A federal court in California has certified a nationwide class and Washington subclass of individuals who received purportedly unsolicited text messages sent by OnTime4U to advertise Papa John’s pizza products. Agne v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., No. 10-1139 (W.D. Wash., decided November 9, 2012). An appeal was filed before the Ninth Circuit on November 26. According to the court, “OnTime4U apparently told Papa John’s franchisees that it was legal to send texts without express customer consent because there was an existing business relationship between the customers and the Papa John’s restaurants. Certain Papa John’s franchisees, including at least some of the Rain City Defendants, provided OnTime4U with lists of telephone numbers of individuals who had purchased pizza from them. Those lists were generated out of the PROFIT system, a proprietary database that Papa John’s describes as a ‘point of sale data entry system.’ . . . OnTime4U removed landline numbers from…
Tag Archives restaurant
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has determined, as a matter of first impression, that Starbucks Corp. violated a Massachusetts law prohibiting restaurant tips to be shared with employees who have managerial responsibilities, because the “upscale coffee house” chain allowed tips collected in tip jars by the cash registers of its Massachusetts shops to be shared by shift supervisors and baristas. Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., Nos. 12-1189, -1277 (1st Cir., decided November 9, 2012). Massachusetts apparently amended a tip-sharing law in 2004. Under the earlier version, the courts applied a “primary duty” test to decide whether an employee could participate in a tips pool—if the primary duty was to serve customers, he could participate; if the primary duty was to manage, she was ineligible. After amendment, the legislature clearly defined a “wait staff employee” as someone, among other matters, “who has no managerial responsibility.” The court agreed with the plaintiffs…
A federal court in California has approved the settlement of class claims that will require Burger King Corp. to remove barriers to wheelchair and scooter access at more than 75 of the restaurants it leases to franchisees in the state and pay $19 million to the settlement class. Vallabhapuapu v. Burger King Corp., No. 11-00667 (N.D. Cal., decided October 29, 2012). This is the second settlement of Americans with Disabilities Act claims against the company; the first involved 10 certified classes and 10 alleged noncompliant restaurants in California. Each individual who files a claim by November 15, 2012, will take a pro rata share of the settlement for up to six visits to a Burger King restaurant “where he or she encountered a barrier to access.” As of mid-October, 620 claims had been filed with an average recovery expected to be nearly $5,000 per store visit, based on an adjusted…
McDonald’s Corp. has reportedly announced plans to scrap “forward-to-a-friend” features on some of its online games after drawing complaints from a consumer group concerned about children’s privacy. According to media sources, the global restaurant chain said it will disable a sharing option on HappyMeal.com that allowed users “to e-mail ecards, links and photos to family and friends.” “Rest assured, the online security of our guests—especially our youngest guests—remains a top priority for us,” a company spokesperson told reporters. “We continuously review and enhance our sites as appropriate and we recently made some updates to HappyMeal.com, including removing the forward-to-a-friend option.” Earlier this year, the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) filed five complaints with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against companies such as McDonald’s and General Mills, Inc. over the use of interactive media to allegedly promote foods and TV programs to children. CDD claimed that these so-called “viral marketing” techniques…
A federal jury in California has reportedly determined that Benihana properly classified three restaurant managers as exempt thus concluding wage-related litigation against the chain. Originally filed as a putative class action in state court, the case initially included claims about overtime wages, accrued vacation pay, rest and meal breaks, and itemized wage statements. By the time the case was tried after removal to federal court, it involved just three named plaintiffs and the overtime dispute. According to a news source, the company nearly derailed the case by alleging that one of the employees had copied and destroyed thousands of files from a computer at the company’s Cupertino, California, location. The court levied sanctions against the employee and dismissed him from the case, but then determined that the conduct, alleged to be “wrongful self-help discovery” and the deletion of stolen copies, may not have been “beyond the pale” because some evidence…
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has certified to the New York Court of Appeals questions arising under state employment law in a dispute over the distribution of tips in Starbucks stores. Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp., No. 10-4912; Winans v. Starbucks Corp., No. 11-3199 (2d Cir., questions certified October 23, 2012). A federal district court determined that Starbucks properly distributed pooled tips to shift supervisors and that Starbucks was not required to include assistant store managers in its tip pools. The appellants in the consolidated appeals are a putative class of baristas who allege that shift supervisors are “agents” under New York Labor Law § 196-d and ineligible to share tips, and a putative class of assistant store managers who claim they are entitled to share in the tip pools because they perform the same tasks as baristas and have only limited management authority. The plaintiffs in both cases sought review…
A California court has reportedly denied a motion to certify a class of Hard Rock Café employees who allege that the restaurant chain wrongly classified them as exempt employees and then forced them to assume the tasks of non-exempt employees without paying them overtime or allowing them to take meal periods and rest breaks, and otherwise provided inaccurate wage statements. In re Hard Rock Café Wage & Hour Cases, No. JCCP 4549 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., decided October 3, 2012). According to the restaurant chain’s counsel, the court determined that the putative class of kitchen managers lacked numerosity, the identity and number of class members could not be ascertained, and the named representative could not adequately represent the class. The court also apparently found that individual analysis of each employee’s work activities would be required to decide whether they had been properly classified as exempt. Counsel for named plaintiff…
A federal court in Georgia has denied a request to certify a nationwide class of Steak 'n Shake hourly employees in a dispute over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, finding that class members are not similarly situated to the named plaintiffs or to each other. Beecher v. Steak 'n Shake Operations, Inc., No. 11-04102 (N.D. Ga., decided September 27, 2012). The putative class would have involved some 65,000 employees working in more than 400 corporate restaurants in five different U.S. regions. They alleged that restaurant managers were authorized to and did in fact change time records in bad faith and thus did not compensate them for all of their work or paid them less than minimum wage. According to the court, the evidence showed that restaurant managers had a number of legitimate reasons for altering time records. For example, if the clock in/clock out times did not correctly…
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. has filed another infringement action against a retailer allegedly selling a chicken sandwich combo using the CHIPOTLE® trademark. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Jack in the Box, Inc., No. 12-02511 (D. Colo., filed September 21, 2012). Information about the trademark infringement lawsuit Chipotle filed in April against Kroger Co. appears in Issue 435 of this Update. In the new action against Jack in the Box, Chipotle alleges that when asked to cease using the CHIPOTLE® marks to promote its chicken sandwich, the defendant responded that its use of the word did not infringe the marks and that it did not currently plan to use the mark, which was used in connection with a limited time offer, in the future. Still, according to the complaint, the defendant “suggested that it would use the CHIPOTLE Marks in the future.” Claiming that its marks have “acquired substantial goodwill and are…
A federal court in New York has dismissed with prejudice claims that Mario Batali’s Del Posto restaurant allegedly retained portions of workers’ tips in violation of federal and state labor laws after approving an agreement requiring the defendants to pay $1.15 million into a settlement fund and provide workers with training and paid vacation time and sick leave. Amastal v. Pasta Resources, Inc., No. 10-07748 (S.D.N.Y., order entered September 24, 2012). Additional information about the lawsuit can be found in Issue 368 of this Update. The 31 plaintiffs in this lawsuit had opted out of a similar class action involving captains, servers, waiters, bussers, runners, backwaiters, bartenders, and barbacks at Del Posto and seven other restaurants; the class action apparently concluded with a $5.25 million settlement deal preliminarily approved in May. Details about the class action appear in Issues 361 and 430 of this Update. The deal also apparently releases claims…
