge of violent conduct by the caregiver, Wendy Jones.

• In 2021, Jones admitted to shaking an eighteen-month-old child; she received only a brief suspension and anger-management requirements.
• In 2023, a child in her care suffered significant facial injuries that the facility’s director, Dana Barnhart, labeled accidental, and the parents were not notified until pickup.

Despite these incidents, Jones remained assigned to the infant room. The complaint asserts that owners Dana and Scott Barnhart failed to remove the caregiver, protect the children, or implement adequate safety measures. It further alleges systemic failures by the franchisor, Kiddie Academy Domestic Franchising, LLC, and its parent company, Essential Brands, Inc., including insufficient training, negligent oversight, and dangerous retention practices.

Defendants and Claims

The defendants named in the complaints include:

• Kiddie Academy of Kent Island
• D. Barnhart, LLC
• Dana and Scott Barnhart
• Kiddie Academy Domestic Franchising, LLC
• Essential Brands, Inc.
• Wendy Jones

The lawsuits, filed on behalf of two families, allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, 11 battery, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence.

Criminal Outcomes

The investigation resulted in criminal charges against both Wendy Jones and the facility’s owner and on-site manager, Dana Barnhart. Jones resolved her case through a guilty plea and received a lengthy prison sentence. Barnhart’s case was placed on the stet docket, subject to conditions requiring that she have no direct childcare or supervisory role, and that the facility undergo monthly compliance visits by the Office of Child Care. Despite these restrictions, Kiddie Academy corporate has continued to permit Barnhart to own and operate the franchise.

Media Availability

Attorneys Scott A. Snyder, Michael B. Snyder, and Matthew J. Plessinger of The Snyder Law Group are available for interviews this week. The plaintiff families request privacy and will not participate in interviews.

Individuals With Relevant Information

Anyone with information related to abuse at Kiddie Academy is encouraged to contact The Snyder Law Group.

CASE INFORMATION

Baltimore City Circuit Court
Nicholas Peter, et al. vs. Kiddie Academy of Kent Island, et al.
Case No. C-24-CV-25-010255

According to the filing, Dr. Dulaney joined DuSable after nearly two decades of service at Chicago State University, where she chaired the African American Studies program. She alleges that during her tenure at DuSable, she developed major educational programs, including the museum’s Annual Juneteenth celebration, a reinstated Kwanzaa program, a touring Emmett Till exhibition, and DuSable’s first-ever children’s exhibit.

The complaint states that beginning in 2022, Dr. Dulaney raised concerns about budget transparency, restricted-fund compliance, and the diversion of funds earmarked for educational programming. The lawsuit alleges that after she questioned financial practices and filed formal grievances regarding workplace conduct, she experienced escalating exclusion, hostility, and retaliation.

The lawsuit further alleges that after Dr. Dulaney reported her concerns to the Chicago Office of the Inspector General, the Mayor’s Office, and the office of Alderman Jeanette Taylor, she was terminated on October 3, 2025, under what she asserts was the false pretext of “restructuring.”

In her lawsuit, Dr. Dulaney seeks reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, civil penalties under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and attorney’s fees. She is also seeking injunctive relief to prevent further alleged violations.

“Dr. Dulaney’s complaint describes a pattern of retaliation that began when she attempted to safeguard public and philanthropic funds and ensure compliance with the law,” said Justin DeLuca, counsel for Dr. Dulaney and attorney at Ellis Legal P.C. “Whistleblowers must be protected, especially when the integrity of public-serving institutions is at stake.

The defendants have not yet filed a response to the lawsuit. All allegations described in the complaint are claims made by the plaintiff and have not been adjudicated by the Court.

About Dr. Kim L. Dulaney

Dr. Dulaney is an author, educator, and longtime cultural leader in Chicago. Prior to her role at DuSable, she served as a Professor of African American Studies at Chicago State University, where she led the program for many years.

CASE INFORMATION

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
DR. KIM L. DULANEY v. THE DUSABLE BLACK HISTORY MUSEUM AND EDUCATION CENTER AND PERRY IRMER
Case No. 2025L014722

For liability in the first damages phase, the jury has awarded $1,041,667 for wrongful termination, $1,051,667 for whistleblower retaliation, $666,667 for breach of contract, and varying amounts against the individual defendants and Yolo Food Bank for what Plaintiffs alleged was a campaign of defamation culminating in a press release issued by Yolo Feed Bank. Defamation damages against all individual defendants and Yolo Food Bank so far total approximately $240,000. The punitive damages phase of the deliberations will continue later in the month when the jury will decide on the amount of punitive damages to award.

“This verdict vindicates Mr. Bisch’s four years of exemplary service to Yolo County’s most vulnerable residents,” said Sanjiv N. Singh, lead counsel for Mr. Bisch, and veteran catastrophic loss litigator with major settlements and/or verdicts for high profile cases against The Boeing Company, Los Angeles County, American Airlines,  Level 10, Webcor, The Jay Paul Company, and numerous confidential settlements with major firms, charities, and corporations. “Mr. Bisch should be heralded as a champion of nonprofit accountability—he fought a long and hard battle to seek justice for retaliation and refused to capitulate when his Board gave in to improper pressure and conflicted interests.”

Michael B. Indrajana, Mr. Singh’s long standing co-counsel in 75 claims against Boeing in two separate crashes, sat second chair for what was his first jury trial. “It was a privilege to have worked by Michael Bisch’s side on this groundbreaking lawsuit,” Mr. Indrajana added.

Evidence at trial showed a systematic campaign to discredit Bisch, including false allegations that were not true and not properly investigated. Yolo Food Bank Board members’ own testimony revealed they likely conducted no meaningful investigation of allegations against Mr. Bisch. Evidence showed defendants’ explanations for termination were likely pretextual and constantly shifting. Multiple former employees testified to the positive transformation of the organization under Mr. Bisch’s leadership.

Singh added that, “This verdict sends a clear message that nonprofit executives cannot be terminated for fulfilling their ethical obligations and protecting the interests of the community.”

CASE REFERENCE: Michael Bisch v. Yolo Food Bank, et al., Yolo County Superior Court Case No. CV2022-1431

Adam Camras (InfoTrack) and Sean Twersky (EvenUp) join Steno, bringing deep expertise to support the company’s scaling efforts.

LOS ANGELES, November 5, 2025 – Steno, the tech-enabled provider of legal support and court reporting services, today announced the appointment of Adam Camras as General Manager and Senior Vice President of Litigation Support, and Sean Twersky as Senior Vice President of Operations. 

Camras joins from InfoTrack, bringing deep expertise in the legal service sector, while Twersky arrives from EvenUp, adding significant experience in scaling high-growth legal tech operations. Today’s strategic hires reflect Steno’s commitment to building a world-class team as its litigation support business–including service of process and court filing capabilities–scales rapidly.

“Bringing in operational leaders of Adam’s and Sean’s caliber represents a pivotal step for Steno and is a clear signal that our unique approach to litigation support is working. Most companies in our space are stuck focusing exclusively on either legacy services or pure software solutions. Steno, however, is mastering both sides of that equation, creating a powerful, holistic platform that fundamentally redefines what’s possible for litigation professionals,” said Steno CEO Greg Hong.

A respected veteran of the legal technology industry, Camras joins Steno to drive the growth of its litigation support services. He brings extensive executive experience as the co-founder and CEO of Lawgical, where he guided the company through its successful acquisition by InfoTrack.

“Steno’s rapid growth and commitment to its core values is what initially got me excited,” said Adam Camras. “As I learned more about the business, it became clear that Steno’s blend of modern tech and world-class service is redefining how law firms deliver value to their clients. I look forward to working with the team on this next phase of growth.”

Twersky, who previously held senior operations roles at Highlight, Sprig, and Instacart, will be responsible for maintaining operational excellence through Steno’s rapid growth to ensure our white-glove customer service and concierge model can scale effectively without compromising the quality that has earned Steno an 87 NPS and a base of happy, devoted clients.

“Steno has built something special; technology that works seamlessly with high-touch, personalized service. My focus is to scale our operations without losing the white-glove experience litigators depend on,” stated Sean Twersky.

Camras and Twersky’s appointments further strengthen Steno’s leadership team, positioning the company to capitalize on the massive market opportunity to revolutionize legal support services through technology, concierge service, and innovative financial options like DelayPay.

The lawsuit, representing a nationwide class of Southwest flight attendants, contends that the airline’s policy of assessing disciplinary points for attendance violations violates FMLA provisions. The policy, the plaintiffs claim, effectively punishes employees by removing key benefits when they take leave, leading to terminations upon accumulating 12 points. These benefits include point-reduction incentives for good attendance, which are crucial for avoiding disciplinary action.

According to court documents, the crux of the plaintiffs’ argument is that Southwest’s policy is not merely a permissible “freeze” of benefits during leave but a flat-out penalty that contravenes the FMLA’s protective statutes. The airline’s attendance policy disqualifies flight attendants from earning up to four point-reduction benefits if they take FMLA leave, a practice the plaintiffs argue poses a substantial deterrent against exercising legally protected leave.

Attorney Jason Erlich, representing the plaintiffs, stated, “Southwest’s policy forces employees into an untenable choice between taking necessary medical leave and maintaining their employment benefits, effectively undermining the very purpose of the FMLA.”

The motion for summary judgment specifically seeks to establish liability against Southwest for interference under both the FMLA and the California Family Rights Act, citing that the policy discriminates against a subclass of California-based flight attendants. The plaintiffs argue that the undisputed evidence reveals systemic violations by Southwest, which conceded in depositions that a single day of leave could lead to an employee’s ineligibility for point reductions for an entire business quarter.

Southwest Airlines has yet to publicly respond to the motion. The airline had previously characterized the policy as a protective “freeze,” but the plaintiffs argue that this characterization is misleading. The court will review the matter to determine whether Southwest’s conduct constitutes a breach of federal and state leave statutes.

As this legal battle unfolds, the outcome could have significant implications for employment practices across the airline industry, spotlighting the tension between corporate attendance policies and federal leave protections. The case continues to unfold as both parties prepare for the upcoming court date.

CASE INFORMATION

District Court, N.D. California
Refuerzo v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC

Lisa Stoia has directed and transformed complex organizations for more than a decade. Most recently, she served as Managing Director of Ronco Technical Services, a biomedical equipment maintenance company serving healthcare facilities, universities, laboratories, and veterinary practices. She stepped into an existing business, reimagined its operational framework, rebuilt and scaled it, and ultimately oversaw its sale. Under her leadership, Ronco achieved 40% revenue growth, 20% profit margin increase, and a 30% improvement in operational efficiency while securing major client contracts with Cornell, MSKCC, the Animal Medical Center of NY, and the Bronx Zoo. 

Her career also includes roles at Bank of America, Elsevier, AT&T Capital, and Commercial Trust (now Bank of America). She has consistently delivered transformative results in P&L management, contract negotiation, risk management, and cross-functional leadership.  

Lisa’s accomplishments include obtaining MWBE certification from the State of New Jersey, maintaining A+ BBB and Google 5-star ratings, and being featured in Marie Brenner’s book The Desperate Hours: One Hospital’s Fight to Save a City on the Pandemic’s Front Lines. She has also developed and delivered continuing education programs certified within the veterinary arena. 

She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Art History from Rutgers University. In addition to her corporate leadership, Lisa has dedicated time to community service, including serving as an Interim Crisis Coordinator and now, as an Advocate with SAFE in Hunterdon, supporting survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. Through her role as Firm Administrator of Horton Legal Strategies, Lisa is committed to strengthening the firm’s infrastructure, streamlining workflows, and ensuring sustainable growth for the firm’s clients and team. 

Please join us in welcoming this outstanding leader to Horton Legal Strategies! 

In an industry where every 0.1 hour is billed at an average $32, Tempello.ai eliminates the tedium of manual tracking. By intelligently analyzing emails and communications, the platform automatically generates detailed time entries and attaches full emails to the correct matters within Clio or 8am-MyCase. This not only streamlines workflows but also uncovers hidden billable hours that often slip through the cracks.

“Law firms using Clio or 8am-MyCase are already ahead of the curve in efficiency, but Tempello.ai takes it to the next level,” said Jeff Dracup, CEO of Tempello.ai. “Our users report a 25% uplift in billings from day one, simply by letting AI handle the grunt work. If you’re a timekeeper frustrated with overlooked emails or a firm owner watching potential revenue stagnate, it’s time to act. Refer your firm to Tempello.ai or integrate it today—your bottom line will thank you.”

Tempello saves each timekeeper 12 hours per month by automating email time entry, reducing client disputes through transparent, descriptive invoicing, and securing higher fee awards in court with a robust record of case progress. Tempello.ai’s seamless setup ensures no disruption to existing Clio or 8am-MyCase workflows, making adoption effortless. Get an 8,100% return with Tempello – firms currently pay their attorneys an average $32 to make a single time entry. Using Tempello, they make those entries instantly, and with a more detailed time entry description, for $0.39.  

As Tempello.ai continues its explosive trajectory in the legal tech space, backed by cutting-edge AI innovation and strong market demand, it offers a prime opportunity for visionary angel investors to join a high-potential venture poised for scalable impact in the multi-billion-dollar legal industry.

Law firm professionals using Clio or 8am-MyCase are encouraged to visit Tempello.ai to refer interested firms or sign up for a free trial. Come get a demo of Tempello at booth #221 in Boston, Oct 16th-17th at ClioCon, or schedule a 15-minute demo now at Tempello.ai. Increase your firm’s profitability starting today.