Which high-profile associates were named in lawsuits and what were the legal outcomes for each?
Executive summary
Several prominent lawsuits named well-known or plainly identifiable “associates” — plaintiffs or groups tied to large organizations — and the public reporting shows mixed outcomes: some plaintiffs won large judgments or settlements, others saw their claims dismissed or narrowed, and still others secured partial procedural victories; the key examples in the reporting include the executive producers of The Walking Dead (against AMC), female Wal‑Mart associates in Wal‑Mart v. Dukes, more than 33,000 Providence health‑system employees, Nicholas Sandmann (and his family) against major news outlets, and an associate attorney who sued her firm in a gender‑bias matter (sources: Gibson Dunn, HKM, Forbes, FindLaw) [1][2][3][4][5].
1. Executive producers of The Walking Dead — sued AMC and lost at trial
The executive producers who sought “hundreds of millions” from AMC under profits‑participation contracts were the named plaintiffs in a high‑stakes suit, and AMC secured a sweeping bench‑trial victory—Gibson Dunn’s account of the result says the court rejected the producers’ claims and awarded AMC a decisive win [1].
2. Female Wal‑Mart associates in Wal‑Mart v. Dukes — class certification reversed at the Supreme Court
The putative class of more than 1.5 million female Wal‑Mart associates who pursued Title VII claims were the named class members in Wal‑Mart v. Dukes; on appeal, Gibson Dunn reports that the Supreme Court decertified the nationwide class, reversing what had been the largest Title VII class certification in history and changing Rule 23 practice [2].
3. More than 33,000 Providence employees — jury awarded over $229 million
A class of Washington state healthcare workers represented by HKM alleged unpaid wages against Providence Health & Services and, according to the firm’s reporting, a King County jury found Providence liable and ordered payment of more than $229 million to over 33,000 employees [3].
4. Nicholas Sandmann (and family) — multiple defamation suits against media with mixed procedural outcomes
Nicholas Sandmann and his family brought high‑profile defamation suits against outlets including The Washington Post, CNN and NBCUniversal; reporting in Forbes notes the Post suit was initially dismissed but a federal judge later revived part of it, while the cases against CNN and NBC were advanced in separate decisions — indicating partial procedural survivals rather than simple wins or losses at that stage [4].
5. An associate attorney’s gender‑bias suit — settled
A publicized gender‑discrimination lawsuit brought by an associate attorney against a firm generated media attention and, according to FindLaw, that matter ultimately settled rather than proceeding to a contested verdict [5].
6. Pattern and limits in the reporting — wins, procedural victories, and settlements
Across these examples the outcomes fall into three broad buckets documented by the sources: outright defense victories at trial (AMC), appellate or procedural reversals that defeat mass certification (Wal‑Mart), large jury awards for workers (Providence), partial revivals and continued litigation in defamation suits (Sandmann), and confidential or negotiated settlements in employment disputes (associate attorney case) [1][2][3][4][5]; the sources are law‑firm or media summaries and do not uniformly supply final appellate histories or settlement detail beyond the items cited, so any claim about subsequent appeals, confidential settlement terms, or enforcement beyond what these pieces report would exceed the record provided [1][2][3][4][5].
7. Competing narratives and implicit agendas in the sources
The law‑firm posts (Gibson Dunn, HKM) naturally frame outcomes as firm victories or client vindications, which highlights favorable rulings and may not dwell on adverse rulings or ongoing appeals [1][3]; Forbes and FindLaw, as journalistic/legal outlets, emphasize public interest and procedural posture but also spotlight litigation as headline material that can reward media attention — readers should note those framing tendencies when weighing whether a case is truly “resolved” or merely moved to a new phase [4][5].