TL;DR: A Vermont worker proved in court that Foxmar, Inc., doing business as Education and Training Resources, unlawfully retaliated against him for asserting his rights under workplace safety and earned sick time laws. A jury first awarded him over $3.2 million, including $3 million in punitive damages.
After the company pushed back, a judge cut that down to $55,000 and slashed his lawyer’s fees by more than half. A federal appeals court later ruled that tying his attorney’s fees to the low damages award broke Vermont law and undermined the purpose of worker-protection statutes.
This scandal shows how corporate power, legal cost games, and a profit-first system can drain the strength out of rights that look solid on paper. Keep reading for how that happened and what it reveals about neoliberal capitalism’s treatment of workers.
Table of Contents
- Introduction: Retaliation, Power, and a Shrinking Victory
- Inside the Allegations: What Foxmar Did to a Vermont Worker
- Timeline of the Case
- How Legal Fees Became a Corporate Shield
- Regulatory Capture, Neoliberal Capitalism, and “Reasonable” Fees
- Profit-Maximization vs. Corporate Social Responsibility
- Economic Fallout and the Chilling Effect on Workers
- Legal Minimalism: Doing Just Enough to Stay Comfortable
- How Capitalism Exploits Delay in Workplace Justice
- Corporate Accountability Under Vermont’s Worker-Protection Laws
- Pathways for Reform and Worker Power
- Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?
- Conclusion: This Is the System Working as Intended
Introduction: Retaliation, Power, and a Shrinking Victory
A Vermont worker, Thomas Cole, took on his employer, Foxmar, Inc., over workplace retaliation connected to safety and earned sick time. A jury agreed with him and delivered a loud message: over $3.2 million in damages, including $3 million meant to punish the company!
That message did not last. Foxmar challenged the verdict. A judge wiped out the punitive damages and ordered a new trial on damages. The second jury awarded Cole $55,000 and no punitive damages. Years into the fight, his massive win had collapsed into a modest check.
Cole still had one critical lifeline: Vermont laws that say workers who win these kinds of cases can recover “reasonable” attorney’s fees from the employer. Those fee rules exist so regular workers can actually afford to sue powerful companies.
The trial court then sliced his lawyer’s requested fees by fifty-five percent. A federal appeals court later held that one key part of that cut rested on the wrong legal standard and undermined Vermont’s worker-protection design.
The story of this case be a window into how corporations and the legal system interact under neoliberal capitalism and how a right on paper can lose force when money, delay, and “reasonableness” are interpreted through a profit-first lens.
Inside the Allegations: What Foxmar Did to a Vermont Worker
Cole sued Foxmar, which operates as Education and Training Resources, for unlawful retaliation under two Vermont laws:
- Vermont’s workplace safety law (VOSHA)
- Vermont’s earned sick time law (VESTA)
A jury heard the evidence and decided Foxmar retaliated against him under both laws. That means the company punished an employee for exercising basic rights: speaking up about safety and using earned sick time.
Those protections exist for a simple reason:
- Workers need to report unsafe conditions without gambling their job.
- Workers need to take sick time without fear of retribution.
When a company retaliates anyway, the harm goes far beyond one person. Every coworker sees what happens to the person who speaks up.
How the Damages Changed
The first jury sent a strong signal through money:
- Total damages: $3,215,943
- Punitive damages: $3,000,000
Foxmar pushed back. On the company’s motion, the judge decided the punitive damages were excessive and ordered a new trial on damages. The second jury awarded:
- Compensatory damages: $55,000
- Punitive damages: $0
Cole’s financial recovery dropped by more than ninety-eight percent.
Timeline of What Went Wrong
Below is a simplified timeline drawn from the court’s own description of the case:
| Year / Date | Event | Impact on Worker & Accountability |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 (case filed) | Cole files retaliation lawsuit against Foxmar in Vermont. | Worker launches legal fight that will last years. |
| First jury trial | Jury finds Foxmar retaliated under safety and sick time laws and awards over $3.2M, including $3M punitive. | Strong condemnation of Foxmar’s conduct; serious deterrent signal. |
| March 22, 2022 | On Foxmar’s motion, judge overturns punitive damages and orders new trial on damages. | Corporate liability shrinks; worker’s large victory is destabilized. |
| Second damages trial | Second jury awards $55,000 and no punitive damages. | Financial relief shrinks dramatically; deterrent effect weakens. |
| January 8, 2024 | Federal appeals court upholds the reduced $55,000 damages judgment. | Lower damages become final. |
| Cole’s renewed fee motion | Cole seeks about $240,537 in attorney’s fees plus costs. | Worker asks for the legal support the statutes promise. |
| October 29, 2024 | Trial court grants fees but cuts them by 55% through two across-the-board reductions. | Attorney’s compensation is sharply reduced; future worker cases become less attractive. |
| November 12, 2025 | Federal appeals court vacates the second, 30% cut and sends the fee issue back for recalculation. | Court reinforces the idea that Vermont law rejects tying fees to low damages. |
The timeline shows a pattern that workers across the country recognize: the initial victory looks strong; repeated legal maneuvers and “reasonableness” standards erode that power over time.
How Legal Fees Became a Corporate Shield
Vermont’s workplace safety and sick time laws both promise that workers who win their cases can recover “reasonable attorney’s fees” from the employer. Those provisions serve a clear public function:
- Make it feasible for workers to hire lawyers, even when expected damages are small.
- Shift the cost of enforcement from workers to employers who break the law.
Cole’s lawyer asked for about $240,536.75 in fees plus $18,407.98 in costs. The trial court agreed that Cole was entitled to fees but applied a series of blunt cuts:
- A small reduction for time classified as administrative work.
- A 25% cut for “excessive” hours across the case.
- An additional 30% cut based on the view that the fees needed to be trimmed to match the “overall success,” meaning the relatively small $55,000 damages award.
The result:
| Item | Amount (USD) |
|---|---|
| Fees requested (after admin tweak) | $238,625.75 |
| Total percentage cut applied | 55% |
| Fees awarded after cuts | $107,381.59 |
| Costs awarded | $18,407.98 |
The trial court treated the fee request as excessive in light of the eventual $55,000 damage award and emphasized what a “reasonable paying client” would accept.
A federal appeals court stepped in and drew a bright line. Vermont law allows courts to weigh how successful a plaintiff was. Vermont law does not allow courts to insist on a tight ratio between damages and attorney’s fees in these worker-protection statutes. The court explained that fee awards in this area are supposed to be disproportionate if that is what it takes to enforce the law and deter violations
In practical terms, the trial court’s approach would have made it unwise for many lawyers to take on cases like Cole’s. A company’s retaliation would go unchallenged, not because the law is weak on paper, but because enforcement becomes economically irrational for workers and their attorneys.
Regulatory Capture, Neoliberal Capitalism, and “Reasonable” Fees
This case sits inside a larger neoliberal pattern. Laws nominally protect workers… on paper, no employer can retaliate against someone who raises safety issues or uses earned sick time. Fee-shifting provisions are designed to help those laws matter in real workplaces.
Under neoliberal capitalism, three forces often twist that purpose:
- Deregulation in practice:
Agencies and courts can narrow the impact of protective laws through strict damages standards, procedural hurdles, and a narrow view of “reasonable” attorney’s fees, even without a formal repeal. - Regulatory capture by narrative:
When judges absorb business-style logic about efficiency, “windfalls,” and return on investment, they can treat worker victories as economically out of line and in need of trimming. The trial court’s emphasis on what a rational paying client would spend to recover $55,000 echoed market logic more than public-interest enforcement logic! - Profit-maximization incentives:
Employers have every reason under this system to fight hard, drag cases out, and argue for proportionality in fees. The more they succeed in shrinking attorney’s fees, the more they discourage future lawsuits that would challenge similar misconduct.
The appeals court’s decision pushes back against one piece of that structure by reaffirming that Vermont’s worker-protection laws are supposed to generate fee awards that can exceed the damages, sometimes by a wide margin. That stance treats corporate retaliation and deterrence as public concerns, not just private disputes.
Profit-Maximization vs. Corporate Social Responsibility
Foxmar’s conduct in this case shows how corporate social responsibility can collapse when it collides with profit motives.
Key facts established in the record:
- The company retaliated against an employee who sought to enforce his rights under workplace safety and earned sick time laws.
- A jury twice found that the company’s actions warranted financial compensation to the worker.
- The company sought and won a new trial that erased a large punitive verdict.
From the perspective of profit-maximization, this strategy makes sense:
- Retaliate against a worker who asserts rights, which sends a message to the rest of the workforce.
- Litigate hard to overturn or minimize any large judgment.
- Press arguments that shrink attorney’s fees, which reduces both the current payout and the chances that future workers find representation.
Under a corporate social responsibility framework, a company that cares about ethics would embrace workplace safety and earned sick time, correct internal problems, and compensate harmed workers fully.
The facts in this case show a different model: one where lawyers and courts become tools to contain costs and limit accountability, even after a worker proves retaliation.
Economic Fallout and the Chilling Effect on Workers
The financial story here matters for every worker thinking about speaking up.
For the worker
- Cole’s damages collapsed from over $3.2 million to $55,000.
- That second figure must cover years of struggle, disruption, and retaliation.
The case still produced a meaningful award, and the appeals court’s protection of robust fee-shifting makes it more realistic for workers to sue in the future. Still, the long road from a dramatic first verdict to a modest final number sends a warning: the system can sand down even clear wins.
For future plaintiffs
When courts tie attorney’s fees to small damages awards, lawyers think twice before taking similar cases. Fee-shifting statutes exist precisely because individual damage amounts often fall below what it costs to litigate. Treating fee awards as if they must line up with damage awards flips the structure:
- It rewards employers whose retaliation harms workers in ways that are hard to monetize.
- It discourages attorneys from investing time in complex worker cases with uncertain or limited dollar outcomes.
The appeals court explicitly recognized that the purpose of these fee rules is to promote enforcement and shift the cost of litigation to lawbreakers, especially where damages are modest.
Legal Minimalism: Doing Just Enough to Stay Comfortable
The opinion describes how Vermont courts calculate “reasonable” fees using a two-step method:
- Set a “lodestar” by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate.
- Adjust that figure up or down based on factors like complexity, attorney experience, and results obtained.
In Cole’s case, the appeals court agreed that trimming some hours as excessive made sense. That kind of scrutiny prevents lawyers from inflating bills.
The problem came when the trial court used proportionality (the idea that fees should not heavily exceed damages) to justify another broad cut.
Legal minimalism under neoliberal capitalism often looks like this:
- Courts talk about worker protections and public interest.
- Courts apply business-like metrics that shrink real-world enforcement.
The appeals court’s rejection of strict proportionality is a rare instance in which the law’s formal structure pushes back against that minimalist instinct. Fee-shifting in worker cases only works when the system accepts that enforcing rights often costs more than the damages any one worker receives.
How Capitalism Exploits Delay in Workplace Justice
The dates in this case tell their own story:
- The case began in the district court in 2018.
- A first jury verdict followed, then a 2022 order granting a new trial on damages.
- The second jury verdict went up on appeal, and the federal appellate decision on damages came in January 2024.
- The trial court ruled on fees in October 2024.
- The appellate court addressed the fee issue in November 2025.
For a worker, these are lost years. These be years of uncertainty, stress, and financial strain. For an evil corporation, time works differently:
- Legal costs are spread across revenue.
- Delay can weaken witnesses and discourage future claims.
- The company continues business operations while the individual plaintiff lives with the consequences of retaliation.
Neoliberal capitalism uses delay as a quiet weapon. Slow resolution does not just reflect clogged courts. Delay operates as a structural advantage for those with resources, which usually means employers, not workers.
Corporate Accountability Under Vermont’s Worker-Protection Laws
Vermont’s workplace safety and earned sick time laws carry one-sided fee provisions. That means:
- Workers who win can recover reasonable attorney’s fees.
- Employers who win do not get reciprocal fee awards under those provisions.
The Vermont Supreme Court, as quoted and summarized in the opinion, has explained that this design serves a public purpose: it encourages lawsuits that enforce important rights and places the financial burden on those who violate the law.
The appeals court in Cole’s case reinforced several core principles:
- Fee awards in these cases do not need to be proportional to damages.
- Courts must focus on reasonableness in light of the case’s demands, not on a simple ratio between recovery and fees.
- Large fee awards (even those that exceed damages by a factor of several times) can be necessary for meaningful enforcement.
That stance helps protect the broader community. When an employer retaliates against a worker for invoking safety protections or earned sick time, the harm does not end with one employee. It undermines every worker’s confidence that the law will back them up.
Pathways for Reform and Worker Power
This case suggests several concrete reforms and strategies that align with the logic of Vermont’s law and with deeper demands for economic justice:
- Codify the rejection of strict proportionality in worker fee statutes.
Legislatures can write explicit language that bars courts from reducing fee awards just because they exceed damages, reinforcing what this appellate decision already recognizes. - Strengthen public enforcement bodies.
When agencies and attorneys general have the resources to bring retaliation cases, workers are less dependent on individual litigation. - Support worker-side legal infrastructure.
Funding for legal aid and worker centers can help attorneys commit to complex retaliation cases without betting their financial survival on one fee petition. - Protect and reward whistleblowers.
Retaliation cases like Cole’s reveal how fragile workplace protections feel on the ground. Stronger whistleblower protections and damages structures can increase the cost of retaliation for employers. - Build collective pressure.
Unions and worker organizations can use cases like this to demand stronger contract language on safety, sick time, and anti-retaliation protections, shifting power away from purely individual lawsuits.
Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?
This lawsuit was serious.
Key points from the record:
- A jury found Foxmar liable for unlawful retaliation under both Vermont’s workplace safety law and its earned sick time law.
- The company’s conduct was serious enough that the first jury awarded $3 million in punitive damages on top of other compensation.
- A second jury still awarded $55,000 in compensatory damages, even after the high punitive award was set aside.
- The appeals court upheld the worker’s status as the prevailing party and confirmed his entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees.
The legal system recognized real harm and real misconduct. The core dispute centered on how much accountability Foxmar would face through damages and through the cost of the worker’s legal representation.
The case stands as a textbook example of a valid legal grievance that exposes structural weaknesses in how capitalist systems enforce worker rights.
Conclusion: This Is the System Working as Intended
Cole’s case shows what corporate misconduct looks like in our modern day neoliberal economy:
- An employer retaliates when a worker asserts basic legal rights.
- A jury condemns the conduct with a large verdict.
- Corporate legal strategy and judicial trimming narrow the financial impact.
- Courts debate what counts as a “reasonable” fee, while the worker lives through years of uncertainty.
The appeals court’s rejection of strict proportionality in fee awards protects a vital part of Vermont’s worker-protection scheme. Yet the larger pattern remains clear. The system often treats labor rights as negotiable, enforces them slowly, and subjects them to economic filters that favor those with resources.
This case does not show a glitch in the machine. It reveals how the machine operates when profit sits at the center and human well-being sits at the edge.
Real corporate accountability demands more than rights on paper. It requires structures (fee rules, damage standards, public enforcement, and organized worker power) that shift costs onto those who retaliate and away from those who speak up.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
NOTE:
This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:
- The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
- Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
- The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
- My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.
All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.
Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)
Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....
