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,…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A California resident has filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc. alleging that two of its frozen vegetable “steamers” products are falsely advertised as “100% Natural” because they contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Cox v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-6377 (N.D. Cal., filed December 17, 2012). According to the complaint, the products contain GM corn, soy, corn derivatives, and/or soy derivatives. Seeking to certify a statewide class of those who have purchased Green Giant Valley Fresh Steamers®, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; actual, statutory and punitive damages; attorney’s fees; costs; and interest.
A federal court in California has determined that Asian-American interest organizations have not sustained their burden of showing that they are entitled to preliminarily enjoin the shark fin ban that took effect January 1, 2012, in the state. Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Brown, No. 12-3759 (N.D. Cal., decided January 2, 2013). Additional details about the case appear in Issue 447 of this Update. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their claims of discrimination against the Chinese-American community that uses shark fins in traditional dishes served at many banquets and special events. Finding that the state had a rational basis to impose limits on shark finning and that the state regulations did not overlap federal restrictions, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Ruling that the named plaintiff’s claims are not typical of those of the putative class in a false-labeling suit brought against the companies that made and marketed Skinnygirl Margaritas®, a federal court in New York has denied his motion for class certification. Rapcinsky v. Skinnygirl Cocktails, L.L.C., No. 11-6546 (S.D.N.Y., decided January 9, 2013). The named plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, allegedly purchased the product in that state as a gift for his wife who had indicated that she had been served the beverage during a party with friends and liked it. He brought the suit under New York statutes that apply to products purchased in New York and involve deceptive acts or practices involving in-state residents. He also claimed common-law breach of warranty. According to the court, the laws invoked do not protect the plaintiff’s purchases. While his alleged injury may be the same as class members, the plaintiff, “having not…
A federal court in Minnesota has granted the motion for summary judgment filed by a company whose insurance carrier claimed it was not required to cover the company’s settlement of claims arising from a recall of instant oatmeal purportedly contaminated with instant milk produced at a facility where the Food and Drug Administration “detected insanitary conditions and salmonella.” The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main St. Ingredients, LLC, No. 11-533 (D. Minn., decided January 8, 2013). The company had supplied the instant milk to Malt-o-Meal which used it to make instant oatmeal. After the instant milk and downstream products such as the oatmeal were recalled, Malt-o-Meal sued both the supplier and the company that had produced the instant milk. While none of the supplier’s instant milk was found to contain Salmonella, the case ultimately settled for $1.4 million. The insurance company sued the supplier, Main Street Ingredients, for a declaration that…
A federal court in New Mexico has approved a consent decree of permanent injunction between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Sunland, Inc., which owns a facility where peanut butter products purportedly tainted with Salmonella were produced. United States v. Sunland, Inc., No. 12-1312 (D.N.M., filed December 21, 2012). The outbreak affected “at least 35 people from 19 states,” eight of whom “were hospitalized as a result of their infection.” While the company neither admits nor denies FDA’s allegations, it agreed to take a number of actions to correct food-handling practices “that likely resulted in cross-contamination between raw peanuts and peanuts that had been roasted or brined.” The company must “develop and implement sanitation control programs; provide FDA the opportunity to inspect the facilities to assure Sunland’s compliance with the consent decree, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and applicable regulations; and receive written authorization from FDA to resume…
A federal court in Alabama has dismissed breach of contract and warranty claims filed against a company that makes Florida Natural® orange juice and markets it as “fresh,” “100%” or “pure,” finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers. Veal v. Citrus World, Inc., No. 12-801 (N.D. Ala., decided January 8, 2013). The court refused to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint for a fourth time on the grounds that no amendment can cure its deficiencies and bad faith. According to the court, “This is plaintiff’s counsel’s fourth attempt (not counting the arguments before the MDL [multidistrict litigation] panel) to pursue a class action against defendant based on the same inherently flawed theory of liability. Upon not being included as class counsel in the MDL, plaintiff’s counsel returned here and went shopping for plaintiffs in an attempt to manufacture a…
After deciding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a consumer-fraud class action under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal court in New Jersey has granted his motion to dismiss without prejudice, while denying the defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Robinson v. Hornell Brewing Co., No. 11-2183 (D.N.J., decided December 13, 2012). The plaintiff had sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of purchasers of Arizona beverages that contain high-fructose corn syrup and were labeled as “all natural.” He sought to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2). According to the court, the evidence showed that the plaintiff had no intention of purchasing these products in the future and therefore could not show a reasonable likelihood of future injury from the defendants’ conduct. Thus, the court denied his motion to certify the class for lack of standing to seek injunctive…
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a $1.6 million award of damages and attorney’s fees in a contract dispute between General Mills and the company that sold it beef obtained from the Westland Meat Co. and recalled in 2008 after “[v]ideo footage from the Humane Society allegedly showed Westland employees improperly handling cattle designated for slaughter.” General Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd., Nos. 12-1731 and 12-1826 (8th Cir., decided January 7, 2013). General Mills destroyed the Progresso soups in which the recalled beef had been used. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to General Mills on its breach-of-contract claim and dismissed as moot the company’s cross-appeal of the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to Five Star on the breach-of-warranty claims. At issue was whether Five Star had materially breached its contract with General Mills. The contract required the…
One of the 750 beef processing plant employees who lost his job in the wake of recent negative publicity involving “lean finely textured beef,” otherwise referred to in the media as “pink slime,” has reportedly filed a lawsuit in a Nebraska state court naming as defendants celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, ABC’s Diane Sawyer, a blogger, and 10 unnamed individuals. Bruce Smith, who worked as senior counsel and director of environmental, health and safety at Beef Products, Inc., is apparently seeking $70,000 in damages on the ground that the company “and its employees were unfairly and unnecessarily maligned and accused of producing a food product that did not exist, a product that critics unfairly labeled ‘pink slime.’” The publicity apparently led to the loss of numerous contracts for the product’s purchase. See The Daily Mail, December 12, 2012.
