California Defamation Lawyers

Had Conspired To Recoup Inventory Losses By Falsely Accusing

The claims  stemmed  from  a pending  civil action  in which Adams alleged that  various CFI officers and supervisors  had  conspired  to  recoup  inventory losses  by falsely accusing.  Adams and other low-level  CFI employees of  stealing  money  and  merchandise  from CFI  stores. Adams further alleged  that these same CFI  officials had knowingly coerced  Adams and  other  employees into  confessing to  the alleged  thefts  notwithstanding  that Adams  and  the  other employees  had not committed them. 

The complaint in the case asserted claims of false imprisonment,  wrongful termination,malicious   prosecution,   abuse   of  process,   defamation, intentional infliction of  emotional distress, and  violation of Massachusetts civil  rights laws  (collectively the  "loss prevention claims").In 1993,  CFI reached  a tentative settlement  in a separate  class action suit involving similar loss prevention claims (the "Curley suit"). 

The Curley suit had been brought in  New Jersey federal district court by a different group of former CFI employees that did not include Adams.  As part  of the proposed Curley settlement, the parties to that agreement filed a  joint motion  in the Massachusetts  bankruptcy court requesting  the  creation of  a  mandatory  class that  would include all loss prevention claimants who had filed proofs of claim  in  the  Massachusetts  bankruptcy  proceeding  (e.g., Adams). 

Contact California Defamation Attorneys

Contact a Defamation Lawyer now for a free case review.