If you work or worked for Bam! 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.
Read Full Case Details"*" indicates required fields
Biller & Kimble first sued Bam! Pizza Management in October 2021, in a case called Wright, et al. v. Bam! Pizza Management, et al., No. 3:21-cv-1655 (N.D. Texas). But, shortly after the case was filed, Bam! Informed us that the named plaintiff in that case had signed an “arbitration agreement” with a class action waiver. Learn more about arbitration agreements here.
In March of 2022, our firm filed another class action lawsuit against the Bam! Pizza Management stores. This case was filed in New Mexico. West v. Bam! Pizza Management, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00209-LF-JHR (D. New Mexico).
In addition to these two lawsuits, our firm is also pursuing multiple individual arbitrations on behalf of pizza delivery drivers against Bam!
West v Bam!, like the many similar pizza delivery driver lawsuits around the country, 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-deliver amount (ex., $1.00 per delivery) 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.
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 $.585 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 Bam! Pizza Management Domino’s stores have failed to “reasonably approximate.”
Plaintiff alleges that this practice violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage law, NM Stat. §50-4-21, et seq.
Unjust Enrichment
In addition, the plaintiff asserts a claim for unjust enrichment. She alleges that the Bam! Pizza Management 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.
Judge Urias held a hearing on the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Parties presented oral argument in support of their positions and answered questions regarding the law and facts of the case. At the close of the hearing, Judge Urias ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff actually signed the arbitration agreement and agreed with Plaintiff that she is entitled to a jury trial to decide that issue. The Court scheduled a jury trial for December 5, 2022.
Defendants filed a Reply in Support of their Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. This Response argues that the Court should not enforce the arbitration agreement that Defendants’ claim the Plaintiff’s signed for four reasons:
(1) The Plaintiff denies that she ever saw or signed the arbitration agreement;
(2) The Defendants’ waived the right to arbitration by delaying for over two months before moving to compel arbitration;
(3) The arbitration agreement is unenforceable for minimum wage claims because courts or the Department of Labor must approve private settlements of FLSA rights; and
(4) the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.
Defendants filed an Answer asserting defenses to liability as well as objections. In their Answer, the Defendants informed the Court that there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties that requires individual arbitration.
Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver when she was hired to work for them.
Plaintiff filed her Motion to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees. This Motion asks the Court to authorize a notice be mailed to all of Bam!’s pizza delivery drivers informing them of the lawsuit and giving them the opportunity to join the case if they so choose.
Lawsuit filed against Bam! Pizza Management.