Some four years after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) accused several Ruby Tuesday, Inc. restaurants in Pennsylvania and Ohio of engaging in a pattern or practice of age discrimination against 40-year-old or older job applicants, Ruby Tuesday agreed to settle the claims, without admitting any liability. EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 09-1330 (W.D. Pa., consent decree approved December 9, 2013). The company will pay $575,000 into a qualified settlement fund account to provide back pay and statutory damages to eligible claimants, designate a decree compliance monitor to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement, establish hiring and recruitment goals for individuals in the protected age group, adopt and maintain an electronic applicant tracking system, audit compliance, and report to EEOC. The company has also agreed to provide sufficient training regarding the decree, will report age-discrimination complaints to EEOC and retain certain records to resolve claims that…
Tag Archives Pennsylvania
Putative class actions have been filed against the Anheuser-Busch Cos. (AB) in federal courts in California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, alleging that “consumers receive watered down beer containing less alcohol than is stated on the labels of AB’s products.” Giampaoli v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-0828 (N.D. Cal., filed February 22, 2013); Wilson v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-1122 (D.N.J., filed February 25, 2013); Greenberg v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-1016 (E.D. Pa., filed February 25, 2013). Claiming that the company uses a technology enabling it to create precise alcohol levels in its beer products, each plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of consumers who have purchased AB products such as Budweiser®, Bud Ice®, Bud Light Premium®, Michelob®, Michelob Ultra®, Hurricane High Gravity Lager®, King Cobra®, Busch Ice®, Natural Ice®, Black Crown®, and Bud Light Lime®. Alleging violations of consumer fraud laws and breach of state and federal warranty laws, the plaintiffs…
In addition to a lawsuit filed in Illinois and two filed in New Jersey, a fourth has been filed against Subway Sandwich Shops Inc. in Pennsylvania, alleging that the company’s “Footlong” sandwich “consistently measures significantly less than twelve inches in length.” Roseman v. Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc., No. 130102647 (Philadelphia Cty. Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., filed January 24, 2013). Information about two of the other lawsuits appears in Issue 468 of this Update. The Pennsylvania complaint alleges that this size discrepancy “is not an accident” and that the company knew about the discrepancy “since Subway named its large sandwich the ‘Footlong’ sometime prior to January 24, 2007.” Seeking to certify a class of all persons who purchased a “Footlong” sandwich from a Pennsylvania Subway restaurant since that date, the plaintiff, a New Jersey resident who purports to work in Pennsylvania and regularly purchased the disputed sandwiches in Philadelphia, alleges violations of…
A multidistrict litigation (MDL) court that is considering pretrial matters in 91 consolidated antitrust lawsuits alleging that major chocolate manufacturers conspired to implement price increases from 2002 through 2007, has granted the direct-purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In re Chocolate Confectionery Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1935 (M.D. Pa., order entered December 7, 2012). The court did so after first determining whether the plaintiffs’ expert testimony in support of class certification is reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The U.S. Supreme Court is currently facing a similar issue, that is, “Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.” The MDL court, noting that the issue has not yet been decided in…
A federal court in Pennsylvania has denied the motion for summary judgment filed by a Burger King franchisee sued for violating the civil rights of an African-American truck driver who alleged that restaurant employees spit in his sandwich before serving it. Goodwin v. Fast Food Enters. #3, LLP, No. 10-23 (W.D. Pa., decided May 16, 2012). This motion was based on the assertion that the plaintiff would be unable to establish that the defendant is liable for the “allegedly discriminatory actions of the employees” and a request to strike the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. In a previous motion, also decided against the franchisee, the court determined that “there were triable issues of material fact concerning whether Goodwin’s sandwich had been spat into and whether the incident, if it occurred, was racially motivated.” According to the court, the doctrine of respondeat superior, may not, as argued by the defendant, apply in…
A federal court in Pennsylvania has granted the U.S. government’s motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined a Pennsylvania dairy farmer from selling raw milk and milk products in interstate commerce. United States v. Allgyer, No. 11-02651 (E.D. Pa., decided February 2, 2012). According to the court, Daniel Allgyer’s interstate sales of raw milk were discovered through an undercover investigation that involved placing online orders for the product through a membership-only group. Members were cautioned by the website to “not share information” about the group with government agencies or doctors. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) apparently purchased some of the milk for delivery out of state, and independent testing confirmed that it was unpasteurized. FDA warned the farmer to stop violating federal law, but he continued to make deliveries to out-of-state consumers through a different membership organization. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that summary judgment should not be…
A federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) court has granted several motions to dismiss in consolidated actions alleging a conspiracy by egg producers and trade associations to restrict the domestic supply of eggs. In re: Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2002 (E.D. Pa., decided September 26, 2011). Among other allegations, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants agreed over a period of years to reduce the size of egg-laying flocks and require larger cages to reduce overall hen densities as part of an alleged collective plan to keep egg prices high. In their motions to dismiss, the defendants argued that while the second amended complaint alleged sufficient facts to support the antitrust conspiracy claim as to some of the defendants, “the pleading is deficient with respect to each of the movants by failing to allege facts that they specifically were parties to the conspiracy.” Examining each motion in turn, the court dismissed…
While settlement terms are apparently confidential, a high-end bottled water company has reportedly settled its claims against a company that supplied bottles which reacted to the water by causing foaming and a poor taste. Penta Water Co. v. Zuckerman-Honickman, Inc., No. 09-2633 (E.D. Pa., dismissed with prejudice September 21, 2011). The water company evidently switched to the defendant’s bottles in conjunction with the launch of a campaign intended to broaden its customer base beyond athletes, celebrities and health food consumers. The alleged bottle defect forced the plaintiff to halt the campaign, close its manufacturing plant and undertake “crisis management.” The packaging company and the water bottler have both reportedly undergone bankruptcy proceedings. See Law360, September 22, 2011.
The parents of a 29-year-old who died after he fell into a vat of chocolate have filed a wrongful death action in a Pennsylvania state court against the company that owned the plant where he worked and a number of other defendants involved in manufacturing the allegedly faulty equipment that purportedly led to the accident. Smith v. Lyons & Sons, Inc., No. __ (Pa. Ct. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., filed July 1, 2011). The decedent allegedly slipped on a cardboard-covered platform made slippery with chocolate and other materials and fell into the vat through unguarded holes. The vat was “processing, mixing and melting chocolate at extremely high temperatures at the time.” Co-workers were allegedly unable to stop the vat from operating because the switch was not located on the platform. Alleging negligence, strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties, the plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $50,000. The…
Hershey Company has reportedly sued Mars for trademark infringement in a Pennsylvania federal court, alleging that colors used in the packaging for Mars’s Dove peanut-butter milk-chocolate Promises® candy is too similar to what Hershey uses for its Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups®. Mars apparently filed a preemptive suit just days earlier in a Virginia federal court, asking to dismiss the Hershey complaint. Mars reportedly contends that Hershey admits it does not have exclusive rights to package peanut-butter candies in orange wrappers and that orange is commonly used in the industry as an indicator of peanut-butter flavor. According to a news source, Hershey sent a cease-and desist letter to Mars in November 2010, stating, “It can come as no surprise to Mars that Hershey, having objected to the color of the individual Dove peanut butter chocolate wrappers and filed a counterclaim to obtain a change of that color, would have a serious problem…
