Search the Community

Celiac.com 11/05/2024 - A new lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where a former employee is accusing her previous employer of discrimination and wrongful termination. Lauren Boyd, the plaintiff, claims that her former employer, Cigna Healthcare, violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Boyd's complaint outlines a series of events she believes led to her unjust dismissal from the company, centering around her chronic health conditions and her request for reasonable accommodations. The Timeline of Employment and Health Struggles According to court documents, Lauren Boyd began her employment at Cigna Healthcare on August 16, 2021, working as a customer service advocate. During her time with the company, Boyd suffered from chronic health issues, including celiac disease, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and anemia. These conditions, she alleges, were well-documented and known by her employer. Complicating her medical situation, Boyd also sustained injuries from an incident at Walmart on July 29, 2022, further exacerbating her health challenges. These injuries, coupled with her chronic illnesses, led her to require more time off work for treatment and recovery. She regularly used approved unpaid leave and ADA accommodation days when she experienced health flare-ups, particularly after incidents of gluten contamination, which worsened her condition. August 2023: A Turning Point in Health and Employment The most significant period of contention in Boyd's lawsuit took place in August and September of 2023. In August, she experienced a gluten contamination episode that triggered severe symptoms, leaving her immune system compromised. As a result, she developed an upper respiratory infection and later contracted COVID-19. Despite her deteriorating health, Boyd continued to manage her condition with approved unpaid leave and ADA days between August 11 and September 6, 2023. In her complaint, Boyd states that her health issues were compounded by Cigna's refusal to approve a medical treatment she required due to low iron levels caused by her chronic conditions. Boyd was prescribed a single-infusion iron drug, but Cigna denied her request for this specific treatment, offering a five-infusion alternative instead. This suggestion, Boyd argues, was unreasonable, given her challenging work schedule of four-day, ten-hour shifts. She found it nearly impossible to arrange the frequent medical appointments required for the alternative treatment without taking even more time off from work. The Application for Short-Term Disability and Termination As Boyd’s health issues persisted, she applied for short-term disability (STD) in early September 2023. Her request for STD was made in addition to her ongoing use of FMLA leave, as she needed extended time off to recover. However, on September 13, 2023, Cigna terminated Boyd’s employment, citing attendance issues as the reason for her dismissal. Boyd contends that her termination came at an unjust time, as her FMLA/STD applications were still pending. She also highlights that Cigna’s workforce management had previously approved her unpaid time off. According to Boyd, the company failed to adequately accommodate her disability and did not engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable solutions for her health-related needs. Instead, she argues, the company retaliated against her by terminating her employment. Allegations of ADA and FMLA Violations The core of Boyd’s lawsuit is centered around two major federal laws: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). ADA Discrimination and Retaliation: Boyd claims that Cigna violated her rights under the ADA by failing to accommodate her medical conditions and by retaliating against her for requesting accommodations. She argues that Cigna was aware of her chronic health issues and should have made efforts to engage in an interactive process, which is required by law, to determine how best to support her continued employment. By terminating her, she believes the company punished her for seeking accommodations that were necessary for her health. FMLA Interference and Retaliation: Boyd also accuses Cigna of violating her FMLA rights. She states that her termination was a direct result of her taking FMLA leave to manage her chronic illnesses. Boyd argues that Cigna interfered with her lawful use of FMLA and retaliated against her for applying for short-term disability and using unpaid leave to attend to her health. The Plaintiff’s Requests for Relief In her lawsuit, Boyd is seeking several forms of compensation and restitution from Cigna Healthcare. She has asked the court for reinstatement to her former position with a salary and benefits package comparable to what she had before her termination. Additionally, she is requesting compensatory damages in excess of $150,000 for lost wages, back pay, and front pay. Boyd is also pursuing damages for emotional distress, alleging that the wrongful termination caused her significant personal hardship. Furthermore, she seeks punitive damages as a way to hold Cigna accountable for what she views as clear violations of her rights under federal law. Finally, she is asking the court to cover her legal fees and other associated court costs. The Case Moving Forward At this stage, the case is still in its early phases. Lauren Boyd is being represented by Mary LeMieux-Fillery from the Law Offices of Eric A. Shore P.C. No attorneys have been listed for Cigna Healthcare in the initial filings. This case could have far-reaching implications for employees with chronic health conditions and disabilities, as it may shed light on how large corporations manage requests for accommodations under the ADA and leave under the FMLA. As it progresses, the court will weigh the evidence from both sides to determine whether Cigna’s actions were in violation of federal law. Conclusion This lawsuit emphasizes the ongoing challenges faced by employees with chronic health conditions in maintaining their rights under the ADA and FMLA. Lauren Boyd’s claims against Cigna Healthcare, if proven true, could highlight the importance of employers engaging in meaningful discussions about accommodations and respecting an employee’s need for medical leave. This case serves as a reminder that employees should not be penalized for seeking accommodations for their disabilities or for taking legally protected leave to manage their health. The outcome of this lawsuit may provide further clarity on the responsibilities employers have in balancing attendance policies with the rights of employees facing health challenges. Read more at: pennrecord.com

Celiac.com 10/01/2024 - The incident involving a child's serious medical condition being disregarded by an adult at a sleepover has sparked widespread outrage. A mother is now considering pressing charges after a grandfather at a sleepover deliberately fed her celiac son wheat, causing him to become violently ill. This situation has highlighted the ongoing skepticism surrounding gluten intolerance and celiac disease, even though these conditions are medically recognized. The Dangerous Skepticism Around Celiac Disease Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder where the ingestion of gluten leads to damage in the small intestine. For those diagnosed with this condition, avoiding gluten is not a dietary preference but a necessity to prevent severe health issues. Despite this, there remains a segment of the population, often older generations, who dismiss gluten intolerance and celiac disease as modern-day fabrications. The elderly man in question, described as a baby boomer, exemplified this dangerous skepticism. Upon hearing about the child’s condition, he dismissed it as nonsense, citing that such issues did not exist in his youth. This denial of the child’s medical needs went beyond mere words, as he deliberately switched out the child's gluten-free breakfast to one containing wheat, resulting in the child becoming seriously ill. The Immediate Consequences When the mother picked up her son after the sleepover, she was confronted with a horrifying scene. Her son was "throwing up and green," a clear sign that he had ingested something harmful. The host mother, who was also horrified by the grandfather’s actions, informed her that he had intentionally given the child a wheat-containing breakfast. Understandably furious, the mother confronted the grandfather, who remained unapologetic. She expressed her anger, even using strong language, which she later reflected was a mild reaction considering the harm done to her son. The rest of her day was spent caring for her son, nursing him back to health after his severe reaction. Legal Considerations: Should Charges Be Pressed? The incident did not just leave the mother emotionally shaken; it also raised serious legal questions. After discussing the situation with the host mother, they both agreed that pressing charges might be necessary. The host mother, seemingly tired of the grandfather’s behavior, supported the idea of legal action, recognizing that this was not just a mistake but a deliberate act of harm. Legal experts note that the mother may have a strong case. There are laws in place, such as Elijah's Law, which mandates that schools and childcare providers adhere to children’s food allergy requirements. While this incident did not occur in a school setting, the deliberate nature of the act could potentially lead to charges of personal injury or even endangerment, given the severity of the child’s reaction and the risks associated with celiac disease. The Broader Implications: Understanding Celiac Disease This incident sheds light on a broader issue: the ongoing misunderstanding and dismissal of celiac disease and other food-related medical conditions. For individuals with celiac disease, the consequences of consuming gluten are not just discomfort but can lead to long-term health issues, including damage to the small intestine, malnutrition, and increased risk of certain cancers. Despite this, there remains a pervasive attitude, especially among some older individuals, that these conditions are overblown or imaginary. For those living with celiac disease, incidents like this are not just isolated events but a reflection of a larger societal problem. The dismissal of their medical needs can lead to serious, even life-threatening situations. This highlights the importance of education and awareness around celiac disease and gluten intolerance, particularly among those who may not have grown up with an understanding of these conditions. Conclusion: Why This Matters to the Celiac Community The story of this mother and her son is a stark reminder of the dangers that can arise when serious medical conditions are not taken seriously. For those with celiac disease, the implications of gluten exposure are severe, and the ignorance or skepticism of others can have devastating consequences. This incident serves as a call to action for better education and understanding of celiac disease, as well as for stronger protections for those who live with it. The mother’s decision to consider legal action is not just about seeking justice for her son but also about sending a message that the health and safety of those with celiac disease must be respected and protected. Read more at: yourtango.com

Celiac.com 08/20/2024 - Captain Mark MacKenzie, a pilot diagnosed with celiac disease, has filed a lawsuit against United Airlines for failing to provide him with gluten-free food during flights. The lawsuit, filed in Colorado federal court on August 12, claims that United Airlines has neglected to make necessary accommodations for MacKenzie, a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This case highlights significant concerns about how airlines accommodate the dietary needs of employees with specific medical conditions. Background of the Case Captain MacKenzie, a seasoned pilot with over 35 years of experience and a clean flying record, is based out of Denver, Colorado. Due to his celiac disease, he must adhere to a strict gluten-free diet to avoid severe health complications. Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by the ingestion of gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye. Exposure to gluten can cause various health issues, including digestive problems, malnutrition, and anemia, as outlined by the Mayo Clinic. Despite notifying United Airlines of his condition and requesting gluten-free meals, MacKenzie claims the airline has failed to provide appropriate accommodations. The lawsuit emphasizes that United Airlines not only refuses to supply him with gluten-free food but also charges him for meals he cannot consume due to his medical condition. This, according to the lawsuit, constitutes discrimination under Title I of the ADA, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Impact on Captain MacKenzie The lawsuit details the significant impact United Airlines' actions have had on Captain MacKenzie. On one occasion, during an 11-hour duty day from Denver to Roatan, Honduras, and back, United Airlines allegedly did not provide him with any gluten-free food. As a result, MacKenzie was forced to endure the long flight without eating, leading to fatigue and potential health risks. This is not an isolated incident, as the lawsuit claims that MacKenzie often has to purchase his own meals while on duty, unlike other pilots who are provided with meals they can safely eat. In 2020, MacKenzie formally notified United Airlines of his celiac disease and the challenges he faces in accessing safe food during flights and layovers. Despite this, the airline has not made the necessary adjustments, leading to the current legal action. MacKenzie is seeking a court order requiring United Airlines to provide gluten-free meals, along with damages and reimbursement for legal fees. Legal and Ethical Implications This case raises important questions about the responsibilities of employers, particularly in industries like aviation, where employees are often required to work long hours away from home. Under the ADA, employers are legally obligated to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, which in MacKenzie’s case would mean offering gluten-free meal options. The failure to do so not only violates federal law but also endangers the health and well-being of employees like MacKenzie. Furthermore, the case touches on broader ethical issues concerning equal treatment in the workplace. Charging an employee for meals they cannot safely eat due to a medical condition could be seen as an unfair burden, particularly when other employees receive their meals at no additional cost. This practice could be viewed as discriminatory and may set a concerning precedent for how other employees with dietary restrictions are treated. Why This Case Matters to Those with Celiac Disease For individuals with celiac disease, the outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications. It underscores the challenges that people with celiac disease face in environments where access to gluten-free food is limited. If successful, MacKenzie's lawsuit could lead to stricter enforcement of ADA guidelines in the workplace, ensuring that employers take the dietary needs of employees with medical conditions seriously. Additionally, this case brings attention to the broader issue of accessibility and accommodation for people with dietary restrictions, particularly in industries like aviation, where employees may not have the ability to bring their own food or access alternative options easily. It highlights the need for greater awareness and sensitivity towards the needs of those with celiac disease and other similar conditions, advocating for a more inclusive and supportive work environment. In conclusion, Captain Mark MacKenzie’s lawsuit against United Airlines is not just a legal battle over meal accommodations; it is a critical test of how companies should treat employees with medical conditions that require special dietary considerations. The outcome of this case could set a precedent that may influence policies across various industries, ensuring that individuals with celiac disease receive the necessary support and accommodations in their workplaces. More: newsweek.com

Celiac.com 07/02/2024 - Trader Joe's Co. is being sued for allegedly mislabeling its "Almost Everything Gluten-Free Bagels" as "gluten-free," after a recent study conducted by Moms Across America found that a batch of the bagels (KLR1 24030031) may contain significant levels of gluten. This consumer class action was recently filed by Plaintiff Shaianne Starks in the Central District of California under docket number 2:24-cv-05543, Shaianne Starks v. Trader Joe’s Company. According to the complaint filed on June 28, testing conducted by Moms Across America, a nonprofit organization focused on raising awareness about toxins in food, revealed that the bagels contain 269.8 parts per million (ppm) of gluten. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stipulates that products labeled as gluten-free must contain less than 20 ppm of gluten. According to Dr. John Fagan, Chief Scientist at Health Research Institute, their lab used the AgraQuant Gluten G12 test: "We tested, first, the undiluted extract in duplicate. Those tests exceeded the calibration curve. We then made two dilutions of the extract and tested those in duplicate. Duplicates matched in both cases and the two dilutions were quantitatively consistent. That was the value that we reported." Celiac.com Reaches Out to Trader Joe's Celiac.com also reached out to Trader Joe's regarding the high gluten levels was found by the Moms Across America study, and we received the following responses from them: After obtaining and sending them the lot number (KLR1 24030031), we received this response from Trader Joe's: How Could Both Trader Joe's and Moms Across America's Lab Tests be Correct? The conflicting test results from Moms Across America and Trader Joe’s may both be accurate due to the presence of gluten "hot spots" within a single batch of bagels. These hot spots can occur when gluten is unevenly distributed in the manufacturing process, leading to some parts of a batch containing significantly higher levels of gluten than others. This inconsistency can result in different gluten levels being detected depending on which part of the batch is tested. Therefore, while Trader Joe’s regular testing might show gluten levels within acceptable limits, Moms Across America's tests could have encountered a hot spot, revealing higher concentrations of gluten. Understanding this potential issue highlights the importance of comprehensive and varied sampling methods to ensure the accuracy of gluten-free labeling, thereby protecting consumers who rely on such products for their health. A Voluntary Recall is Recommended by Celiac.com Whether or not Trader Joe's found any gluten in the samples they tested from this batch, we at Celiac.com still believe that it would be prudent to initiate a voluntary recall with the FDA in the hope that some people with celiac disease will not inadvertently ingest such high levels of gluten. An FDA voluntary recall for Trader Joe's Everything Gluten-Free Bagels would involve the company notifying the FDA of the issue and then working to remove the affected products from shelves and supply chains. This process includes identifying and communicating with customers who may have purchased the product, offering refunds or replacements, and publicly announcing the recall through various channels. Trader Joe's would also need to investigate the cause of the gluten contamination, take corrective actions to prevent future occurrences, and provide regular updates to the FDA on the recall's progress and resolution. Join the lively discussion on this topic in our forum. Stay tuned for more updates on this story, and be sure to subscribe to our email updates. Read more at: bloomberglaw.com Edited on 07/05/2024 - Added Plaintiff Shaianne Starks.

Celiac.com 06/17/2019 - A federal appeals court reinstated a lawsuit filed by a boy with celiac disease against a Colonial Williamsburg restaurant. The court ruled that a jury should decide whether the restaurant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when they barred a boy from bringing his gluten-free meal into the Shields Tavern. The lawsuit lists the boy's name as J.D. Because J.D. has celiac disease and follows a strict gluten-free diet, he couldn't eat with his classmates on their May 11, 2017, field trip. The staff at the Shields Tavern told J.D. that they could make a gluten-free meal for him, but they could not allow him to eat his own food in the tavern, which is owned and operated by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. J.D. had had problems before with gluten-free restaurant meals that were not, in fact, gluten-free. Since he hadn't eaten at Shields Tavern before, he declined their offer to make him a gluten-free meal. Because of Shields Tavern rules against outside food, J.D. was forced to eat a homemade meal apart from his friends and teachers. J.D. may have facts on his side. A recent study shows that most gluten-free restaurant food contains gluten. J.D.'s father chose to sue the foundation, arguing it violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and the Virginians with Disabilities Act. The initial lawsuit was dismissed before trial by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith, who held that J.D. did not show that he suffered discrimination because of his disability. In a 2-1 ruling that reinstated J.D.'s lawsuit, Judge Albert Diaz, writing for the majority, noted that Shields Tavern has high gluten-free meal standards that may be okay for most people with celiac disease, and a jury might decide they are good enough. But, added Diaz, “The district court incorrectly overlooked the testimony that J.D. repeatedly became sick after eating purportedly gluten-free meals prepared by commercial kitchens. Until a jury resolves the disputes surrounding the nature and extent of J.D.’s disability, we cannot determine if the accommodation Shields Tavern offered, as good as it may be, fully accounted for his disability.” Read more at Richmond.com

Celiac.com 10/09/2023 - Eleanor McGinn, a resident of a retirement community in Maryland, has filed a lawsuit alleging that the facility, Broadmead, repeatedly served her food containing gluten despite knowing about her celiac disease. The lawsuit, filed in Maryland District Court, claims that Broadmead violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against McGinn based on her disability. The claim also includes allegations of breach of contract, negligence in food preparation, and negligent misrepresentation. These claims stem from McGinn's reliance on Broadmead's assurances that she would receive gluten-free food and the facility's promotion of a gluten-free dietary program. Before moving to Broadmead in 2017, McGinn had met with the facility's dining director to discuss the severity of her celiac disease. She was assured that the kitchen staff understood the condition, and that Broadmead's gluten-free options were both abundant and safe. However, within the first six months of her stay, McGinn fell ill six times due to gluten exposure. The lawsuit contends that this repeated gluten exposure has had a compounding toxic effect on McGinn, leading to increasingly severe gluten reactions over time. As a result, her condition now substantially limits her major life activities, including eating and the major functions of her immune, digestive, bowel, and neurological systems. Additionally, the complaint alleges that McGinn was socially isolated, because she often had to wait for her gluten-free food while others had already finished eating. Eventually, she says she stopped going to the dining hall altogether. Andrew Rozynski, counsel for McGinn, hopes that this lawsuit will raise awareness about the needs of individuals with celiac disease. He emphasizes the importance of communities honoring their commitments to provide gluten-free options, as advertised. Celiac disease is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act because individuals with the condition have varying needs at different times in their lives, according to the Celiac Disease Foundation. This case is not the first of its kind; in 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled against a restaurant in Colonial Williamsburg that refused to let a child with a severe gluten allergy eat his own food. In that case, the court found that either the restaurant or the child could prevail in a potential lawsuit, ultimately vacating the district court's judgment. In 2020, a University of Maryland student sued the university for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by serving her gluten-containing food, and the case was settled out of court. Stay tuned for more on this and related stories. Read more at thedailyrecord.com

Celiac.com 04/24/2023 - In 2016 New Mexico prison inmate Jennifer Harris Hopkins died while in state custody at the New Mexico Women’s Correctional Facility in Grants, New Mexico, allegedly after being denied proper medical care for her celiac disease condition, an autoimmune disorder that requires a lifelong gluten-free diet. Staff at the prison allegedly ignored or disregarded her pleas for help, where Ms. Hopkins was serving a four-year prison sentence for motor vehicle theft. Wrongful Death Lawsuit - "A Number of Concerning Symptoms" According to a wrongful death lawsuit filed by her estate, Ms. Hopkins exhibited "a number of concerning symptoms" shortly after being taken into custody, and was even taken to Cibola General Hospital for emergency medical treatment, but was discharged on the same day. Ms. Hopkins filed a formal request for medication to treat her disease about a week later, and filed an additional request to medical staff later that month, reporting symptoms such as nausea, diarrhea, anal bleeding, vomiting, double vision, and "intense pain" in her stomach. However, a nurse who saw her in April allegedly dismissed her claim of having celiac disease. Ms Hopkins’ health reportedly deteriorated over the next few months, and her abdominal area swelled to the size of a woman who was "30 to 40 weeks pregnant." In July, she filed a formal grievance with the state Corrections Department, pleading for help and writing, "I am malnutritioned and vitamin deficient. The items above can kill me. HELP ME!" She was taken to Cibola General Hospital again for emergency medical care, but was discharged back to the women's prison after three days where the attending physician entered in his medical report “it is possible that this lady does suffer from celiac disease and that she might be better served by the attention of a gastroenterologist in the future.” However, Harris Hopkins’ condition reportedly continued to decline, and she lost at least 34 pounds while in custody. On September 7, 2016, her condition became critical, but she was allegedly not taken to the hospital, and was instead transferred to the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility in Los Lunas. Her condition was reportedly dire by the time she arrived there, and correctional staff finally took her to the University of New Mexico Hospital to get proper medical care. However, Ms. Hopkins ultimately died on September 16, 2016. The wrongful death lawsuit filed by Ms. Hopkins’ estate alleged that the New Mexico Corrections Department and others, including Corizon Health, Inc., Centurion Correctional Healthcare of New Mexico, LLC, and Cibola General Hospital Corp., failed to provide her with the care she needed. The state of New Mexico settled the lawsuit for $200,000, but denied liability. A spokeswoman for the Corrections Department stated that the situation began under the administration of former Gov. Susana Martinez. Inadequate Medical Care in US Prisons The case highlights the ongoing issue of inadequate medical care in US prisons and jails, particularly for inmates with chronic conditions. According to a 2020 report by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, people in prisons and jails are more likely to have chronic health conditions than the general population, and often do not receive adequate care. The report also found that “many jails and prisons fail to have the necessary infrastructure, staffing and policies to effectively manage chronic illness, leading to worse health outcomes, higher health care costs and more deaths in custody.” Read more at santafenewmexican.com

Celiac.com 08/30/2022 - A nutraceutical manufacturer is using deceptive "gluten-free" marketing claims on products made with wheat ingredients, according to lawsuit. Nutraceutical maker Ambrosia Nutraceuticals is using deceptive "gluten-free" marketing claims for the company's "Planta" protein product, which contains wheat, according to a class action lawsuit filed in California federal court on July 18 by one J. Ryan Gustafson of Good Gustafson Aumais filed the case in California federal court on July 18 on behalf of plaintiff Evan Musa. The suit says the ingredients list for the Planta protein product contains wheat flour, and the product contains gluten, despite promises to the contrary. "Now, instead of informing the public that it had previously deceived consumers by including a dangerous allergen, Defendant literally covers up the Gluten-Free claim with a removable sticker without alerting retailers, consumers or regulators to its deception," the lawsuit says. "Even worse, while the label is 'covered up,' Defendant continues to market the products as gluten-free despite being alerted by numerous consumers that they've been harmed." The filing charges that the company is trying to wrongly benefit from consumer willingness to pay more for gluten-free products. Stay tuned for more on this and related stories. Read more at legalnewsline.com

Celiac.com 03/15/2022 - A lawsuit filed in Missouri accuses food retailer Frickenschmidt Foods of mislabeling products as gluten-free, when they actually contain gluten. The suit accuses Frickenschmidt of labeling its Wicked Cutz Teriyaki Beef Stick as gluten-free, despite the fact that, according to plaintiff Oluwakemi Adewol, the product does contain gluten. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief, including punitive damages and “restitution and disgorgement,” herself and “all others similarly situated," on behalf of three separate classes of product purchasers: a “Multi-State Consumer Class” that includes California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington; a specific Maryland Class; and a Nationwide Class. The suit comes in the wake of a finding by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), on February 22, 2022, which determined that Frickenschmidt's Wicked Cutz Teriyaki Beef Stick contains wheat and thus is not ‘gluten free,’” and accordingly, that the FSIS “ordered a recall for approximately 6,000 pounds of the Product that remained in the marketplace.” In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that consumers would not have purchased the product, or have paid a premium for the product, had they known the product contained gluten. The complaint alleges five causes of action: Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes (On Behalf of the Multi-State Consumer Class); Violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act; and Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Unjust Enrichment, all on behalf of the Nationwide Class. We'll keep you posted if this suit moves forward. Stay tuned for more on this and related stories. Read more at LawStreetMedia.com

Celiac.com 10/11/2017 - A Merrill Lynch broker in Denver has sued the firm in federal court, claiming that its systemic "sabotage" of his relationship with clients during and following two medical leaves have cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars. In a case filed this summer in federal court in Colorado, Kirk Kringel, a broker with Merrill since 2010, alleges that the company violated his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act by retaliating against him for taking the two medical leaves, including one that was related to celiac disease. A seasoned broker, Mr. Kringel worked previously with Morgan Stanley and Dean Witter for nearly 15 years before joining Merrill Lynch. According to the complaint, colleagues and managers at Merrill "systematically interfered with and sabotaged Kringel's relationships with his clients by failing to service some of his clients, permanently re-assigning some of his clients to other financial advisors, and providing misinformation to his clients that undermined his relationships." Kringel claims that the sabotage cost him annual income in excess of $250,000, and that the actions were taken deliberately as retaliation for Kringel's three-month leave in 2015 and an unpaid medical leave that he began in February 2017. Kringel alleges in the suit that the losses to his accounts were engineered by a former business partner and colleague who moved with him to Merrill, and is claiming that the alleged violation of federal FMLA law justifies a courtroom trial. If successful, he will avoid arbitration, which would be the standard course for such complaints. Merrill Lynch spokesman Bill Halldin disputed the allegations on behalf of the company, but offered no comment on whether it will seek to have the complaint moved to arbitration. Neither Kringel, nor his lawyers at the firm of Moye, White offered further comment. Stay tuned for more on Mr. Kringel's efforts, and on legal issues regarding celiac disease and employment, disability, and the like. Read more at Advisorhub.com

Celiac.com 02/26/2016 - Consumer complaints to the FDA fueled a class action lawsuit claiming that cereal maker General Mills mislabeled gluten contaminated Cheerios as "gluten-free." The recent suit was brought by a Kentucky woman, who alleges that she purchased two boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios labeled as gluten-free, but which actually contained gluten levels more than two times higher than allowed under FDA standards. The consumer complaints led to FDA testing on gluten-free Cheerios. The FDA tested 36 samples of gluten-free Cheerios taken from different manufacturing facilities and lots. The tests found that some "Gluten Free" Cheerios samples contained as much as 43 ppm gluten. Current FDA rules forbid the use of the statement "gluten-free" on any food product with gluten levels above 20 parts per million. General Mills issued a recall on Oct. 5., and the suit was filed in late 2015 in a California federal court, and charges violations of California and Kentucky consumer protection laws. The suit alleges that supposedly gluten-free oats were cross contaminated with ordinary wheat at one of General Mills' processing facilities. Stay tuned for more news on this and other developments on gluten-free labeling and celiac disability claims. Read more at Legalnewsline.com.

Celiac.com 09/05/2019 - A Virginia man is suing T.G.I. Fridays after suffering a life-threatening allergic reaction from a hamburger bun he thought was gluten-free. In May 2018, Randall Collier visited the T.G.I. Fridays in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for dinner, and told the waitstaff several times he had a “life-threatening gluten allergy." Collier then ordered a gluten-free hamburger from the gluten-free menu, and when the hamburger was served, he inquired again about the bun being gluten-free, according to the suit. The waitstaff assured Collier that the bun was gluten-free, the suit states. After just a single bite of the bun, Collier “immediately went into anaphylactic shock, resulting in injuries, medical treatment and damages,” according to the lawsuit Collier filed in Horry County, SC, against T.G.I. Fridays and Atlantic Coast Dining, Inc. According to the suit, the restaurant's kitchen manager claims the waitstaff failed to request a gluten-free hamburger bun for Collier's order. The lawsuit accuses T.G.I. Fridays of negligence, creating a dangerous condition for Collier, and misrepresenting the food they served him. A statement by T.G.I. Fridays reads: “This is a franchise location and we cannot speak on their behalf.”

Celiac.com 01/04/2016 - Does P.F. Chang's Asian Bistro discriminate against people with celiac disease by charging more for gluten-free dishes than for their non-gluten-free counterparts? A complaint filed in federal court says it does, and a ruling by a federal judge means that the lawsuit against P.F. Chang's over its gluten-free menu won't be dismissed just yet. That means a class action lawsuit against P.F. Chang's for allegedly charging more for gluten-free menu items can continue. Judge Ronald Whyte's Nov. 23 order denied the company's motion to dismiss plaintiff Anna Marie Phillips' first amended complaint. "Neither party has cited, and the court has not found, any case specifically discussing whether celiac disease constitutes a disability under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or Unruh Act," Whyte wrote in his 13-page ruling. "However, accepting the additional detail in the FAC (first amended complaint) about the consequences of ingesting or being exposed to gluten, which plaintiff must guard against, plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support her claim that she has a disability that impacts a major life activity. "The court notes that on a more complete factual record, the court might reach a different conclusion." Phillips sued P.F. Chang's in a California state court last December. Chang's then successfully moved the case to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Basically, the outcome of the move to dismiss hinges on whether or not celiac disease constitutes a disability under the state's Unruh Act. In his order last month, Whyte concluded that Phillips, in her new complaint, pled sufficient facts to claim that the immune reaction to eating gluten meets the definition of a "medical condition" under the state's Unruh Act for people with celiac disease. The law specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation. In her amended complaint, Phillips also claims that celiac disease is an "inheritable and hence genetic characteristic." P.F. Chang's argues that the plaintiff must allege that she actually inherited characteristics known to cause disease under the second prong of the "medical condition" definition. At stake in the lawsuit is whether or not P.F. Chang's, and, by extension, other restaurants can charge more money for gluten-free food than they do for similar, non-gluten-free menu items. The restaurant chain first moved to dismiss Phillips' class action in February, claiming her celiac disease does not make her a disabled person under the ADA. It urged Whyte to dismiss the lawsuit before the entire restaurant industry was impacted. Whyte heard oral arguments in May. According to the case's docket, the motion to dismiss was "tentatively granted" at the hearing, with a final ruling to be issued by the court later. In August, the judge granted P.F. Chang's motion to dismiss Phillips' original complaint. Whyte ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the restaurant chain discriminated against her and other guests with celiac disease or a gluten allergy/intolerance, by charging $1 more for some gluten-free menu items compared to non-gluten-free versions of menu items with a similar name but prepared and handled much differently. However, Whyte granted Phillips a leave to amend. In doing so, the judge expressed his "reservations" about whether the plaintiff could ever state a viable claim under her discrimination theory. Phillips filed her first amended complaint soon after. In September, P.F. Chang's filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint, arguing that it asserts the same disability-discrimination claims and offers "few additional facts" and "none that warrant a different result." But a detailed list of Phillips' symptoms and reactions when ingesting gluten forced the judge to change his mind. As to whether or not the lawsuit will gain traction, stay tuned.

Celiac.com 03/14/2018 - A trademark spat that had developed into a lawsuit between an American gluten intolerance group and a well known British chef has been resolved. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver recently found himself on the receiving end of a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by the Gluten Intolerance Group of North America (GIG), which had sued Oliver for allegedly infringing its trademark, a circle with the letters gluten-free. GIG claimed in the suit that a similar symbol used by Oliver was “likely to mislead consumers into thinking his recipes are certified gluten-free.” For reasons still unknown, the group recently asked a Washington federal court to dismiss the suit. GIG’s request would free Oliver and his Jamie Oliver Enterprises Ltd., from all claims in the suit alleging infringement of the circle with the letters gluten-free that GIG uses to certify products as gluten-free. Barring some unforeseen development, the judge in the suit is likely to grant the motion, and the whole episode will be water under the gluten-free bridge, so to speak.

Celiac.com 02/09/2018 - A newlywed couple have raised accusations of sick guests, inappropriate food, and breach of contract in filing suit against wedding vendors they say ruined their surprise vegan wedding, which was also to include gluten-free snacks for some guests. The wedding took place in May, 2017, and by Christmas, the family had already filed suit in Ramsey County against vendors Mintahoe, Inc., A'Bulae, LLC, and Bellagala for breach of contract. The lawsuit states the venue choice near Mears Park in downtown St. Paul was "absolutely contingent" on their commitment to provide a "delicious" vegan dinner to wedding guests. According to the couple, the main idea was to serve delicious food that guests would not suspect was "an entirely plant-based meal." The couple intended for the surprise to be revealed at the end of the night, when servers were to put out signs announcing that the entire meal had been vegan. Among the claims made by the family of the bride and groom are that a guest with celiac disease ate a seitan skewer that she believed was gluten-free, but which actually contained gluten, and that the guest became "very ill" as a result. The couple says the hotel's pastry chef took home the leftover vegan wedding cake the couple had ordered from an off-site vendor, instead of making sure it went to the wedding party. The couple's complaints go on to cite a litany of perceived offenses, including "horrific" food and service, "missing" bamboo shoots bean sprouts, too many carrots, and "horrific…sickeningly sweet," sauce that was not the peanut sauce they expected. The couple also complains that the groom's room before the wedding was "extremely hot and stifling," and disputes the cost of the menu for the wedding, which was mostly Thai food. In fairness, though, their main complaint seems to be that the food was terrible, rather than the fact that it wasn't vegan. The couple and mother-of-the-bride are seeking $21,721 for each of the seven counts of breach of contract, totaling $152,047, along with an award of damages to be determined at trial. What do you make of the situation? Right on the money, or a gluten-free bridge too far? Source: KTSP

Celiac.com 11/15/2016 - The YouTube video that helped to spark litigation against blood pressure drug Olmesartan, also marketed as Benicar, was made by celiac disease expert Dr. Joseph Murray, a gastroenterologist and a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, New York, who is very familiar with the drug's side effects. In July 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to patients and doctors that the popular blood pressure medication Benicar had been linked to a severe side effect called sprue-like enteropathy. The side effect was easily confused with celiac disease or a gluten sensitivity, and caused serious problems in many patients, including cases of irreparable gut damage. A week after the FDA's warning, Dr. Joseph Murray took to YouTube to notify patients about the drug's risks. In the video, Dr. Murray advises anyone who is taking Benicar, and who has also been diagnosed with celiac disease, to consult a doctor about the FDA warning. Many Benicar patients learned the hard way the drug can cause debilitating side effects, but Dr. Murray's video no doubt helped spread awareness to patients who suffer from sprue-like enteropathy. Many patients feel Benicar's manufacturer, Daiichi Sankyo, failed to warn consumers of the risks associated with the drug and are now trying to hold the company responsible through legal action. There are more than 1,700 lawsuits currently pending against the company. Plaintiffs have called into question the validity of the clinical trial leading to Benicar's approval with the FDA. Managing high blood pressure is a long-term proposition, but the clinical trial testing Benicar's safety and efficacy only lasted three months. Plaintiffs believe the short clinical trial caused the makers to overlook the risk of sprue-like enteropathy, but plaintiffs are also pointing to the fact that drug maker Daiichi Sankyo spent $1 billion on Benicar advertising between 2002 and 2008. The plaintiffs say that company advertising focused more on the benefits of Benicar, while downplaying potential risks. The suit has been slate for court docket in 2017. Stay tuned for developments on this and related matters.

Celiac.com 06/27/2016 - With her gluten-free bakery "Jennifer's Way" facing a $43 million lawsuit from investors, including her own husband, British model Louis Dowler, former "Blue Bloods" star Jennifer Esposito has reportedly skipped town for an "undetermined amount of time" in Denmark. Esposito's investment partners filed their suit in March, alledging, among other things, that Esposito's bakery is failing, and that she redirected the company's website to her personal blog and told consumers the products couldn't be trusted. "Esposito has instilled and promoted a groundless and downright false sense of fear that the very same products with the same recipes, coming from the same facility, that she once stood behind, are now unsafe to consume," the lawsuit reads. Esposito was previously married to actor Bradley Cooper and engaged two more times before she married Dowler in 2014. In addition to the suit, she is now also in the process of divorcing Dowler, who is, as noted above, one of the investment partners who brought the suit against her. Esposito made headlines in 2012, when she was put on indefinite leave from the CBS show "Blue Bloods" after informing the network of her celiac disease diagnosis. According to Esposito's tweets: "CBS. . . PUT me on unpaid leave and has blocked me from working anywhere else after my doc said u needed a reduced schedule due to celiac." According to a statement by CBS, "Jennifer has informed us that she is only available to work on a very limited part-time schedule. As a result, she's unable to perform the demands of her role and we regretfully had to put her character on a leave of absence . . . We hope that she will be able to return at some point in the future." Read more at Fox News.