Skip to main content

Deondre Raglin v. Time To Save LLC

C.D. Cal.April 9, 2025No. 2:25-cv-02639
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
default judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

HarassmentRetaliation

Outcome

Plaintiff Jennifer Leonard obtained a default judgment against defendant James Dorman for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), and invasion of privacy. The court awarded statutory damages, actual damages, and attorney's fees.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker Wins Harassment and Retaliation Case Against Employer** Deondre Raglin sued his former employer, Time To Save LLC, claiming he faced workplace harassment and was retaliated against for complaining about unfair treatment. The case involved alleged mistreatment that made Raglin's work environment hostile and harmful actions taken against him after he spoke up about problems at work. The court ruled in Raglin's favor and awarded him $11,500 in damages. This means the judge found that Time To Save LLC did harass Raglin and illegally retaliated against him for raising concerns about his treatment. The company failed to properly defend itself in court, leading to a default judgment against them. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows that employees have legal protection against workplace harassment and retaliation. When workers speak up about unfair treatment, their employers cannot legally punish them for doing so. If companies create hostile work environments or take revenge against employees who complain, they can be held financially responsible. Workers who experience similar situations should know they have rights and may be entitled to compensation if their employer violates employment laws.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.