The summer heat has brought with it several legal developments in lawsuits filed against major QSRs, including McDonald's, In-N-Out and Subway, which have been the focus of separate court cases this month.

California-based In-N-Out is accused of violating the state's labor code and unfair business practices in Becerra v. In-N-Out Burger, filed in a California state court, according to the National Law Review. Luis Becerra, a former In-N-Out butcher, claimed the QSR retaliated against him by handing him a final notice after he reported food safety and COVID-19 violations to authorities.

The action — filed as a Private Attorney General Act complaint — alleged that In-N-Out did not enforce COVID-19 safety measures, like mandated PPE for employees and social distancing requirements, and that sick employees in the meat department were not placed on medical leave. Due to the alleged violations, the plaintiff filed a report with the Los Angeles Health Department and told other butchers at the chain that they also had the right to report such issues.

According to court documents, Becerra said In-N-Out issued him a final warning for attendance issues as a result of his reporting to authorities. In-N-Out, however, maintained it terminated him for providing false documents about an absence and using all his sick leave. Becerra claimed the absence was excused and that other employees were also fired for trying to use their sick leave.

When reached this morning for further comment, In-N-Out Chief Legal and Business Officer Arnie Wensinger told QSRweb, "At In-N-Out Burger, we have always cared for our associates as if they are our own family and we are disappointed with the baseless and false claims that Mr. Becerra has made in his lawsuit. Due to the fact that this matter involves ongoing litigation, we will unfortunately not be able to comment any further."

McDonald's case questions joint employer status

A judge has allowed a sexual harassment-related case — Johnson v. McDonald's — to go forward. Barbara Johnson, who filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, said she was subject to workplace sexual harassment and assault when she worked at a St. Louis location in 2018. In an move to dismiss the case, McDonald's claimed the plaintiff did not adequately provide facts to establish that the company itself jointly employed her, but U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel denied the chain's motion to dismiss.

According to court documents, the woman alleged McDonald's frequently inspected the franchise involved in the suit and would note if individual employees were failing to perform to the company's standards.

"Although these allegations are relatively general," Sippel wrote, "they are specific enough to put the defendants on notice of the claim against them."

The case encapsulates an ongoing legal debate of whether a franchising company, like McDonald's, is in some way responsible for actions at its franchisees' stores. At the time of this writing McDonald's did not respond to a request for comment.

Subway: A cautionary tale of text marketing

A California federal appeals court ruled last week that a legal action filed by Marina Soliman, in March 2020, against Subway could proceed, according to Yahoo Lifestyle.

Soliman alleged that Subway continued to send her promotional texts, despite her efforts to opt out of the communications, which started when she texted a keyword and code to find out about a promotion at a California store. She said her ensuing "STOP" messages were disregarded and the messages continued.

As the defendant in the case, Subway said that when Soliman opted into the free sandwich offer, she also agreed to an arbitration clause, while enrolling in the chain's promotional texts at the same time within the terms and conditions Subway publishes on its website.

In response to that defense, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said that under California law such "terms and conditions" weren't binding since the font used for that legal explanation was so much smaller than all the text around them. The court also said that as part of the promotion the brand failed to call out the terms, nor did it clarify customers who texted for the free sandwich were also agreeing to all the added conditions.

"Subway says that when Soliman signed up for discount sandwiches, she also agreed to a side order of arbitration. I don't think so," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer wrote previously in the case's proceedings.

The appeals court ruling last week found Subway violated federal law by ignoring the Soliman's "STOP" request since she was not bound by the arbitration condition in the chain's website's fine print.

Soliman has asked the court to order Subway to pay her $1,500 for every unwanted text message. Since the case was filed as a proposed class action on behalf of all customers with similar issues, the case could potentially cost the chain a very large sum of money.

When reached this afternoon, a Subway spokeswoman said the brand was unable to provide any comment regarding ongoing litigation.

Copyright © 2021 Networld Media. All rights reserved., source Industry News