jury

Riverside County has been ordered to pay $2.25 million to a former sergeant who said he was pressured into early retirement in retaliation for reporting workplace harassment by a superior.

Sgt. Frank Lodes was forced to leave the job he loved in 2022 — penning a resignation letter in a Del Taco parking lot — while a high-ranking department official threatened him with mounting investigations, according to the complaint. On Tuesday a civil jury concluded that Lodes resigned involuntarily due to his reporting of a hostile workplace and was awarded the multimillion-dollar payment as compensation for his emotional damages.

Lodes’ attorney Bijan Darvish said the award was a “significant number” that adequately represents the harm inflicted on Lodes, noting that the period since his forced retirement has been the “darkest four years” of Lodes’ life.

He said that his client did not wish to comment on the verdict as discussing the events remained painful. The Sheriff’s Department and the county did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Being a cop was his life; he lived and breathed it 24/7,” Darvish said. “It was his entire identity, and that’s why it was so difficult for him when it was taken away.”

The jury award comes amid a rare wide-open governor’s race that includes the head of the Sheriff’s Department, Chad Bianco, who is a leading GOP candidate for the seat. Bianco has staked his campaign on his lengthy career in law enforcement, which spans more than three decades, including serving as the elected sheriff of Riverside County since 2019.

Although high-ranking Sheriff’s Department officials were involved in Lodes’ case, Darvish said there was no evidence presented at trial that Bianco had direct knowledge of his client’s mistreatment. Bianco was not a defendant in the lawsuit. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Darvish argues that the case points to a departmental culture of covering up allegations of misconduct.

“When there’s a harassment complaint made against the captain and they never investigated, and they pressure someone to resign and withdraw the complaint,” he said, “then that’s a systemic issue.”

The retaliation began after Lodes, a 25-year veteran of the department, formally reported workplace harassment with human resources in March 2022, according to the complaint.

Lodes had been called mentally ill in front of his peers by a captain during a promotability meeting around October 2021. A few months later, he found degrading posters of his head on a child’s body shoved inside his uniform pockets and gun holster and plastered over the station walls, according to the complaint.

The department responded to his harassment report by launching an investigation into Lodes unlawfully using informants and threatening him with possible criminal prosecution, according to Darvish.

The jury agreed that these allegations were a manufactured excuse to cover up unlawful retaliation.

Within days of filing the workplace harassment complaint, a Internal Affairs sergeant packed Lodes’ personal belongings in a box and drove them to his house, according to the complaint. The sergeant spent hours pressuring Lodes, then 47, to accept early retirement.

The following day, Lodes was told to meet with a high-ranking official in the Sheriff’s Department in a Del Taco parking lot who instructed him to resign immediately and withdraw his harassment complaint.

The $2.25-million award in the civil case will come from the county’s coffers.

The award casts renewed scrutiny on Bianco’s Sheriff’s Department two weeks before primary election ballots land in Californians’ mailboxes.

He was also in the spotlight in March after seizing more than 650,000 ballots from the November election as part of an investigation to determine if they were fraudulently counted. He put the investigation on hold shortly before the California Supreme Court halted it pending further review.

Times staff writer James Queally contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has subpoenaed several witnesses to testify before a federal grand jury in Washington as part of its investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, three people familiar with the matter said Monday.

The subpoenas were issued in recent days and represent an effort by the Justice Department to press forward with the investigation even as a Florida-based career prosecutor who’d been helping lead the inquiry left the case after expressing doubts about the legal viability of a potential prosecution.

A former Justice Department lawyer who served as a top prosecutor in the 1980s and later supported legal efforts by President Trump to overturn his 2020 election loss has since been sworn in to serve as a special counselor to the attorney general, and is expected to work on the investigation.

The months-old Brennan investigation is one of several criminal probes the Justice Department has opened over the last year against Trump’s perceived adversaries. It centers on one of the Republican president’s chief grievances — a U.S. intelligence community finding that Russia interfered on his behalf during his successful 2016 presidential campaign.

The subpoenas were described by people with knowledge of them who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Associated Press to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation. At least three were said to have been issued, said two of the people. CBS News earlier reported the issuance of subpoenas.

Brennan served as CIA director under President Obama and was in that role when the intelligence community in January 2017 published an assessment detailing Russian interference aimed at helping Trump defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. An investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that Russia meddled on Trump’s behalf and that his campaign welcomed the assistance, but it did not find sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy.

The Justice Department last year received a criminal referral from Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, alleging that Brennan made false statements before the panel in 2023 about the preparation of the intelligence community assessment. Brennan and his lawyers have vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

The investigation has been unfolding for months in Florida, with investigators having lined up interviews and issued subpoenas for records. The latest subpoenas seek grand jury testimony in Washington, an indication that prosecutors expect they would have to bring any criminal case in Washington since that is where Brennan’s testimony took place.

On Friday, it was revealed that a key national security prosecutor in Florida who’d been handling the investigation, Maria Medetis Long, left the case. She expressed doubts about the case and was removed, another person familiar with the matter said.

The Justice Department since then has tapped Joseph diGenova, 81, a Trump loyalist who served as the U.S. attorney in Washington for part of the 1980s, to serve as a special counselor to the attorney general. He was sworn in Monday in Florida and is expected to work on the Brennan investigation.

DiGenova supported Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. He made headlines that year when he said Chris Krebs, a top Trump administration cybersecurity official who said the election was not tainted by fraud, should be killed. DiGenova later apologized and a lawsuit filed against him by Krebs was withdrawn.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — Beverly Hills-based Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary faced a bruising courtroom loss Wednesday after a federal jury found that the company operated a monopoly over concert venues.

The verdict by a Manhattan, N.Y., jury came after a five-week trial and caps a closely watched case that could have far reaching effects across the music industry, potentially leading to the breakup of the companies.

Ticketmaster is the world’s largest ticket seller for live events, while Live Nation is a dominant force in the concert business.

The civil case began when the federal government alleged that Live Nation used its clout to engage in a variety of anticompetitive practices, including preventing venues from using multiple ticket sellers.

“It is time to hold them accountable,” Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, said in a closing argument. He called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that drove up prices for ticket buyers.

Jurors agreed. They found that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. The judge will assess damages later.

Live Nation, which owns and operates hundreds of venues, countered that it did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, arguing that artists, sports teams and venues decide prices and ticketing practices.

“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Live Nation attorney David Marriott said in his summation.

Live Nation said in a statement that the “jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” noting the court had yet to rule on a motion it had filed to challenge its liability in the case.

The trial revealed some embarrassing internal communications, including emails from a Live Nation executive who called customers “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” The executive, Benjamin Baker, testified that the messages were “very immature and unacceptable.”

The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, dates to 2024. It alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster monopolized various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.

Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America, while Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market, according to the lawsuit.

Last month, Live Nation secured an unexpected tentative settlement with the Department of Justice in which the company agreed to several structural changes to its business, including adjustments to ticketing deals with venues, capping service fees and paying a $280-million fine.

However, more than 30 states, including California, decided to proceed with the trial. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta praised these state-led efforts to protect consumers, even amid dwindling antitrust enforcement from the Trump administration, he said in a statement.

“This is a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans, and the venues that support them,” Bonta said. “We are incredibly proud of today’s outcome … this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans.”

Though a verdict has been reached, remedies for how Live Nation will be held accountable for its actions are still being decided by the judge.

One possibility is that the companies could be split up, an outcome favored by critics.

National Independent Venue Assn. Executive Director Stephen Parker said Ticketmaster and Live Nation need to be separate for the industry to see change.

“Live Nation and Ticketmaster must be broken up now. Ticketmaster should not be permitted to participate in the ticket resale market. Live Nation should not be able to promote more than 50% of artists’ tours,” Parker said in a statement. “And the damages paid to the states should be remitted to the independent venues, promoters, festivals, and fans that have suffered under Live Nation’s monopolistic reign over the last 15 years.”

Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said that the separation of Live Nation and Ticket master seems to be “on the table,” but she said it’s too early to assess the verdict’s fallout on the music industry.

Elton said fans might notice small changes in pricing, but there are factors other than Live Nation that are contributing to high ticket prices, such as the secondary ticket market as well as supply and demand challenges.

The verdict, Elton said, “sends a message of support to music companies and professionals working in the live space who have felt like they have suffered financial consequences because of Live Nation’s behavior.”

The ruling is a small but necessary step toward achieving a balanced and competitive ticketing industry, said Hal Singer, a managing director of economic consulting firm Econ One, who specializes in antitrust and consumer protection issues.

Forcing a Ticketmaster sale probably is the only remedy that will bring real change, Singer said.

“We’re not out of the woods quite yet,” Singer said. “We’ve kind of tilted the probability.… It could change the competitive balance. But that requires that a meaningful remedy follows the liability. You need both.”

Fans and some artists have long groused about Ticketmaster, which was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010.

Dustin Brighton, director of government relations for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, agreed that although the verdict is a landmark moment for fans, “it’s not the end of the road.”

“As the court considers remedies, the focus must be on restoring competition, increasing transparency, and ensuring fans have real choice,” Brighton said in a statement.

Times staff writer August Brown and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

April 15 (UPI) — A jury found Wednesday that Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster maintained an illegal monopoly in ticketing.

The case was heard in a Manhattan federal court over five weeks and saw testimony from dozens of witnesses. The jury began deliberations Friday.

The complaint was brought by the Department of Justice and several state attorneys general in 2024. It said that the company engaged in “anticompetitive conduct” and controlled all ticketing, concert booking, venues and promotions.

Because of this, fans paid higher fees, and artists had fewer options for touring and venues.

Live Nation denies acting as a monopoly.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the verdict “a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans and the venues that support them.”

“In the face of dwindling antitrust enforcement by the Trump Administration, this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans,” Bonta said in a statement.

The Justice Department struck a settlement deal in March, but states decided to continue with the lawsuit instead.

The Justice Department settlement with Live Nation required Ticketmaster to divest up to 13 amphitheaters, reserve 50% of tickets for nonexclusive venues and cap ticketing service fees at 15%. A senior Justice Department official said it would lower prices by expanding choices.

“This settlement will resolve all remaining matters with the DOJ, without any admission of wrongdoing,” Live Nation said in a statement.

The verdict does not mean prices will drop soon, CNN reported.

Judge Arun Subramanian now must have a second trial to decide on remedies. The states requested a breakup of the company, or he could order a sale of the business.

“It will be an earthquake in the industry in terms of people’s perception in feeling validated,” Scott Grzenczyk, a lawyer with law firm Girard Sharp, told CNN.

“There’s a big difference between people complaining about Goliath and getting a jury verdict that Goliath was a monopolist and doing something wrong,” he said.

Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, pleaded with jurors during closing arguments to “apply your common sense,” NBC News reported.

“You’re New Yorkers,” he said. “I trust that you know when someone is blowing smoke or being straight with you.”

“It’s time to hold them accountable,” Kessler said.

WASHINGTON — Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of President Trump, on Monday won a Supreme Court order that is expected to lead to the dismissal of his criminal conviction for refusing to testify to Congress.

Prodded by the Trump administration, the justices threw out an appellate ruling upholding Bannon’s conviction for defying a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by a mob of Trump supporters on the U.S. Capitol.

The move frees a trial judge to act on the Republican administration’s pending request to dismiss Bannon’s conviction and indictment “in the interests of justice.”

The dismissal would be largely symbolic. Bannon served a four-month prison term after a jury convicted him of contempt of Congress in 2022. A federal appeals court in Washington had upheld the conviction.

The justices also issued a similar order in the case of former Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who was pardoned by Trump last year.

Sittenfeld had served 16 months in federal prison after a jury convicted him of bribery and attempted extortion in 2022. The high court order allows a lower court to consider dismissing his indictment.

The Justice Department brought the case against Bannon during Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency, but it changed course after Trump took office again last year.

Bannon had initially argued that his testimony was protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege. But the House panel and the Justice Department contended such a claim was dubious because Trump had fired Bannon from the White House in 2017 and Bannon was thus a private citizen when he was consulting with the then-president in the run-up to the Capitol riot.

Bannon separately has pleaded guilty in a New York state court to defrauding donors to a private effort to build a wall on the U.S. southern border, as part of a plea deal that allowed him to avoid jail time. That conviction is unaffected by the Supreme Court action.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

March 26 (UPI) — A California jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for negligently designing addictive social media platforms that harm children, in a landmark verdict that could have lasting implications for the tech industry.

The Wednesday verdict marks the first time technology companies have been found liable for creating addictive online products, amid increased scrutiny of the industry and a wave of litigation.

“This jury saw exactly what we presented from the very first day of trial: that these companies built digital spaces designed to negatively influence the brains of children, and they did it on purpose,” Mark Lanier, lead trial counsel and founder of The Lanier Law Firm, said in a statement.

“The evidence showed that Meta and YouTube knew their platforms were hooking children and harming their mental health, and instead of fixing the problem they kept developing features to maximize the time kids spent on their apps. Now a jury has told them that is not acceptable, and you are being held accountable.”

UPI has contacted Meta and YouTube for comment.

The verdict follows a seven-week trial centered on a now-20-year-old plaintiff known to the court by her initials K.G.M., who testified that her use of Instagram, owned by Meta, and YouTube, an Alphabet product, from a young age caused her to develop anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

During the trial, she testified that the platforms’ addictive design features, including algorithm-generated recommendations, beauty features and push notifications caused her severe mental harm.

“[The plaintiff] put a human face on what these companies have known for years: that their platforms were engineered to hook young users, and that the children most vulnerable to trauma were the ones they were most effectively reaching,” Rachel Lanier, co-lead counsel and managing attorney of The Lanier Law Firm’s Los Angeles office, said in a statement.

In its verdict, the jury found Meta 70% responsible for the harm the plaintiff suffered and YouTube 30% responsible, and ordered the Mark Zuckerberg-owned tech behemoth and Google‘s video-sharing service to pay her a combined $6 million, half for compensatory damages and half for punitive damages.

Of the punitive damages, Meta is to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000.

This was the first trial in a much larger consolidated case involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs seeking to hold social media companies responsible for the harm they suffered from using those products.

“This is a major victory for the public, for social media users and for child safety,” Libby Liu, CEO of nonprofit legal organization Whistleblower Aid, told UPI in an emailed statement.

“Each successful lawsuit paints a crystal clear picture showing that Meta is not above the law and can and should be held accountable.”

The verdict came down a day after a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for misleading consumers about the safety of its products, ordering the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties for violating the state’s consumer protection laws.

During the trial, state prosecutors showed that Meta’s design features enabled predators to engage in child sexual exploitation, while demonstrating that Meta intentionally designed its platforms to addict young people.

Following the verdict in Los Angeles County, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat, celebrated it as “another critical step toward justice that puts Meta and other big tech executives on notice that they cannot evade responsibility for design choices that jeopardize child safety.”

“We will seek court-mandated changes to Meta’s platforms that offer protections for kids,” he said in a statement.

The rulings come as more attention is being paid to the effects social media has on youth, resulting with Australia in December banning those under the age of 16 from social media, while other countries are considering similar restrictions.

A Los Angeles jury has found Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $6 million in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit. The case involved a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to the apps at a young age due to their platform design. Meta says it plans to appeal the decision.

A California jury found ⁠Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $3m in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit that accused the companies of being legally responsible for the addictive design of their platforms.

The decision was handed down by a Los Angeles-based jury on Wednesday after more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, and more than a month after jurors heard opening statements in the trial.

Among those who testified in the case were Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, although YouTube chief executive Neal Mohan was not called to testify.

The plaintiff in the case, referred to as KGM or Kaley, was awarded $3m in damages. The 20-year-old said she became addicted to social media at a young age, which exacerbated her mental health issues. She began using YouTube at age six and Meta-owned Instagram at age nine.

Kaley’s legal team alleged that the social media giants used designed features intended to hook young users, including notifications and autoplay features.

“Today’s verdict is a historic moment — for Kaley and for the thousands of children and families who have been waiting for this day. She showed extraordinary courage in bringing this case and telling her story in open court. A jury of Kaley’s peers heard the evidence, heard what Meta and YouTube knew and when they knew it, and held them accountable for their conduct. Today’s verdict belongs to Kaley,” lawyers for the plaintiff said in a statement shared with Al Jazeera.

Jurors were instructed not to consider the content of the posts and videos Kaley saw on the platforms. That is because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for user-posted content under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Meta consistently argued that Kaley had struggled with her mental health separate from her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life. Meta also said, “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health issues in a statement following closing arguments. But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles — only that it was a “substantial factor” in causing her harm.

YouTube focused less on Kaley’s medical records and mental health history and more on her use of the platform itself. The company argued that YouTube is not a form of social media, but rather a video platform, akin to television, and pointed to her declining use as she got older.

According to company data, she spent about one minute per day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception. YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, is the platform’s section for short-form, vertical videos that include the “infinite scroll” feature that the plaintiffs argued was addictive.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” Jose Castaneda, a spokesperson for Google, told Al Jazeera.

Meta did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Snap and TikTok were previously named in the suit but settled with the plaintiff for undisclosed terms before the trial began.

Shifting momentum

The verdict is the latest in a wave of lawsuits targeting social media companies. There is a looming federal social media addiction case slated to begin in June in Oakland, California.

On Tuesday in New Mexico, a jury found that Meta violated state law by misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and by enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.

This case has been closely watched by legal experts, who say the verdict will shape future litigation.

“The fact the jury found Meta and Google liable represents that these cases have real exposure to the social media giants, and are going to frame how future litigation will proceed. Although this case will certainly be appealed, I would not be surprised if Meta and Google are already making changes within their platform to reflect the real exposure, and hopefully, the states will start to enact laws regulating social media in a manner congruent with the ruling,” entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell told Al Jazeera.

Professor Eric Goldman, associate dean for research at the Santa Clara University School of Law, echoed Lovell’s assessment.

“The Los Angeles jury verdict is the first of three bellwether trials in Los Angeles, with more bellwether trials to follow in summer, in the federal case. As such, today’s verdict is just one datapoint about liability and damages. The other trials could reach divergent outcomes, so this jury verdict isn’t the final word on any matter.”

Despite the ruling, Meta’s stock has not taken a hit, as it came the same day CEO Mark Zuckerberg was appointed to a new White House advisory council. The stock is up 0.7 percent. Alphabet’s stock, however, is trending downward in midday trading on the heels of the verdict, down 1 percent.

Jury finds that two tweets posted in May 2022 by Musk contained false statements responsible for a plunge in Twitter’s share price.

A federal jury in California has found that tech tycoon Elon Musk misled Twitter shareholders, driving down the company’s share price as he was poised to buy it in a $44bn deal.

The verdict delivered on Friday in the class action securities lawsuit means the world’s richest person could be ordered to pay billions of dollars, according to damages calculated by jurors.

After a three-week trial in a San Francisco federal court – which included in-person testimony from Musk – the jury found that two tweets posted in May 2022 by the Tesla and SpaceX CEO contained false statements responsible for a plunge in Twitter’s share price.

Investor Giuseppe Pampena had filed the suit on behalf of people who sold Twitter shares between mid-May and early October 2022.

Jurors agreed that Musk violated a securities rule that bars false and misleading statements that sink a stock price, in this case that of Twitter, the verdict form showed. A lawyer for the plaintiffs estimated the damages at about $2.6bn.

But the nine-person jury absolved Musk of some fraud allegations, finding that he did not “scheme” to mislead investors.

Minutes after the judgement was announced, lawyers for Musk, who acquired the social media platform in late October 2022 and later renamed it X, said their client will appeal the decision, characterising it as a “setback”.

Musk, who has a near-constant presence on X, did not immediately react to the verdict, which marks a rare legal defeat for the billionaire often dubbed “Teflon Elon” for his ability to emerge unscathed from lawsuits he is expected to lose.

In 2023, a jury in the same San Francisco federal court cleared him within hours of similar charges brought by Tesla shareholders, following his 2018 tweets claiming he had the funding to take the automaker private.

Musk abandoned his effort to get out of buying Twitter in late 2022 after the company took him to court to uphold the contract. He has since merged the social media platform with his artificial intelligence startup xAI and his private space exploration firm SpaceX.

Forbes magazine earlier this month estimated Elon Musk’s net worth at $839bn, a figure based primarily on his stakes in his portfolio of companies including Tesla and SpaceX.

Despite the show’s approach to make their actors unrecognisable you might remember some from big series

A Prime Video series that was dubbed ‘best show ever’ is finally returning with a whole new cast and approach, although there are still some faces that you might recognise.

Jury Duty is returning with a second season and a new set up, with the first episodes available to stream from March 20. Part social experiment, part reality series and part sitcom, the show is unlike most of what you’ve seen before.

According to its synopsis, Jury Duty Presents: Company Retreat is a comedy series that captures a corporate offsite event at a family-owned hot sauce company from the perspective of Anthony, a recently hired temporary worker.

Unbeknownst to Anthony, the entire experience is staged. Every colleague around him is performing a role and each moment whether in conference rooms or during downtime has been meticulously orchestrated. As the founder prepares to step down, the getaway transforms into a clash between big corproate ambitions and small business values, with control of the company hanging in the balance.

While the premise of the show means that all the actors involved have to be unrecognisable to the one non-actor, there are actually a few faces you may have seen before. But who are they and what have they starred in that you may remember them from? Here’s all you need to know.

Jerry Hauck plays Doug, the CEO of Rockin Grandma’s Hot Sauce. He’s described as “a lovable papa bear with Big Dad Energy who cares deeply about the company he’s built and the people that work for it.” Hauck has had memorable small roles on huge shows including ER, Seinfeld, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Paradise.

Alex Bonifer stars as Doug’s son and heir apparent to the business, Dougie Jr. He is “well-meaning but directionless” who is suddenly handed huge responsibilities. Eagle-eyed viewers will recognise Bonifer from Kevin Can F*** Himself where he played the role of Neil.

Amy, of customer relations is played by Emily Pendergast who has a lot of experience in comedy TV. She starred in multiple episodes of Veep and Netflix sitcom Leanne. Meanwhile the eventually nicknamed Other Anthony, who is he company’s Assistant Sourcing Manager, is played by Rob Lathan who previously appeared in Inside Amy Schumer and has served as a writer on other sketch shows.

Comedian Rachel Kaly plays remote worker and web designer Claire. While her character might be obsessed with the series Bones, she herself has appeared on animated comedy Digman! and High Maintenance.

Straight talking Helen, from accounting who has been at the business from the very beginning alongside Doug, is played by Stephanie Hodge. She is one of the most experienced cast members with past credits including NCIS, Young Sheldon and Scandal. She also had starring roles in the 90s on Nurses and Unhappily Ever After.

Jackie, who works in distribution and logistics when not taking charge of her kids at home, is played by LaNisa Renee Frederick. She’s previously appeared in smaller roles on Brooklyn Nine Nine, The Goldbergs and Mom.

Jim Woods, who was a writer on The Last O.G. starring Tracy Morgan, and starred on Reno 911!. takes on the role of warehouse manager Jimmy. He may have once been the non P.C. employee but he’s working maybe a bit too hard to be a better version of himself.

Erica Hernandez plays Kate from sales and marketing, who often gives the impression she should have a leadership role herself. Hernandez previously starred in the drama series True Lies, based on the 1994 Arnold Schwarzenegger film as well as New Amsterdam.

The other half of Team Skate (Steve & Kate), Steve is a “confident salesman that plays the calmer yin to Kate’s high-strung yang.” He is played by Warren Burke who has appeared in 13 episodes of Family Reunion and eight episodes of Bigger.

Snack obsessed receptionist PJ, is played by Marc-Sully Saint-Fleur who you may have seen before in Steve Carrell starring Netflix comedy Space Force or his brief appearances in Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Good Place. There’s also HR manager Kevin who is the one who seemingly hires Anthony to be his assistant.

He is played by Ryan Perez. Perez is actually a seasoned comedy actor, writer and director. He has written for Saturday Night Live and The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon while he has also directed Funny or Die shorts with Will Ferrell and Kevin Hart.

Ranch manager Marjorie who is looking after the company workers while on retreat is played by Blair Beeken. She most recently appeared in Apple’s hit sci-fi series Pluribus.

Jury Duty Presents Company Retreat is streaming on Prime Video.

For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new ** Everything Gossip ** website