This lawsuit was filed on March 27,2020, on behalf of Hungry Howie’s delivery drivers who worked for any of the company’s locations between March 27, 2017 through the present.
Read Full Case Details"*" indicates required fields
This lawsuit was filed on March 27, 2020, on behalf of Hungry Howie’s delivery drivers who worked for any of the company’s locations between March 27, 2017 through the present.
The lawsuit asserted claims that are all too common in the pizza industry.
First, the plaintiff claimed that the drivers were not adequately reimbursed for the costs associated with using their own vehicles to perform work for Battle Creek. Throughout the relevant time, Battle Creek Pizza reimbursed drivers a flat rate per delivery that resulted in the drivers being paid $1.00 per order delivered.
Biller & Kimble has successfully argued in a number of cases that employers have two choices when reimbursing for vehicle expenses: they can either (1) keep records of the drivers’ actual expenses and reimburse for them, or (2) reimburse at the IRS standard business mileage rate, which changes every year and is currently 62.5 cents per mile.
Learn more about the drivers’ “under-reimbursement” claim here: Pizza Delivery Driver Cases.
Second, the plaintiff claimed that the drivers were paid a “tipped wage rate” (less than minimum wage) for hours they worked inside the restaurant. Because the drivers were not receiving tips for work done in the store, the plaintiff claimed that it was illegal for the company to pay them a tipped wage rate for these hours.
On April 28, 2022, the Judge assigned to this case, the Honorable Janet T. Neff granted our motion and ruled that pizza delivery drivers who use their own cars to make deliveries are entitled to be reimbursed at the IRS standard business mileage rate, which is currently $.625 per mile, if the pizza industry employers do not keep records of their delivery drivers’ actual automobile expenses.
Read the full Opinion here.
Battle Creek appealed Judge Neff’s ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Battle Creek argued that the law allows them to “reasonably approximate” the drivers’ expenses and still meet the minimum wage requirements rather than pay the drivers the IRS rate.
The Court held a hearing on the three pending Motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint; (2) Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel Defendants to supplement their discovery responses; (3) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Depositions and Initial Disclosures. The Court took the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint under advisement. The Court orally granted each of the Motions to Compel, in part and ordered counsel for the Parties to draft a proposed order reflecting his rulings.
Plaintiffs Reply in support of the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint was filed. The briefing on this Motion is now complete.
Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel the depositions of the opt-in plaintiffs for several reasons including that the request was disproportionate to the needs of the case and was made improperly late – only 32 business days before the end of the fact discovery period.
Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Compel arguing they were not required to supplement their discovery responses.
Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to produce all 181 opt-in plaintiffs for deposition and to have each opt-in plaintiff provide separate initial disclosures. Plaintiffs intend to oppose this motion.
Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion to Compel Defendants to supplement their responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a motion or leave to file an amended complaint that identified additional entities that were owned by Defendant Harold Rose and that operated Hungry Howie’s restaurants.
Judge Maloney entered the new case schedule.
The Parties submitted revised proposed case schedules to Judge Maloney.
The case was reassigned from Judge Neff to Judge Paul L. Maloney
The District Court re-opened the case following the Sixth Circuit’s March 12, 2024 opinion.
The Sixth Circuit entered an Order overruling Judge Neff’s Summary Judgment Order. The Sixth Circuit held that an employer is not necessarily required to reimburse delivery drivers at the IRS rate. However, the Sixth Circuit opinion also held that an employer is not permitted to “reasonably approximate” its delivery drivers’ expenses associated with the use of their vehicle.
Update 08/21/2023: The appeal briefing is now complete, and Oral Arguments will take place before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on October 18, 2023.