Media & Press Overview
What This Case Is About
This matter began in early 2025 after I worked as a W-2 product demonstrator inside Costco stores under the consumer health brands Qunol, and Zena Nutrition.
While investigating irregularities related to payroll, employer identity, and corporate control, I began examining the entity structure behind my employment. What I discovered led to litigation and federal whistleblower filings.
At the center of the case is an alleged nationwide workforce structure operating through layered corporate entities. Workers across multiple states perform in-store retail and product promotion services tied to Sanofi consumer brands. However, according to the filed complaint, the entities directly employing workers are downstream shell companies with limited assets and limited operational transparency.
After I began questioning payroll, employer identity, and corporate control, and once litigation commenced in early 2025, a series of corporate restructuring actions followed involving the downstream entities at issue. According to public records and court filings, officers were appointed, entity registrations were updated across multiple states, and ownership structures were shifted, including transfers involving trust arrangements. The complaint alleges that these changes occurred after scrutiny began and form part of a broader pattern of structural modification within a nationwide workforce model tied to Sanofi consumer brands, including Qunol and Zena Nutrition. The timing and scope of these actions are central to the dispute now before the court.
The federal lawsuit alleges that this structure effectively isolates upstream parent entities from liability, regulatory scrutiny, and direct accountability, while workers remain contractually bound to downstream entities that often lack meaningful recourse.
These allegations are currently being litigated.
The Structural Harm Alleged
The case raises broader issues beyond one individual wage dispute.
According to the pleadings:
• Thousands of workers nationwide have been placed within layered shell entities.
• The structure limits workers’ ability to pursue meaningful claims beyond narrow wage disputes.
• Upstream parent entities benefit from nationwide retail operations while remaining structurally insulated.
• Arbitration agreements tied to downstream entities restrict broader discovery and public court access.
The dispute is not limited to unpaid wages, which is the narrative they are pushing. It concerns whether corporate structuring is being used to fragment accountability and prevent workers from effectively challenging employer identity, tax reporting, and regulatory compliance.
No findings have been made. These are contested allegations before the court.
Escalation to Federal Whistleblower Proceedings
After months of procedural obstruction in arbitration proceedings and lack of participation by upstream entities, I expanded the matter in April 2025 by filing federal whistleblower submissions.
I am currently a whistleblower with:
• The Internal Revenue Service
• The Securities and Exchange Commission
• The U.S. Department of Labor
These filings concern alleged tax reporting irregularities, employer-identity representations, and retaliation following protected activity.
Under the Taxpayer First Act, whistleblower retaliation claims are subject to specific federal protections. However, in this case, the mandated whistleblower proceeding initially involved only the downstream shell entity — not the upstream entities that were reported.
This structural limitation is one of the central issues now being litigated.
Why This Matters Beyond One Case
This litigation raises questions about:
• Corporate veil layering in nationwide retail labor structures
• Arbitration as a barrier to structural discovery
• Whistleblower protection enforcement when employer identity is fragmented
• Whether large parent entities can operate through layered subsidiaries in ways that effectively limit worker recourse
At its core, this is a case about accountability and whistleblower protection — and whether corporate structuring can prevent meaningful oversight.
Current Procedural Posture
• Litigation began in early 2025.
• A federal fraud action is pending in U.S. District Court.
• A Taxpayer First Act whistleblower matter is active.
• Arbitration proceedings remain ongoing.
• Upstream parent entities have now appeared in federal court represented by Faegre Drinker and Jackson Lewis.
• A dispute involving alleged altered evidence submitted to the federal record is pending before the court.
No findings of liability have been entered.
Transparency
Since becoming a federal whistleblower in April 2025, I have created and maintained this investigative website compiling every filing, motion, exhibit, and procedural development. All materials are organized by forum and available for independent review.
Why I Am Representing Myself
A common question is: why are you representing yourself in complex federal litigation?
The answer is simple.
This case is not just a legal dispute to me. It is my livelihood, my reputation, and my future. I have previously entrusted critical matters in my life to professionals who, despite their credentials, did not treat the stakes the same way I did.
For many people, litigation is a job. For me, this is my life.
Over the past year, I have studied federal procedure, corporate structure, whistleblower law, and the record itself because I refuse to believe that ordinary individuals are incapable of understanding or navigating the system. We are often told that only those with formal credentials can challenge large institutions. I do not accept that premise.
If I lose, it will be because of something I argued.
If I prevail, it will be because I stood up and did the work myself.
This case also raises a broader issue: whether access to justice is truly accessible when corporate resources vastly outweigh individual capacity.
I believe individuals are more capable than they are often told, and this case is part of that test.