Skip to main content
Robert M Fortgang
Avvo
Pro

Robert Fortgang’s Legal Cases

11 total


  • Cooney v North American Marketing Company d/b/a NAMCO

    Practice Area:
    Discrimination
    Date:
    May 19, 2006
    Outcome:
    Defendant's Verdict
    Description:
    Following a 5 day jury trial in which the plaintiff alleged that he was the victim of Race Discrimination, the jury deliberated for less than 2 hours before finding for the defendant.
  • NAMCO, LLC v Anthony Giovanni

    Practice Area:
    Consumer Protection
    Date:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Outcome:
    Plaintiff Judgment in the amount of $53,093.21
    Description:
    To finance his cocaine habit, the defendant engaged in a fraudulent credit memo scheme in which he created bogus credit memos and exchanged them for cash which he brazenly removed from the plaintiff's cash registers. All told this scheme netted the defendant approximately $47,000 before being discovered by the plaintiff. On August 15, 2006, the Honorable Peter A. Velis entertained Plaintiff’s Motion for Assessment of Damages awarding the plaintiff $46,843.21 for the stolen merchandise and cash, $6,000.00 for the cost of securing an independent agency to investigate defendant’s unlawful action, and court costs related to instituting this action.
  • Daniel Santos v Brooks Pharmacy d/b/a Maxi Drug, Inc. and Jean Coutu Group PJC USA, INC.

    Practice Area:
    Discrimination
    Date:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Outcome:
    Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment was granted
    Description:
    The plaintiff instituted this action against Brooks Pharmacy in United States District Court District of Connecticut, alleging Age discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-60(a) et. seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq. At all times the defendants denied the plaintiffs’ allegations. At the completion of discovery, defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' motion was granted by the Honorable Warren Eginton, in his Order dated, January 17, 2008.
  • Meredith Mello v Brooks Pharmacy

    Practice Area:
    Sexual Harassment
    Date:
    Feb 02, 2004
    Outcome:
    Settled on the eve of trial.
    Description:
    The plaintiff instituted this action against Brooks Pharmacy and two individual defendants in Superior Court, Essex, MA alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination based on sex, in violation of; M.G.L. c. 151B. At all times the defendants denied the plaintiffs’ allegations. The Superior Court dismissed the two individual named party defendants following oral argument thereby leaving Brooks Pharmacy as the only defendant in this Civil Action. In or about the eve of trial, the matter was amicably settled via agreement of the parties, the terms of which are confidential.
  • Sabrina Bryant v Brooks Pharmacy

    Practice Area:
    Sexual Harassment
    Date:
    Jun 10, 2001
    Outcome:
    Settled prior to trial.
    Description:
    The complainant instituted this administrative action against Brooks Pharmacy and one individual as the named respondents with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. At all times the respondents denied the complainants allegations. Prior to this matter going to trial, it was amicably settled via agreement of the parties, the terms of which are confidential.
  • Suzanne Desrochers v. Brooks Pharmacy

    Practice Area:
    Sexual Harassment
    Date:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Outcome:
    Dismissed following investigation
    Description:
    Complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her male Store Manager in violation Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act, 21 V.S.A. §495-496, as enforced by the State of Vermont’s Office of Attorney General, Vermont Civil Rights Unit. Following investigation by the Vermont Civil Rights Unit, the matter was dismissed on September 18, 2006.
  • Angela Ventola vs. Brooks Pharmacy

    Practice Area:
    Discrimination
    Date:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Outcome:
    Dismissed after investigation
    Description:
    The complainant alleged pregancy discrimination in violation of of G.L. ch. 151B Section 4 Paragraph 1, 4, and 16 and ADA, Title VII. More specifically, Ms. Ventola alleges that she was forced to “continuously lift heavy boxes of merchandise for shelving” and when she “complained about her supervisors conduct nothing was done.” Brooks Pharmacy, after investigating this complaint concluded that Ms. Ventola’s accusations were false. Upon investigation by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commission Against Discrimination, the matter was dismissed.
  • Lilith Caulfield v. Brooks Pharmacy

    Practice Area:
    Sexual Harassment
    Date:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Outcome:
    Dismissed after investigation.
    Description:
    The complainant filed a charge with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights alleging discrimination based upon her sex and unlawful retaliation. More specifically, complainant alleges that the respondent engaged in discriminatory conduct in violation of RSA 354-A, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
  • David Donovan v. Anderson Merchandisers

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Date:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Outcome:
    The matter was amicably settled prior to trial.
    Description:
    The plaintiff instituted this action against defendant in United States District Court District of Connecticut, alleging unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (“FLSA”) and Connecticut General Statutes §§ 31-68 and 31-72. At all times the defendant denied plaintiffs allegations. The parties reached an an amicable settlement of this dispute, the terms of which are confidential.
  • Kimberly Skaggs v Subway Real Estate Corp., Doctor’s Associates Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Discrimination
    Date:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Outcome:
    The matter was settled prior to trial.
    Description:
    The plaintiff instituted this action against defendant in United States District Court District of Connecticut, alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination and violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a(b); Connecticut Fair Employment Practice Act, CONN. GEN. STAT. §§46(a) – 81 et seq. and The Pregnancy Discrimination Act. At all times the defendant denied plaintiffs allegations. The parties reached an an amicable settlement of this dispute, the terms of which are confidential.