Meet the Management-Side Lawyer Who Called ICE on Workers Suing Their Bosses

Ted Rohrlich, FairWarning

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests a man in Southern California. (Photo by J. Emilio Flores/Corbis via Getty Images)

As an attor­ney rep­re­sent­ing Cal­i­for­nia Cen­tral Val­ley farm­ers and labor con­trac­tors who rely heav­i­ly on undoc­u­ment­ed work­ers, Antho­ny Rai­mon­do has become wide­ly known for per­form­ing a sort of mag­ic trick. He can some­times make legal com­plaints against his clients – and the peo­ple who file them – disappear.

In at least sev­en cas­es where work­ers accused his clients of mis­treat­ment, Rai­mon­do asked immi­gra­tion author­i­ties if they would like to arrest the complainants.

And, then, presto: At least three cas­es against his clients appar­ent­ly were derailed, and two com­plainants — both, Rai­mon­do says, with crim­i­nal records– were deported.

Work­ers’ attor­neys only find out when their clients are already gone,” he once explained in an email to an offi­cial in Washington.

Along with fight­ing for farm­ers accused of cheat­ing employ­ees, Rai­mon­do has defend­ed labor con­trac­tors against accu­sa­tions that they are respon­si­ble for crash deaths of work­ers trans­port­ed under unsafe con­di­tions. In the process, Rai­mon­do has won the hearts of grate­ful clients and cham­pi­oned the idea that Cal­i­for­nia over­reg­u­lates busi­ness.

He also has made union orga­niz­ers apoplec­tic. There is no way to know how many work­ers may have remained silent about abus­es because they feared Raimondo’s tac­tics. Pret­ty much every­one con­sid­ers him a slime buck­et,” said Unit­ed Food and Com­mer­cial Work­ers orga­niz­er Pete Maturi­no. The orga­niz­er recalled hav­ing brought a work­er to an arbi­tra­tion hear­ing at Raimondo’s Fres­no law office to con­test a three-day sus­pen­sion, only to dis­cov­er that the work­er was arrest­ed and boot­ed from the coun­try by immi­gra­tion agents wait­ing outside.

A fed­er­al appel­late judge recent­ly com­pared Rai­mon­do to a ser­i­al killer. After read­ing some of his cor­re­spon­dence with immi­gra­tion author­i­ties, Ninth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Trott said , You’ve got this guy, Rai­mon­do, he’s kind of like a ser­i­al killer here, run­ning around prob­a­bly rep­re­sent­ing him­self as I can get rid of these cas­es by get­ting rid of the plain­tiffs.’ That’s what he’s doing.” Trott spec­u­lat­ed dur­ing oral argu­ment in a case in which Rai­mon­do is accused of ille­gal­ly retal­i­at­ing against an undoc­u­ment­ed work­er who had sued a client for under­pay­ing him. He’s got a free­stand­ing rela­tion­ship with [immi­gra­tion police] to check out these peo­ple and get rid of them before the law­suit [they’ve brought against his client] can even proceed.”

Even the State Leg­is­la­ture appears to have tried to rein him in. Until his prac­tices came to light, the code of pro­fes­sion­al con­duct for lawyers in Cal­i­for­nia was silent on whether it would be uneth­i­cal for a lawyer to report some­one suing his client to law enforce­ment. The code said only that it would be uneth­i­cal to threat­en to do so to gain lever­age, and Rai­mon­do says he nev­er threat­ened any­one; he just report­ed them. But in 2013, as farm work­er lawyers pre­pared to file the retal­i­a­tion case that land­ed at the Ninth Cir­cuit, leg­is­la­tors amend­ed the state code to make it explic­it that mere­ly report­ing to law enforce­ment for a retal­ia­to­ry pur­pose can result in disbarment.

Rai­mon­do, it appears, then stopped his report­ing. He says retal­i­a­tion has nev­er been his game. He was sim­ply report­ing the crime of hav­ing crossed the bor­der ille­gal­ly, and it was up to law enforce­ment to decide whether to make arrests. Imag­ine, he said, if he had been report­ing anoth­er kind of crime. Would any­one have had a prob­lem with him report­ing a lit­i­gant for sell­ing drugs or engag­ing in human traf­fick­ing or dri­ving drunk? How do we draw a prin­ci­pled intel­lec­tu­al dis­tinc­tion between [report­ing] one type of vio­la­tion of the law and anoth­er?” he asked.

Forc­ing a legal ser­vices non­prof­it off the case

The eth­i­cal infrac­tion that grabs him, he says, involves alleged mis­con­duct by one of his peren­ni­al foes, Cal­i­for­nia Rur­al Legal Assis­tance, a legal ser­vices non­prof­it. Any­thing that hap­pened to the work­ers was ancil­lary,” he said. My pri­ma­ry pur­pose was hold­ing CRLA account­able to the rules.” 

The CRLA has a long record of rep­re­sent­ing indi­gent farm work­ers in rou­tine as well as ground­break­ing law­suits, such as one that out­lawed manda­to­ry use of the back­break­ing short-han­dled hoe many years ago. Rai­mon­do says CRLA attor­neys have no busi­ness rep­re­sent­ing undoc­u­ment­ed work­ers, since CRLA receives fed­er­al funds through the Legal Ser­vices Corp., and Con­gress has gen­er­al­ly barred agen­cies that receive such funds from rep­re­sent­ing the undoc­u­ment­ed in civ­il cas­es. Rai­mon­do and oth­ers have alleged for years that CRLA vio­lates this stric­ture. But while inves­ti­ga­tions by the Legal Ser­vices Corp. have found rea­sons to be sus­pi­cious, they have ulti­mate­ly been incon­clu­sive. Inves­ti­ga­tors have been ham­pered by CRLA’s reluc­tance to turn over client records on grounds that doing so would vio­late client confidentiality.

CRLA exec­u­tive direc­tor Jose Padil­la declined to be inter­viewed for this arti­cle, but said in an email that his agency’s lit­i­ga­tion speaks for itself. If Attor­ney Raimondo’s inter­est in CRLA’s com­pli­ance with Fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions is seri­ous, it can be addressed direct­ly to the Legal Ser­vices Cor­po­ra­tion that funds our civ­il legal ser­vices to farm­work­ers, the real vic­tims in his quest to police us.”

Rai­mon­do says he has been ask­ing the Legal Ser­vices Corp. to stop CRLA from rep­re­sent­ing undoc­u­ment­ed work­ers for more than 10 years. He even peti­tioned Fres­no Coun­ty Supe­ri­or Court in 2012. That was in an effort to keep CRLA from rep­re­sent­ing a farm hand he said was undoc­u­ment­ed who had sued a Rai­mon­do client. It both­ers me,” Rai­mon­do explained in an email to his prin­ci­pal con­tact at the Immi­gra­tion and Cus­toms Enforce­ment agency, that there are low-income indi­vid­u­als who are cit­i­zens legal­ly present [in the Unit­ed States] who des­per­ate­ly need these pub­licly fund­ed ser­vices, and [the ser­vices] are being mis­di­rect­ed to indi­vid­u­als who are not legal­ly enti­tled to them.”

Judge Trott of the Ninth Cir­cuit scoffed at that, call­ing it part of a mind­bog­gling argu­ment that this man was moti­vat­ed by the ethics and the law.”

Rai­mon­do said he was in the court­room in March when Trott made that com­ment and remem­bers think­ing, Real­ly? When was the last time you had a client?” Appoint­ed to the bench by Pres­i­dent Rea­gan after a long career as a pros­e­cu­tor, Trott has nev­er been in pri­vate practice.

In the case Trott was address­ing, as well as most oth­ers, Rai­mon­do said, he had no expec­ta­tion that immi­gra­tion author­i­ties would take him up on his offer to help arrest the com­plainant because, as far as he knew, the com­plainant had no crim­i­nal record. His goal, he said, was mere­ly to gath­er proof that CRLA was again rep­re­sent­ing an undoc­u­ment­ed work­er, in the hope of forc­ing CRLA off the case. 

His clients – dairy work­ers he described as an illit­er­ate immi­grant from the Azores and his son — were in bad shape finan­cial­ly and from a com­pli­ance stand­point, the case was a dis­as­ter.” He acknowl­edged that the com­plainant was def­i­nite­ly owed mon­ey for over­time, min­i­mum wage, record keep­ing penal­ties. They were also vio­lat­ing immi­gra­tion law because they knew he was undoc­u­ment­ed.” But he said CRLA was mak­ing set­tle­ment demands so extreme that they would have bank­rupt­ed his client. If we can get a dif­fer­ent set of attor­neys in the case,” he recalled telling his client, maybe we’ll get some­body who’ll acknowl­edge your finan­cial situation.”

Rai­mon­do’s side of the story

Rai­mon­do agreed to an inter­view with Fair­Warn­ing because he said his side of the sto­ry was not being told. The port­ly 47-year-old pulled up to a Fres­no restau­rant one evening last month in a rare Toy­ota Sun­chas­er, a cus­tom mod­i­fied con­vert­ible cir­ca 1980 that appeared to be in immac­u­late con­di­tion. He wore shorts and a yel­low print shirt that matched the col­or of his car.

Artic­u­late and polite, he said over a steak that he had grown up in Los Ange­les County’s South Bay with the ambi­tion of becom­ing a pub­lic defend­er. After grad­u­at­ing with hon­ors from the Ver­mont Law School, where he said he worked in the school’s legal aid clin­ic, he said he moved back West, worked in con­sumer-rights cam­paigns and in a cam­paign to ensure vot­ing rights in Bosnia after the war there. Then he got a job in Fres­no, defend­ing indi­gents in seri­ous crim­i­nal cas­es in which the Fres­no Coun­ty Pub­lic Defender’s office had dis­qual­i­fied itself because of con­flicts of inter­est. He was lat­er hired by that office as a deputy pub­lic defend­er, but did not stay long, he said, because the work was harsh and depress­ing. More and more I felt like I was shuf­fling peo­ple through a meat grinder.” In addi­tion, he said he was start­ing a fam­i­ly and the health ben­e­fits were not so good.

Look­ing around for anoth­er oppor­tu­ni­ty, Rai­mon­do said he saw a help-want­ed ad post­ed on a bul­letin board by a law firm that rep­re­sent­ed farmers.

That launched him on what appears to have become his longest-stand­ing cru­sade, rail­ing against gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tors he sees as being over­ly sen­si­tive to the rights of the undoc­u­ment­ed and not sen­si­tive enough to the prob­lems of those who employ them. 

There is no ques­tion that Raimondo’s Cen­tral Val­ley clients have to make awk­ward accom­mo­da­tions, as do their employ­ees. Work­ers who tend live­stock and har­vest crops are most­ly undoc­u­ment­ed, accord­ing to gov­ern­ment sur­veys. But the gov­ern­ment requires employ­ers to get doc­u­men­ta­tion that every job appli­cant has the legal right to work in this coun­try. We do what the gov­ern­ment tells us to do,” said Anja Rau­den­baugh, of California’s West­ern Unit­ed Dairy­men to whose 800 mem­bers Rai­mon­do pro­vides legal advice.

If farm­ers were bold enough to reject an appli­cant because they believed the applicant’s doc­u­ments were pho­ny, and were wrong, she said, they might suc­cess­ful­ly be sued for dis­crim­i­na­tion. Although undoc­u­ment­ed work­ers are sub­ject to depor­ta­tion, they are also enti­tled to make com­plaints free from fear of retal­i­a­tion under Amer­i­can labor laws that give them the same work­place pro­tec­tions as legal residents.

Rau­den­baugh said many of her association’s mem­bers see Rai­mon­do as some­thing of a hero” for steer­ing them art­ful­ly through legal mine­fields and for his fierce defense of their interests.

In address­ing farm­ers, Rai­mon­do uses a scared straight approach. At one pre­sen­ta­tion that he called the hid­den traps of wage and hour leg­is­la­tion,” Rai­mon­do warned of greedy plain­tiffs attor­neys who will pro­long cas­es just to run up fees. The lawyers then use the threat of mount­ing fees as a club to get farm own­ers to pay exor­bi­tant set­tle­ments – a tac­tic he described as legal­ized extor­tion.” Labor law reg­u­la­tors, too, are a dan­ger, he said. They don’t like to settle.”

Set­tling out of court due to fears of deportation 

The case that came before the Ninth Cir­cuit involved undoc­u­ment­ed dairy work­er Jose Arnul­fo Arias, who had sued Ange­lo Dairy years ear­li­er for not pay­ing wages he was owed. Arias said he worked for the small dairy for near­ly 10 years, begin­ning in 1995. He said the dairy own­ers paid no atten­tion to his immi­gra­tion sta­tus until two years after he was hired when he told them he had been offered a bet­ter job at anoth­er dairy. He said one of the own­ers then threat­ened to report the oth­er dairy to immi­gra­tion author­i­ties for hir­ing undoc­u­ment­ed work­ers if Arias took the job. Arias said he stayed at Ange­lo Dairy for anoth­er eight years, even though at times he was short­ed on his pay.

After he final­ly left, CRLA attor­neys draft­ed a law­suit alleg­ing that Ange­lo Dairy owed him and oth­er employ­ees back pay. The case pro­ceed­ed on a long, cir­cuitous path because busi­ness groups chal­lenged his right to sue on behalf of oth­er employ­ees as well as him­self. But the Cal­i­for­nia Supreme Court ruled that the suit could go for­ward, and it was sched­uled for tri­al in the sum­mer of 2011.

As the tri­al approached, how­ev­er, Rai­mon­do con­tact­ed ICE. He told his reg­u­lar con­tact there via email that he need­ed help to con­firm what I sus­pect — that this indi­vid­ual is in the coun­try ille­gal­ly.” Nei­ther the con­tact nor an ICE agency spokesper­son would comment.

The con­tact, a foren­sic audi­tor, emailed back to report a snag in con­firm­ing Arias’ immi­gra­tion sta­tus. This one was not as easy as the last one,” she wrote. But when Rai­mon­do pro­vid­ed addi­tion­al infor­ma­tion about Arias, his ICE con­tact report­ed her agency had no record of him enter­ing the coun­try legally.

Rai­mon­do offered to facil­i­tate Arias’ arrest, writ­ing that Arias will be attend­ing a depo­si­tion next week. If there is an inter­est in appre­hend­ing him, please let me know so that we can make the nec­es­sary arrangements.”

By then, Rai­mon­do had already assist­ed ICE in deport­ing anoth­er work­er who was suing one of his clients for wrong­ful ter­mi­na­tion. As that case head­ed for tri­al, Rai­mon­do said the work­er, Luis Mase­do, threat­ened his client with a gun. Rai­mon­do got a court order to keep Mase­do away from his client. But Masedo’s attor­ney insist­ed, over what Rai­mon­do said were his objec­tions, that Mase­do attend the depo­si­tion of the wife of Raimondo’s client. Rai­mon­do then tipped off immi­gra­tion agents, who Rai­mon­do said were inter­est­ed in deport­ing Mase­do because he had pre­vi­ous­ly been con­vict­ed of ille­gal pos­ses­sion of a gun. Rai­mon­do said he told ICE agents wait­ing out­side what [Masedo]was wear­ing and what door he’d be com­ing out of [and] we nev­er saw him again.”

When Rai­mon­do told his ICE con­tact that he could facil­i­tate Arias’ arrest at a depo­si­tion, Arias’ attor­neys from CRLA appar­ent­ly learned that anoth­er depor­ta­tion might be in the works. They alert­ed Arias who, they said, suf­fered such extreme anx­i­ety” that he decid­ed to pull the plug on his long effort to get his case to tri­al. The Fres­no Coun­ty res­i­dent faced the prospect of being forcibly sep­a­rat­ed from his wife and four chil­dren. I brought this case in good faith because I had a legal right to do so,” he said in a court dec­la­ra­tion.

But he decid­ed to set­tle out of court on undis­closed terms. I felt pres­sured by [Raimondo’s] action to set­tle my case,” he explained in the dec­la­ra­tion, which was trans­lat­ed from his native Span­ish. I felt this was wrong and that my rights had been vio­lat­ed.” FairWarning’s attempts to reach Arias for an inter­view failed, and his attor­neys declined to make him available.

Two years after set­tling his ini­tial case, Arias sued the dairy again, adding Rai­mon­do as a defen­dant, claim­ing that Raimondo’s report­ing him to ICE con­sti­tut­ed ille­gal retal­i­a­tion for Arias hav­ing accused the dairy of wage vio­la­tions. Arias was once again rep­re­sent­ed by CRLA. But, per­haps as a pre­cau­tion, this time CRLA enlist­ed co-coun­sel from anoth­er legal aid orga­ni­za­tion that accepts no fed­er­al funds.

At an ear­ly stage, Rai­mon­do said Arias was paid $25,000 to drop the dairy from the case, which left Rai­mon­do as the only defen­dant. A fed­er­al judge in Sacra­men­to dis­missed the case against Rai­mon­do in 2014, say­ing fed­er­al law did not allow a work­er to sue an employer’s attor­ney for retal­i­a­tion, only the employer.

Arias appealed that deci­sion to the Ninth Cir­cuit Court of Appeal. When a three-judge pan­el opined that he could sue Rai­mon­do — and that Raimondo’s efforts were an under­hand­ed plan to derail” Arias’s case — a slew of emails that Rai­mon­do had sent to his ICE con­tact took cen­ter stage. They showed that Rai­mon­do had a pat­tern of report­ing farm workers.

In late 2011, for exam­ple, he wrote to inquire about the ICE Enforce­ment and Removal section’s inter­est in the [oth­er] indi­vid­u­als we have dis­cussed. … I need to take action in my cas­es,” he con­tin­ued, but if removal is inter­est­ed, I will hold off so that they can arrange for the nec­es­sary arrests. Of course, I will be pleased to coop­er­ate and assist in any way I can to ensure that any arrests are accom­plished effi­cient­ly and safely.”

Lat­er that year, he asked for help while defend­ing an employ­er against a union­ized employ­ee who had filed a griev­ance. As always, if removal is inter­est­ed in this per­son, I would be pleased to assist them,” he wrote. This may have been a ref­er­ence to Luis Mendez, who had been sus­pend­ed from work at a dairy for sup­pos­ed­ly mis­treat­ing a calf. While Mendez appealed the sus­pen­sion to an arbi­tra­tor, Rai­mon­do asked his ICE con­tact to see if Mendez was in the coun­try ille­gal­ly. Mean­while, he said he learned from a pri­vate inves­ti­ga­tor that Mendez had con­vic­tions for metham­phet­a­mine sales. That made him easy to deport. Rai­mon­do told ICE agents when the arbi­tra­tion hear­ing was sched­uled at his office. and When Mendez showed up, they grabbed him, a union orga­niz­er said. 

The next year Rai­mon­do report­ed anoth­er indi­vid­ual who is rep­re­sent­ed by CRLA using U.S. Tax­pay­er funds. Are you able to ver­i­fy his sta­tus?” he asked his con­tact. Is removal inter­est­ed in tak­ing action against him? We would be pleased to assist in this regard.”

And in ear­ly 2013, he wrote his ICE con­tact for help two more times. This is what we know about the guy I was talk­ing about,” Rai­mon­do wrote. Please let me know his sta­tus, and we are will­ing to help if he meets the stan­dards for removal.” Lat­er that year, he wrote: I have anoth­er per­son who is being rep­re­sent­ed by a tax­pay­er fund­ed agency, where I have rea­son to believe that she is undoc­u­ment­ed . Can you check this out for me? If removal is inter­est­ed in her, we would be pleased to assist.” Rai­mon­do said he could not recall whom he was talk­ing about in these 2013 emails.

The 9th Cir­cuit pan­el’s rul­ing in June direct­ed the dis­trict court to allow Arias’ case against Rai­mon­do to pro­ceed to tri­al. It also set a prece­dent. It was the first time a fed­er­al appeals court had declared that, in addi­tion to an employ­er, some­one act­ing direct­ly or indi­rect­ly” in the employer’s inter­est could be sued for retal­i­at­ing against an employ­ee who stood up for his rights under the fed­er­al Fair Labor Stan­dards Act. This widened inter­pre­ta­tion of lia­bil­i­ty set off alarms at a num­ber of Cal­i­for­nia busi­ness orga­ni­za­tions, which in July joined Rai­mon­do in ask­ing for a rehear­ing before all 9th cir­cuit judges. When that request was denied, Rai­mon­do said he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He post­ed on his LinkedIn web­site: I will nev­er apol­o­gize for try­ing to pro­tect fam­i­ly farms.”

Rai­mon­do vs. the DOL and Unit­ed Farm Workers 

While he waits for a pos­si­ble tri­al in the retal­i­a­tion case against him, Rai­mon­do has pur­sued his cam­paign to rein in what he sees as gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tor excess. On behalf of a client, he draft­ed a law­suit against two U.S. Labor Depart­ment offi­cials that is sim­i­lar to the case Arias filed against him. He claimed they should be held per­son­al­ly liable for ille­gal­ly retal­i­at­ing against a labor con­trac­tor he rep­re­sent­ed, to pun­ish her for exer­cis­ing her legal rights.

The con­trac­tor, Ileana S. Arvizu, who oper­ates as ISA Con­tract­ing Ser­vices, had filed her annu­al appli­ca­tion for renew­al of her oper­at­ing cer­tifi­cate from the Depart­ment of Labor. But offi­cials denied her appli­ca­tion. Rai­mon­do said the denial was retal­i­a­tion for her fight­ing oth­er charges the depart­ment had filed against her. Ulti­mate­ly, she set­tled those charges. Then Rai­mon­do filed a law­suit against the head of the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Divi­sion in San Fran­cis­co, Ruben Ros­alez, and the division’s chief attor­ney, Susan Selet­sky, argu­ing that they had ille­gal­ly forced Arvizu to choose between [the] right to a fair hear­ing on the alle­ga­tions, or finan­cial ruin” if her cer­tifi­cate was not renewed. Nei­ther would comment.

Since then, Rai­mon­do has con­tin­ued attack­ing Labor Depart­ment attor­neys, alleg­ing that they rou­tine­ly vio­late the Cal­i­for­nia Rules of Pro­fes­sion­al Con­duct by hav­ing their inves­ti­ga­tors inter­view wit­ness­es out­side the pres­ence of the wit­ness­es’ attorneys.

Rai­mon­do made this accu­sa­tion in fight­ing a Labor Depart­ment sub­poe­na for records from anoth­er farm labor con­trac­tor client, JY Har­vest­ing. The agency is inves­ti­gat­ing it in con­nec­tion with the vehic­u­lar death of a farm work­er. Labor con­trac­tors often pro­vide farm work­ers with trans­porta­tion to and from an owner’s fields. A fed­er­al judge has observed that use of unsafe vehi­cles and dri­vers with­out licens­es appears to be wide­spread. In the JY case, a tire blew in a van car­ry­ing sev­en work­ers in San Diego Coun­ty in March 2017. The van over­turned, six work­ers were injured and one, whose seat belt had been cut, was thrown from the vehi­cle and died.

Rai­mon­do in recent years has defend­ed two oth­er con­trac­tors whose work­ers died while being transported.

But per­haps Raimondo’s most sig­nif­i­cant ongo­ing case involves an epic farm­ing indus­try bat­tle that could spell deep­er trou­ble for the strug­gling Unit­ed Farm Work­ers Union. UFW is a shad­ow of its once pow­er­ful self, hav­ing shrunk from a mem­ber­ship of more than 70,000 to few­er than 10,000.

In 1990, it won an elec­tion to rep­re­sent work­ers at the largest stone fruit grow­er in the Cen­tral Val­ley, Ger­awan Farm­ing Inc., which employed more than 5,000 work­ers. After unsuc­cess­ful attempts at nego­ti­at­ing a con­tract in the ear­ly 1990s, UFW appeared to give up, but renewed its efforts in 2012. Ger­awan fought the union’s return, engag­ing in what an admin­is­tra­tive judge for the Cal­i­for­nia Agri­cul­tur­al Labor Rela­tions Board lat­er deter­mined was bad faith bargaining.

Mean­while, a 2013 cam­paign led by Raimondo’s client, Ger­awan employ­ee Sil­via Lopez, sought to gath­er enough work­er sig­na­tures for a vote to decer­ti­fy UFW. The vote was held but the votes have nev­er been count­ed because the ALRB deter­mined that Ger­awan unlaw­ful­ly inter­fered in the election.

Lopez, mean­while, has been named pres­i­dent of a new­ly incor­po­rat­ed non­prof­it called Pick Jus­tice whose web­site says it wants to stop farm work­ers from being vic­tim­ized” by a gov­ern­ment agency with dis­hon­est attor­neys” – name­ly, the ALRB.

Brid­get Huber con­tributed to this story.

This sto­ry was report­ed by Fair­Warn­ing (www​.fair​warn​ing​.org), a non­prof­it news orga­ni­za­tion based in Pasade­na, Calif., that focus­es on pub­lic health, con­sumer and envi­ron­men­tal issues. 

Ted Rohrlich is a jour­nal­ist and researcher based in Los Ange­les, and a for­mer reporter for the Los Ange­les Times. Fair­Warn­ing is a non­prof­it news orga­ni­za­tion based in Pasade­na, Calif., that focus­es on pub­lic health, con­sumer and envi­ron­men­tal issues.
Limited Time:

SUBSCRIBE TO IN THESE TIMES MAGAZINE FOR JUST $1 A MONTH