Marketing.com, JAL Equity Named in Two Class Action Complaints 

Note: The websites for both JAL Equity and Marketing.com have gone offline as of the publication of this article, possibly as early as early June. However, the careers page of Marketing.com is still active.

Two class action lawsuits — one from early March and another from late April — have been filed against Marketing.com and JAL Equity.

On April 24, James McKee II, a former employee of an unnamed Marketing.com entity, filed a complaint against Marketing.com, JAL Equity, and Eran Salu on behalf of himself and similarly affected individuals. The complaint alleges that the defendants withheld 401(k) contribution amounts from employee paychecks but failed to deposit those funds into employees’ retirement accounts. The total amount in controversy is alleged to exceed $5 million between more than 100 class members, which satisfies the Class Action Fairness Act threshold.

McKee v. MARKETING.COM, LLC et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and specifically alleges ERISA breach of fiduciary duty; RICO wire fraud; RICO conspiracy; Pennsylvania common law fraud; breach of contract (class); quantum meruit/unjust enrichment (class); breach of contract (McKee individually); and quantum meruit/unjust enrichment (McKee individually).

Another class action complaint — GREGORY CARCHIDI v. JAL EQUITY CORP., MARKETING.COM, LLC — was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania more than six weeks before the McKee case. The Carchidi case alleges a WARN Act violation and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law violation in relation to Clinton, PA-based Knepper Press.

The McKee Details

According to the complaint filed in April, McKee began working for Marketing.com in or around 2007. As part of his employment, McKee agreed to have a certain percentage of his biweekly paychecks contributed to his 401(k) account. The complaint alleges the defendants agreed to match up to 4% of McKee’s contributions to the 401(k) account.

The complaint continues: “In or around November 2023, Mr. McKee took out a loan of $5,000.00 from Principal Financial Services Inc. (‘Principal’) and set up a loan repayment plan with Defendants to have his loan repaid through his 401(k) plan.”

Under the plan, the Defendants were to take “approximately $50.00 from Mr. McKee’s biweekly paycheck to be put into his 401(k) account, and Principal would then withdraw the payment from Mr. McKee’s 401(k) account.”

The complaint notes that McKee had previously used this loan system before without issue and that the loan amount was separate and apart from McKee’s regular 401(k) contributions.

According to the suit, the Defendants failed to make the agreed-upon contributions to McKee’s account. From July 2025 to January 2026, the complaint alleges that the Defendants “continued to deduct Mr. McKee’s employee contributions and the loan repayment amount from Mr. McKee’s paychecks. However, from August 2025 to January 2026, Defendants failed to deposit those employee contributions into Mr. McKee’s 401(k). Additionally, Defendants failed to deposit Mr. McKee’s loan repayment amount into his 401(k).”

It is further alleged in the complaint that other employees of the Defendants “upon information and belief” experienced the same scenario.

Despite McKee allegedly notifying the Defendants of their failure to make payments, it was not corrected.

On Oct. 21, 2025, Principal notified McKee that his loan was “at risk of defaulting due to missed payments.” It was then that McKee’s wife forwarded the email from Principal to Michele Legros and Laura Dickinson of Marketing.com’s HR department, according to the complaint, noting “We having [sic] been getting the loan amount deducted from his check every two weeks. There hasn’t been any contributions since July. I don’t understand what is going on here.”

Legros responded on Oct. 27, writing “the payment form 7/26 payroll was remitted to the principal [401(k)] and they are working on [ ] remitting the rest of the payments.”

The complaint goes on to note that while the Defendants did correct the loan repayment and contribution issues from July 26, 2025, and Aug. 10, 2025, they did not do so until October 2025, noting in the complaint, “Defendants’ failure to timely deposit the contributions caused Mr. McKee to lose the investment growth and interest those funds would have accrued from July through October 2025.”

According to the complaint, in January 2026, Defendants “abruptly” stopped 401(k) benefits for all employees, then terminated all employees on Feb. 17, announcing the location was “no longer in business due to ‘pending lawsuits.’”

The Carchidi Details

The class action complaint filed on March 4, 2026, alleges the Defendants did not provide 60 days of notice prior to the termination of approximately 60 full-time employees, including Plaintiff, which is required under the WARN Act.

The complaint notes that employees of Knepper Press, which was acquired by Marketing.com and JAL Equity in 2023, were paid by JAL Equity until approximately January 2026, at which time payments were subsequently made by Marketing.com from January until Feb. 17.

The complaint goes on to note, “On or around February 17, 2026, affected employees, including Plaintiff, received a letter, dated February 17, 2026, addressed to ‘JAL Equity/Marketing.com Knepper Employee[s],’ informing them that their employment ‘with JAL Equity/Marketing.com/Knepper will be terminated effectively immediately on 2/17/2026 due to the closure of Knepper location [sic].’”

This alleged timeline of non-payment and subsequent Feb. 17 termination aligns with the allegations made in the McKee case.

It goes on to note that Defendants intended to keep a “skeleton crew” of employees at the facility until its permanent closure in March, “at which time any remaining employees will be laid off.”

Severance payments were allegedly neither offered nor made to Plaintiff, and employees of Knepper who were terminated on Feb. 17 had not been paid since the end of January 2026 at the time the complaint was filed in early March.

Breaking Down the Claims

According to Super Lawyers, before a class action suit can move forward in Pennsylvania, it must be certified, which means “representative parties must come forward or be selected. Also referred to as a lead plaintiff(s), a representative is essentially a spokesperson for the entire class of individual members.” In this case, James McKee II and Gregory Carchidi are the representative parties for the two complaints.

The McKee complaint alleges eight counts against Defendants:

• ERISA Breach of Fiduciary Duty (29 U.S.C. §1104, 1106, 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3)) v. All Defendants, jointly and severally: This allegation states Defendant used, retained, or commingled “plan assets” with corporate funds and gave misleading paystubs.
• Wire Fraud in Violation of the RICO Act (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) v. All Defendants, jointly and severally: Defendants allegedly transmitted fraudulent payroll statements via interstate wires, creating a false appearance of compliance. This allegedly constitutes a pattern of racketeering.
• Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) — RICO Conspiracy v. Eran Salu: Eran Salu specifically — as owner, founder, and senior officer at JAL Equity — allegedly knowingly directed and benefited from these practices, with the complaint noting, “At all relevant times, Mr. Salu was aware of, approved, and benefitted from the corporate policies and practices that constitute the racketeering activity alleged in Count III, including the dissemination of pay statements and electronic communications falsely representing compliance with the company’s own 401(k) plan and with applicable wage laws.”
• Fraud in Violation of Pennsylvania Common Law v. All Defendants, jointly and severally: This alleges there were material misrepresentations via standardized payroll communications, made knowingly or recklessly, to induce employees to keep authorizing deductions.
• Breach of Contract (Class) v. Marketing.com and JAL Equity, jointly and severally: This count alleges “Mr. McKee and the members of the putative subclass entered into valid and enforceable contracts with Defendants, including but not limited to employment agreements, offer letters, employee handbooks, compensation policies, and related agreements regarding wages and benefits.” Those contracts were allegedly breached when employee contributions and loan repayment amounts were not deposited properly.
• Quantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment (Class) v. Marketing.com and JAL Equity, jointly and severally (Pled in the Alternative): Defendants allegedly retained deducted wages they were not entitled to keep, with the complaint noting, “Defendants were aware that the deducted funds were to be used exclusively for the benefit of Plaintiff and the putative classes, including for retirement contributions and loan repayments, and not for Defendants’ own use.”
• Breach of Contract (McKee individually) v. Marketing.com and JAL Equity, jointly and severally: This count is in reference to an agreement for payment related to repair work done by McKee. According to the complaint, McKee agreed to repair Defendants’ tractor and track his labor and material costs, and Defendant agreed to reimburse him for said labor and materials.
• Quantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment (McKee individually) Pled in the Alternative: This count is in reference to the tractor repair claim and failure to compensate McKee for labor and materials.

The Carchidi complaint alleges two counts against Defendants:

• Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2102: This count alleges that the Feb. 17, 2026 layoffs at the Clinton, PA, facility fall under the WARN Act because they resulted in the “temporary or permanent shutdown of the Clinton facility and the termination of at least 50 full-time employees’ employment there” without giving the required 60-day notice.
• Violation of 43 Pa. Stat. § 260.5: This count alleges that the “Defendants were ‘employers’ within the meaning of the Wage Payment Law” and had failed to pay employee wages, as of the filing of the complaint.

This is an ongoing case and will be updated as new information becomes available.

JAL Equity and its affiliates did not respond to requests for comment ahead of publication.