On September 28, 2023, a Papa John’s employee filed suit against the Heritage Partners’ Group (“HPG”), a large franchise operator of Papa John’s stores. The lawsuit is called Mighell v. HPG Pizza, et al.
Read Full Case Details
"*" indicates required fields
The delivery driver alleges that the company under-pays its delivery drivers for the costs the drivers take on when they use their car for the company’s purposes, i.e., to make deliveries. Specifically, the drivers claim that the company reimburses a per-mile amount (ex., $0.35 per mile) that is not enough to cover the drivers’ vehicle expenses. The plaintiff alleges that this under-reimbursement results in a minimum wage or other wage and hour violation.
If you work or worked for HPG and want to learn more about the allegations made against them, please contact our firm at 513-202-0710 or by completing a contact form on this website.
The Claims
Under-reimbursement of Vehicle Expenses
First, the plaintiff alleges that the company does not properly reimburse for vehicle expenses.
The drivers’ position is that they must be reimbursed at the IRS standard business mileage rate (currently $.675 per mile) when the employer does not collect records of the drivers’ actual expenses and reimburse based on those records.
Even if the company is permitted to reimburse based on an “approximation,” as we expect the defendants will argue, the plaintiff alleges that the Heritage Partners’ Group Papa John’s stores have failed to “reasonably approximate.”
Plaintiff alleges that this practice violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado wage law.
Unjust Enrichment
In addition, the plaintiff asserts a claim for unjust enrichment. He alleges that the HPG Pizza stores unfairly benefit by requiring their minimum wage delivery drivers to cover one of their most costly business expenses without proper reimbursement. The drivers are conferring a benefit on the company, the company is aware of the benefit, and it would be unjust for the company to retain that benefit without commensurate compensation.
Counsel for all Parties attended a Discovery Conference in front of Magistrate Judge Hegarty. The Judge ordered that Plaintiff was permitted to take some limited discovery while the Parties wait for the Court to enter rulings on the pending motions.
Plaintiff filed his Reply in support of his Motion to Similarly Situated Employees. This Motion is now fully briefed. This Motion asks the Court to authorize a notice be mailed to all of HPG’s pizza delivery drivers informing them of the lawsuit and giving them the opportunity to join the case if they so choose.
If you work or worked for HPG and want to learn more about the allegations made against them, please contact our firm at 513-202-0710 or by completing a contact form on this website.
Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Send Notice. Defendants argued that the Court should depart from the long-standing precedent and apply a stricter standard to Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff will file a Reply in support of his Motion to Send Notice on or before April 15, 2024.
Plaintiff filed his Motion to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees. This Motion asks the Court to authorize a notice be mailed to all of HPG’s pizza delivery drivers informing them of the lawsuit and giving them the opportunity to join the case if they so choose.
If you work or worked for HPG and want to learn more about the allegations made against them, please contact our firm at 513-202-0710 or by completing a contact form on this website.
Defendants filed Replies in support of their Motions to Dismiss. These Motions are now fully briefed and awaiting a decision from the Court.
Plaintiff filed his responses in opposition to HPG’s Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss by Defendants HPG Pizza II and Rob Prange arguing that these Defendants fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s broad definition of “employer. Plaintiff also filed a response opposing Defendant HPG Pizza I’s motion for partial dismissal.