Settlement Agreement Against Tobacco Companies Must Be Enforced

AUSTIN – Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded a ruling from the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, holding that a 1998 comprehensive settlement agreement with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and other tobacco companies stands and the agreed payments to the state for smoking-related healthcare costs must be enforced. The court rejected Reynolds’s argument that selling acquired brands included in the settlement nullified its obligation to Texas taxpayers, declaring that “Reynolds remains as liable today as it was when it entered into the Texas Settlement in 1998.”  

In 2015, ITG Brands LLC acquired three cigarette brands from Reynolds and one cigarette brand from Lorillard Tobacco Company—Kool, Maverick, Salem, and Winston. Both Reynolds and Lorillard signed the comprehensive settlement agreement with Texas over smoking-related healthcare costs. Since this sale, the required payments to Texas under the settlement agreement for those brands have not been made. This ruling prevents the tobacco companies from depriving Texas of hundreds of millions of dollars in past and future amounts owed under the settlement. Reynolds is obligated to pay Texas for sales of these cigarettes in perpetuity and for significant amounts that are already past due. 

“I applaud the court for holding tobacco companies accountable to the terms of the settlement to which they agreed. Texas taxpayers are owed substantial back payments and we will not allow any company to shirk their obligations to the people of this state,” said Attorney General Paxton. “ No matter how large the company or how long the fight, my office will continue to fight for the compensation that taxpayers are owed.” 

AG Paxton Applauds $1.6 Billion Global Settlement with Opioid Manufacturer

AUSTIN
– Attorney General Ken Paxton today announced a global settlement
framework agreement between state attorneys general, local subdivisions,
and Mallinckrodt (MNK), its subsidiaries, and certain other affiliates.
MNK is currently the largest generic opioid manufacturer in the United
States. In the agreement, MNK agrees to pay $1.6 billion in cash to a
trust that will cover the costs of opioid addiction treatment and
related efforts, with the potential for increased payment to the trust.
MNK also agrees that its future generics opioid business will be subject
to stringent injunctive relief that, among other things, will prevent
marketing and ensure systems are in place to prevent diversion.

Opioids
are a family of drugs including prescription painkillers and illegal
drugs like heroin. Nationwide, prescription and illegal opioids are the
main cause of drug overdose deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
opioids were involved in more than 47,600 overdose deaths in 2017. From
1999 to 2017, more than 702,000 people have died from a drug
overdose.     

“This
agreement with MNK is just one example of the timely solutions needed
in our fight against the opioid epidemic. My office has been
aggressively working to hold opioid manufacturers accountable for their
deceptive marketing of highly-addictive pain pills, which spurred an
epidemic and left victims and families with unimaginable consequences,”
said Attorney General Paxton. “My focus is on not only accountability,
but also obtaining the resources we need to get victims of this epidemic
the help they deserve. This agreement is a significant step in the
right direction, and my office will continue to do everything it can to
protect Texans and help our state heal from this life-destroying
crisis.”   

In
2017, Attorney General Paxton and a bipartisan coalition of 40 states
served investigative subpoenas on eight companies that manufacture or
distribute highly addictive painkillers. Since then, Attorney General
Paxton also initiated lawsuits against both Purdue Pharma and Johnson
& Johnson for misleading marketing and sale of opioids.  

M&M Limousine to Pay $30,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit

CHICAGO - Des Plaines, Ill.-based M&M Limousine Service will pay a
deaf job applicant $30,000 to settle a disability discrimination
lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), the federal agency announced
today.

The EEOC's lawsuit charged M&M Limousine with violating federal
discrimination law when it refused to hire the applicant based on his
disability and failed to consider whether he could do the job, with or
without reasonable accommodation.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires
an individualized assessment of whether an applicant with a disability
can perform the job with or without
reasonable accommodation. The EEOC filed its suit (Civil Action No.
1:19-CV-04213) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement
through its conciliation process.

M&M will pay $30,000 in monetary relief to the discrimination
victim as part of a three-year consent decree settling the suit, signed
by U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman on Feb. 19, 2020. The decree also
provides non-monetary relief
intended to prevent disability discrimination in M&M's workplace.
M&M must train managers and supervisors on disability discrimination
and requests for reasonable accommodations under the ADA. The company
must track accommodation requests
and complaints of disability discrimination and report them to the EEOC.

Greg Gochanour, EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, noted that the
settlement had been negotiated before the parties engaged in extended
litigation or pre-trial discovery.

"Early resolution of the case is good news for everyone," said
Gochanour. "The parties avoid the delay and costs associated with
protracted litigation. The job applicant receives compensation for his
damages sooner rather than later, and
corrective measures will soon be put in place."

EEOC District Director Julianne Bowman added, "This settlement serves
as a reminder that the ADA prohibits employers from making
discriminatory assumptions about deaf people during the hiring process
and requires an individualized assessment as
to whether a deaf applicant can perform the essential functions of the
job with or without reasonable accommodations."