Law Office of Jerry Gonzalez

To view these documents you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader. It is a free download from Adobe.com. Click here for Adobe.com.

Documents open in a new window.

Wilson County Bail Class

This lawsuit claimed that Wilson County, Tennessee, judicial commissioners set bail for arrested individuals based on an arbitrary formula that was not based on an individual’s particular likelihood to flee or be a danger to the community if released. Wilson County used a preset bail schedule based on the offense charged or other criteria that was not based on the individual. Wilson County judicial commissioners also used minimum bail amounts, on some occasions would refuse to set bail, or would increase bail based on a request by a police officer. Wilson County Judicial Commissioners were also poorly trained. The Class Wide Settlement Agreement provides for a comprehensive overhaul of the system of setting bail by Wilson County Judicial Commissioners. It provides for training of judicial commissioners, a system of tracking the bail set for each individual presented to a judicial commissioner for the setting of bail, and provides for a procedure to follow in the event Wilson County violates the terms of the agreement.

Southtec Class

This lawsuit claimed that the Defendants, L & W Engineering and Southtec, LLC, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Tennessee’s “Whistle-blowing” laws by not hiring certain individuals who applied to be employed at Southtec’s Lebanon, Tennessee facility from January 1, 2002, to the present based on an applicant’s race or national origin. The Court did not decide which side was right, but both sides agreed to the Settlement to ensure a resolution, avoid the cost and risk of litigation, and to provide benefits to Class members. L&W Engineering Co., and Southtec LLC agreed to create a fund to be divided among the three individual Plaintiffs and all Class members.

Update: As of May 20, 2008, all claims have been processed and either approved or rejected. A redacted list of approved claims and a redacted list of rejected claims can be found here with the rejected list including a reason for rejection. (The list includes only last name, first initial, and last four of your social security number.) If your claim was approved, you should have already received a check from the Fund Administrator in New York. Of all the checks distributed, all but three have been cashed. After repeated attempts to contact the three, the checks have been flagged for stop-payment. There are no other pending claims or outstanding checks. If your claim was rejected, you can find the reason why on the list. THERE IS NO APPEAL OR RECONSIDERATION. A final report of how the entire fund was distributed will be generated after the approved claims are paid and other matters resolved. There is a small fund balance remaining that will be distributed to non-profit legal organizations that concentrate their practice on litigating cases on behalf of individuals that have been discriminated on the basis of race, gender, or other protected classifications. Some of the case documents are available for review here. Any other documents, not shown, may be accessed and viewed via the court’s electronic document viewing service at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ with a properly issued password and user name. (Registration is free but the site does charge a small fee for document viewing and printing).

Tennessee valley authority

This is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act that alleges that the Tennessee Valley Authority failed to pay its Maintenance Coordinator, Maintenance Supervisor, and Shift Operations Supervisor employees time and one half for all hours worked over 40 in one week. For a notice regarding options and ability to opt-in to the lawsuit, view the documents through the link below, or contact Jerry Gonzalez.

Rutherford County Bail Class

This lawsuit claimed that Rutherford County Judicial Commissioners set bail based on a preset list of charges and set bail amounts without regard to an individual’s personal likelihood to flee or be a danger to society if released. The list included offenses which have been declared unconstitutional or abolished by statute, such as “Homosexual Acts” and “Vagrancy”. (See list below) The U.S. Constitution requires an individualized assessment prior to setting bail and bail set by a preset list or arbitrarily is unconstitutional. Rutherford County agreed to settle the case immediately, paid the plaintiff $10,000 and agreed to stop the practice of preset bail by this list and issued a new policy manual to its judicial commissioners. (See settlement agreement and new policy manual below.) Unfortunately, it appears that Rutherford County might be up to its old tricks and a new lawsuit is being contemplated.

Henry County Bail Class

This lawsuit claims that Henry County maintains a policy of denying bail to all persons arrested for domestic assault and sets bail for all other offenses based on a preset list of charges and amounts. The case is ongoing.

Davidson County Bail Class

This lawsuit, not yet filed, will claim that Davidson County sets bail based on a preset list, maintains a minimum amount of bail that must be set by judicial commissioners, and often gives arrestees the choice of paying a cash bond or using a bailbondsman at a higher bond amount, all without any individualized assessment of that individual’s likelihood to flee or be a danger to society if released. This case will be filed shortly.

Shelby County Bail Class

This lawsuit, not yet filed, will claim that Shelby County sets bail based on a preset list and denies bail on out of county warrants, all without any individualized assessment of that individual’s likelihood to flee or be a danger to society if released. Bail on out of county warrants is required by state law and any arbitrary decision to disobey that law is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee to due process of law. This case will be filed shortly.

Macon County Bail Class

This lawsuit claims that Macon County sets bail based on the charged offense, denies bail if a police officer wishes to question the person arrested (called “hold for investigation”), increases bail for subsequent offenses of the same type, all without any individualized assessment of that individual’s likelihood to flee or be a danger to society if released. This case was filed on April 12, 2010 and County Mayor Linville served with a summons and complaint on April 23, 2010. Macon County has not yet filed an answer or obtained an attorney to defend it.

Trousdale County Bail Class

This lawsuit claims that Trousdale County sets bail based on a preset amount based on the charged offense without regard to an individual’s likelihood to flee or be a danger to society. Trousdale County also “hold[s] for investigation”, arrests homeless people and places them in jail on cold nights without their consent (they call it “safekeeping”), refuses bail for out-of-county warrants, refuses bail for those arrested on failure-to-appear warrants, refuses bail on an arbitrary basis when the judicial commissioner simply doesn’t know what bail amount to set, bases bail amounts on the judicial commissioner’s personal knowledge of a person’s “reputation”, and otherwise sets bail on flat dollar amounts under the belief that everyone will flee if not deterred by a monetary bail. This case has been granted class certification and is ongoing.

Wilson County Nepotism-Cronyism-Favoritism Class

This lawsuit claims that Wilson County refuses to advertise job openings and instead refers openings to White friends and family through a system of nepotism, cronyism and favoritism by all White department heads and hiring managers. This case is ongoing.