Chicago man claims he was fired from local McDonald's franchise after missing work to be with his newborn, dying son. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

Courthouse News Service detailed a lawsuit recently filed in Cook County that simply is hard to believe. Jentri Casaberry alleges in his complaint that he was a swing shift manager at a Chicagoland McDonald’s franchise. The complaint goes on to allege that on July 6, 2011, Casaberry’s girlfriend went into premature labor. Mr. Casaberry stayed at the hospital with his girlfriend throughout her labor. He would shower at the hospital, go to work, and, upon completing his shift, immediately return to the hospital. Nyeem Casaberry, plaintiff’s son was born on July 8, 2011, while Casaberry was at work. Upon hearing the news, Casaberry called his supervisor, Jacqueline Carter, explained the situation and asked is she could come into the restaurant early, so Casaberry could go to the hospital and see his son. Carter agreed to come in, and arrived at 5:00 a.m. Casaberry immediately left for the hospital.

The complaint goes on to allege that just two days after his birth, Nyeem Casaberry developed an infection, requiring transfer to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. According to the Complaint, Jentri Casaberry continued shuttling between work and the hospital. On July 13, 2011, it is alleged that Jentri received a text message as he was leaving work, urging him to proceed immediately to the hospital. Casaberry left work at 7:00 a.m., and went to the hospital. The complaint alleges that upon his arrival, Casaberry learned that his son had suffered a seizure and was on life support. Additionally, the complaint alleges that several specialists spoke with Casaberry and advised that his son was not going to survive. Casaberry stayed at the hospital and made arrangements for a preacher to baptize Nyeem and for family so see the child before he died. Throughout the day, doctors indicated that Nyeem was failing. At 4:30 pm, Casaberry sent a text message to Ms. Carter to inform her of developments and asked that she find someone to cover for him, and she did. The complaint alleges that Nyeem passed away at 9:15 p.m. on July 13.

The complaint goes on to allege that on July 14, 2011, Casaberry received a call from his employer. During a discussion with another McDonald’s employee, Casaberry could overhear the franchise owner, Mr. Keith Allen, Sr., speaking loudly in the background. Casaberry then asked to speak with Allen. Casaberry allegedly tried to explain what had occurred in the preceding 24 hours, but Allen allegedly responded that those developments were not his problem and that Casaberry should have reported to work. Allen allegedly also told Casaberry that he was “done” and not to “bring his black ass back to work”. Casaberrry was fired that same day. Casaberry also alleges that after going public with the firing, he received an anonymous threat that police later traced to a McDonald’s owned by Allen.

Casaberry has sued Kandice Enterprises[the owner of the McDonald’s] and Allen, the President of Kandice, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Casaberry is represented by Alice Setrini with the Legal Assistance Foundation. In fairness, it is very early and we are only dealing with allegations. No response of any kind from the defendants was mentioned in the article. Nothing has been proven. It would be hard to imagine any employer being so callous. If however, the allegations set forth in the complaint are true, the defendants may at some point in the near future be staring down a very angry Cook County jury.

Bayer offers $7 Billion Roundup Settlement

By Mark Loftus • February 17, 2026
German Conglomerate makes a bid to end Roundup litigation 

Bayer Offers $7 Billion in Roundup Settlement Bid

By Mark Loftus • February 17, 2026

The Illinois Gender Violence Act

By Mark Loftus • February 3, 2026
THE ILLINOIS GENDER VIOLENCE ACT - IN A NUTSHELL Under the Illinois Gender Violence Act (GVA) 740 IlCS 82/1, victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and other forms of gender related violence can bring civil actions against perpetrators even when criminal charges are not filed. The GVA defines two of the four acts of “gender violence” - though the definitions are a bit convoluted: One or or more acts of violence of physical aggression satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois that are committed, at least in part, on the basis of a person’s sex; A physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois, whether or nor the act or acts resulted in criminal charges, prosecution or conviction. Under the Illinois Criminal Code, a person commits a battery when he or she knowingly, without legal justification, causes bodily harm or makes insulting/provoking physical contact with another individual. 720 ILCS 5/12-3. The Criminal Code requires physical contact. AND EMPLOYERS MAY NOW FACE LIABILITY In July, 2023 an amendment made it explicit that the GVA does extend to the workplace. As set forth in the Act, an employer is liable for gender-related violence in the workplace by an employee when the interaction arises out of and in the course of employment. Liability will only arise however, if the (1) the employee was directly performing his or her duties and the violence was the proximate cause of the injury or (2) while the agent of the employer was directly involved in the gender-related violence and the performance of the work was the proximate cause of the injury. Liability will only extend to the the employer however if it can be shown that (1) the employer failed to supervise, train or monitor the offending employee or 2) the employer failed to investigate and respond to reports directly provided to appropriate management personnel. Damages under the Act may include injunctive relief, and actual damages, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages. And importantly, the GVA is a fee-shifting statute - so a successful plaintiff may seek to recover attorneys fees. So, in cases of sexual harassment, may a plaintiff, include a count for damages under the GVA? The answer is an unqualified yes. And the contact need not be excessive or dramatic or prolonged - so long as there was no consent nor any justification for the physical contact. In fact, the Act notes that a legitimate threat that the harasser will commit an nonconsensual act is sufficient.
Digital brain graphic with circuit board background, glowing blue, representing artificial intelligence.

The Anthropic Ruling - AI can't steal your content. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Topgolf building exterior with a gray facade, white sign, blue sky, and landscaping.

Topgolf hit with $15 million dollar verdict after 9 year old suffers devastating injuries. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.

Tesla Ignored $60 million settlement overture before getting crushed with $242 million dollar verdict. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Taco with ground meat, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese sauce, and onions in a crispy shell.

Appellate Court rebuffs same proximate cause argument twice in taco restaurant crash. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.

Supreme Court lets $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict stand against Johnson & Johnson - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Bar counter with beer taps, logos, and a pint of Guinness. Shelves filled with bottles in the background.

Trial Judge: criminal attack outside bar not foreseeable. The Illinois Appellate Court: not so fast.... - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Hand holding a black smartphone displaying the Uber app on a dark background.

Experts dispute victim numbers in Uber Sexual Assault Trial. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025