Starbucks Corp. has filed its response in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute over tip sharing, asking the court to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in its favor. Lawrence v. Starbucks Corp., No. 11-3199 (2d Cir., brief filed February 22, 2012). Additional information about related litigation involving Starbucks baristas and shift supervisors appears in Issue 256 of this Update. The company asserts that the district court correctly held that (i) New York labor law does not grant plaintiff assistant store managers the right to participate in a tip pool, and Starbucks did not “demand,” “accept,” or “retain” their tips; (ii) Starbucks’ policy of allowing only baristas and shift supervisors to share tips is consistent with state law; and (iii) assistant store managers exercise control over their subordinates’ employment status and are thus “agents” prohibited from sharing tips under state law.
Category Archives 2nd Circuit
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have agreed to a timeline for the production of material NRDC requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) involving bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging and food contact materials. NRDC v. FDA, No. 11-8662 (S.D.N.Y., stipulation and order filed February 21, 2012). Additional information about the litigation appears in Issue 420 of this Update. The agreement narrows the request, limits the FDA offices required to conduct searches for responsive records and specifies the format in which the records will be produced. It also creates a timeline for FDA to produce internal material, material involving other agencies and a list of withheld documents. Any further proceedings in the litigation NRDC filed to force the agency to respond to its FOIA request are stayed until further order of the court on or after August 22, 2012. NRDC is…
A New York resident has reportedly filed a putative class action in federal court, alleging that Frito-Lay misleads consumers by promoting its snack products as “all natural” when they actually contain corn and oils made from genetically engineered (GE) plants. Shake v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-408 (E.D.N.Y., filed January 30, 2012). Similar litigation was filed in December 2011 in California. Details about that case appear in Issue 421 of this Update. According to a news source, plaintiff Chris Shake alleges that he paid an additional 10 cents per ounce of Tostitos® and SunChips® over other comparable products and would not have done so had he known that the defendant’s products are not made with “all-natural ingredients.” A company spokesperson was quoted as saying that the product labeling “complies with all regulatory requirements.” Shake reportedly alleges damages in excess of $5 million. See Reuters, January 30, 2012.
Granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, a federal court in New York has allowed further proceedings on most of the claims filed by a man who alleged that consuming one to two cans of tuna daily for more than two years caused his mercury poisoning. Porrazzo v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 10-4367 (S.D.N.Y., decided September 30, 2011). So ruling, the court agreed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that the Food and Drug Administration’s failure to adopt a regulation on the alleged risks of mercury in fish or warnings about that risk does not preclude the states from imposing a duty to warn. Additional information about that case appears in Issue 272 of this Update. According to his complaint, the plaintiff purchased and consumed 10 six-ounce cans of tuna fish each week from January 2006 to October 2008, at a time when the manufacturing defendant “promoted…
Arch Specialty Insurance Co. has filed a declaratory judgment action in a New York state court against a company identified as a distributor of food product ingredients, including the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl. Arch Specialty Ins. Co. v. Citrus & Allied Essences, Ltd., No. 652670/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed September 29, 2011). The insurance company contends that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify the defendant in the personal injury actions “asserted by numerous claimants against Citrus & Allied in several jurisdictions around the country.” Among other matters, the insurer claims that the events giving rise to the underlying claims did not occur during the policy period; the claims involve “damages or injuries which were expected, intended or non-fortuitous from the standpoint of Citrus & Allied”; the claims fall within a pollution exclusion clause or arise from a recall as defined by the policy; and the insured failed…
Fage Dairy Processing Industry, S.A. has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s refusal to register the yogurt maker’s “Fage Total” trademark and a declaration that its use of the mark does not infringe any claimed right of General Mills, which makes Total® breakfast cereals. Fage Dairy Processing Indus., S.A. v. General Mills, Inc., No. 11-1174 (N.D.N.Y., filed September 30, 2011). According to the complaint, the board’s ruling is replete with factual errors. The complaint also asserts that Total® cereal and Fage Total yogurt co-existed in U.S. markets for 13 years “without a single instance of actual confusion arising from the parties’ use of their respective marks.” Fage alleges that the defendants, “suddenly and without warning” brought a federal trademark infringement lawsuit against it in mid-September, “seeking draconian damages.” That suit was apparently filed two days after the board refused to register Fage’s marks.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has granted, in part, the petition for review filed against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging its risk assessments for the pesticide dichlorvos. NRDC v. EPA, No. 08-3771 (2d Cir., decided September 16, 2011). The court agreed with the Natural Resources Defense Council, (NRDC) that EPA’s failure to explain why a children’s safety factor less than 10X was applied to pesticide risk assessments derived from the “Gledhill study,” which involved six adults who consumed dichlorvos daily for three weeks, was arbitrary and capricious. When EPA sets tolerances for the maximum level of dichlorvos residue on food products, it is required, under the Food Quality Protection Act, to apply a tenfold children’s safety factor. Vacating the portions of EPA’s order assessing the risk of dichlorvos based on the Gledhill study, the court remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings. EPA has registered a…
According to news sources, a man who weighs nearly 300 pounds has filed an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit against White Castle in a federal court in New York, claiming that the stationary booth seating in a Nanuet restaurant is made for smaller people and that he hurt a knee trying to wedge into one in 2009. When he complained in writing, he purportedly received three “very condescending letters,” with offers for free hamburgers, although added cheese would have cost extra. He has since used take-out to purchase his food from White Castle or asked his wife to go into the facility to pick up his meals, while waiting almost three years for promised renovations that would have enlarged the seating spaces. Stockbroker and plaintiff Martin Kessman reportedly said, “I just want to sit down like a normal person.” See New York Post, September 11, 2011; The Wall Street Journal,…
The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), a non-profit advocacy organization, has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeking an order compelling FDA to issue a final response to NRDC’s October 2008 petition calling on the agency to prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging and other food-contact materials. NRDC, Inc. v. HHS, No. 11-5801 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 19, 2011). In June 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals apparently dismissed a similar complaint, agreeing with FDA that it had been filed in the wrong court. Additional information about that complaint appears in Issue 356 of this Update. According to the new complaint, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires FDA to respond to petitions like the one NRDC filed “within 90 days.” Yet, “ [m]ore than one thousand…
According to a news source, the Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation has sued Sprout Foods, Inc., an Oregon-based organic vegetarian baby food manufacturer, for failing to carry out its obligations to produce an Institute-branded line of products (Janey Baby®) under a 2010 licensing agreement. Jane Goodall Inst. for Wildlife Research, Educ. & Conservation v. Sprout Foods, Inc., No. 11-5554 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 10, 2011). The plaintiff reportedly claims that it decided to license the Janey Baby® name to Sprout Foods after an “extensive search for a suitable licensee that could provide organic and vegetarian products in the infant food category.” Allegedly signed by Sprout Foods CEO Max McKenzie, the August 2010 agreement gave Sprout an exclusive license to use the famous primatologist’s brand and name in exchange for royalties generated by baby food sales. The Institute reportedly alleges that the baby food producer has not sold or…
