Category Archives 5th Circuit

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a consent decree with a federal court in Texas to resolve claims that a Burger King franchise operator discriminated against a former cashier on the basis of religion. EEOC v. Fries Rest. Mgmt., LLC, No. 12 3169 (N.D. Tex., filed January 16, 2013). Without admitting liability, the operator has agreed to settle the claims by paying $25,000 to the former employee, who was allegedly fired for wearing a skirt on the job as required by her Pentecostal Christian religion, in two checks: one for $5,000 attributable to wages, and one for $20,000 attributable to claims of mental anguish and suffering. The Burger King franchisee will also post on employee bulletin boards “its policy against religious discrimination and duty to accommodate” and “conduct an annual training session [in 2013 and 2014] for all district managers and general managers for Defendant’s Texas Burger King Restaurants,…

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a Title VII civil rights action against a Burger King restaurant claiming that it failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of a Pentecostal Christian woman who sought to wear skirts or dresses to work instead of uniform pants. EEOC v. Fries Rest. Mgmt., LLC, No. 12-3169 (N.D. Tex., filed August 22, 2012). The employee was hired as a cashier and had allegedly been informed when she interviewed for the position that she could wear a skirt to work, an accommodation she required because she “adheres to an interpretation of the scripture that requires women to wear only skirts or dresses.” When she arrived at work for orientation in a skirt, she was told she could not wear it and would have to leave the store. According to the complaint, “The result of the foregoing practice has been to deprive Ashanti McShan of equal…

A Texas appeals court has dismissed product liability and negligence claims filed by a woman injured when she was struck twice in the face with a longneck beer bottle during a birthday celebration at a bar known for its violence. Gann v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., No. 08-00017 (Tex. App., 8th Dist., July 25, 2012). Affirming the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the appeals court determined that the plaintiff “failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence that the longneck bottle was defectively designed so as to render it unreasonably dangerous and failed to establish that Appellees owned her a legal duty to protect her from the criminal acts of a third person.” Specifically, the court found insufficient evidence that the risk of injury from the bottle’s design outweighs its utility despite the plaintiff’s assertions that “beer bottles are used commonly in assaults in the local…

According to a news source, Whole Foods Market Inc. is seeking to stop its deposition in consumer fraud litigation filed against Skinny Girl Cocktails LLC, arguing that it does not own or operate Whole Foods retail stores nor does it “decide which suppliers, food brokers or distributors are to be used by Whole Foods Market retail locations.” Greene v. Skinny Girl Cocktails LLC, 12-550 (W.D. Tex., motion to quash filed June 22, 2012). A number of putative class actions alleging that the defendants falsely market margaritas as “all natural” were filed in district courts around the country after Whole Foods stores pulled the product from their shelves upon learning that it contains sodium benzoate as a preservative. An effort to have the actions consolidated before a multidistrict litigation court failed; additional details about that ruling appear in Issue 422 of this Update. See Law360, June 25, 2012.

A California resident has filed a putative class action against Starbucks Corp. alleging that the company deceived consumers by failing to disclose that some of its products were made with cochineal extract, a common food-coloring ingredient made from crushed insects. Anderson v. Starbucks Corp., No. BC485438 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed May 25, 2012). Seeking to represent a nationwide class and statewide subclass of consumers, the plaintiff claims that she and the class members, had they known about the company’s use of the ingredient, would not have purchased the products for a number of reasons, including objections to consuming animal products, allergic responses to the ingredient or “sheer disgust.” Alleging violations of the California Unfair Business Practices Act and False Advertising Act, unjust enrichment, fraud by omission/concealment, and violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the plaintiff seeks disgorgement, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, payment to a cy pres fund,…

A Texas-based tomato producer has sued a Canadian company in federal court alleging that its packaging and label for grape tomatoes infringes the Nature Sweet Cherubs™ patents, issued in 2010 and 2011, and trademarks, in use since 2007. NatureSweet, Ltd. v. Mastonardi Produce Ltd., No. 12-1424 (N.D. Tex., filed May 8, 2012). According to the complaint, the defendant’s “Angel Sweet” label copies the Sweet Cherubs™ label by using similar colors and a “winged tomato design mark.” Claiming that its mark, in which the company has made a considerable investment, is famous and distinctive, the plaintiff alleges a likelihood of confusion among consumers by defendant’s use of similar marks and packaging. The plaintiff also claims that the defendant’s grape tomatoes, in contrast to its own, “do not have the same consistent great taste throughout the year.” Alleging federal trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition; unjust enrichment; and design patent infringement, the…

The Mexican owner of U.S. and Mexican trademarks for an “automatic pistol-shaped bottle design . . . used in connection with alcoholic beverages, with the exception of beers” and its exclusive U.S. distributor have filed trademark infringement claims against the company that sells, markets and imports into the United States Eagle Shot Tequila® in a pistol-shaped bottle. Mexcor Distribs. Inc., v. Purveyors LLC, No. 12-1240 (S.D. Tex., filed April 19, 2012). The plaintiffs allegedly demanded that the defendant cease and desist from doing so, and the defendant failed to respond. Seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the plaintiffs also seek an accounting and payment of profits earned from the date of first use of the mark, treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. They allege trademark infringement and unfair competition under the federal Lanham Act, as well as Texas common law on trademarks and unfair competition. According to the complaint, the defendant’s…

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the owner and operator of a long-term residential treatment facility for chemically dependent women and their children has agreed to pay $125,000 to the estate of an employee allegedly terminated from her position because she was severely obese. EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc., No. 10-03322 (E.D. La., consent decree entered April 10, 2012). Additional information about the court decision denying the employer’s motions for summary judgment and recognizing obesity as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) appears in Issue 421 of this Update. EEOC also indicated that under the consent decree, the employer will “provide annual training on federal disability law to all human resources personnel and corporate directors of RHD [Resources for Human Development] nationwide.” The agreement further requires the company to report to EEOC “for three years on all complaints of disability discrimination and…

A federal court in Texas has determined that a trademark and patent infringement lawsuit involving Frito-Lay North America’s corn chip products can be maintained in the Eastern District of Texas because it has jurisdiction over the defendants and the defendants failed to show that it was “clearly more convenient” to litigate the matter in Arkansas. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc., No. 12-74 (E.D. Tex., order entered March 30, 2012). Details about the case are included in Issue 427 of this Update. According to the court, after Frito-Lay notified the defendants that their BOWLZ product infringed its patent and trade dress rights, the defendants filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Frito-Lay filed its suit the same day in the Eastern District of Texas. The Arkansas court stayed that action pending the Texas court’s ruling on jurisdiction and venue, noting that “[i]f the…

A federal court in Arkansas has reportedly certified a class of poultry-processing plant workers who allege that the company has violated federal and state employment laws by failing to compensate them for the time they spend donning, doffing and sanitizing required gear and equipment, as well as walking to and from the production floor and performing other job-related duties. Garner v. Butterball, LLC, No. 10 01025 (E.D. Ark., decided February 22, 2012). The plaintiffs apparently demonstrated that their claims met all of the class certification requirements, although the court modified the class definition to account for statutes of limitations applicable to claims filed under the Federal Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Thus, the class has been defined as hourly production employees who worked at two Butterball plants “at any time since October 1, 2006, through the date of final judgment in this action.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court…

Close