Like many other similar cases around the county, the lawsuit alleges that the company enacted and enforced reimbursement policies that resulted in their delivery drivers making less than minimum wage for the hours they work after accounting for expenses.
Read Full Case Details"*" indicates required fields
This lawsuit was filed on June 16, 2017, on behalf of pizza delivery drivers who worked for Cincinnati area Papa John’s franchise stores owned and operated by Defendants It’s Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza II Inc., It’s Only Papa’s Pizza LLC, and Michael Hutmier between June 16, 2014, and the present.
Thomas v. PJI, like the many similar pizza delivery driver lawsuits around the country, alleges that the company and its owners under-pay their delivery drivers for the costs the drivers sustain when they use their cars for the company’s purposes, i.e., to make deliveries. Specifically, the drivers claim that the company reimburses a per-order amount (ex., $1.10/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 violations.
Drivers allege 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 (for example, $.58 per mile in 2019) 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 defendants usually argue, the plaintiff alleges that the Papa John’s stores have failed to “reasonably approximate.”
The delivery drivers also allege that Papa John’s required them to pay for their own uniforms, which is prohibited by wage and hour laws,
The drivers allege that this practice violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Constitution, Article II, § 34a, O.R.C. § 4113.15, and
The delivery drivers also allege that In addition to the direct savings caused by underpaying their drivers, Papa John’s received additional benefits and were, as a result, unjustly enriched. Specifically, the benefits obtained by Papa John’s include, but are not limited to, direct and indirect financial benefits like increased profits, increased ability to compete on the price of products, increased opportunities for investment increased attractiveness of Papa John’s franchise opportunities, and increased attractiveness of the overall Papa John’s “brand.”
Plaintiff filed his Reply in Support of his Motion to Compel Payroll Records addressing Papa John’s Response in Opposition. This issue is now fully briefed, the Parties await the Court’s decision.
Papa John’s filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Payroll Records.
Because Papa John’s have refused to provide basic necessary, basic discovery—payroll records—Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Payroll Records Normally, workers “rely on defendants’ payroll records to establish common evidence of unlawful payroll practices.” Williams v. Sweet Home Healthcare, LLC, 325 F.R.D. 113, 129 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (citing cases). The Supreme Court has observed: “When the employer has kept proper and accurate records, the employee may easily discharge his burden by securing the production of those records.” Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946).
Plaintiff filed his Reply in Support of his Motion for Class Certification. This issue is now fully briefed, the Parties await the Court’s decision.
Defendants It’s Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza II Inc., It’s Only Papa’s Pizza LLC, and Michael Hutmier filed their Response in Opposition Class Certification.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification seeking to represent all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked at any of the Papa John’s Pizza locations owned/operated by It’s Only Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza II Inc., It’s Only Papa’s Pizza LLC, Michael Hutmier, and/or James “Chip” Phelps in Ohio at any time from June 16, 2014 to present.
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant Papa John’s International, Inc.
Plaintiff moved to Dismiss Defendant Papa John’s International, Inc. without prejudice.
Defendant Papa John’s International, Inc. filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery
Papa John’s files a joint Reply in Support of their Joint Motion to Strike. This issue is now fully briefed, the Parties await the Court’s decision.
Drivers File a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike.
Papa John’s files a joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
Defendants It’s Only Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza II Inc., It’s Only Papa’s Pizza LLC, and Michael Hutmier filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Opt-in Plaintiffs and putative class members. Defendant Papa John’s International, Inc. joined that motion.
Plaintiff Files Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. This issue is now fully briefed, the Parties await the Court’s decision.
Defendant Papa John’s International, Inc. filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Additionally, Defendants by It’s Only Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza II Inc., It’s Only Papa’s Pizza LLC, and Michael Hutmier filed their own, separate Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff filed his files Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint to add James “Chip” Phelps as a named individual Defendant. Review the First Amended Complaint here.
Court Grants Drivers’ Motion for Conditional Certification and Orders Notice be distributed to the other delivery drivers.
The Court issued an Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay the Case.
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike or Stay Motion for Conditional Certification, explaining that the case should go forward.
Defendant Papa John’s International, Inc. filed a Motion to Strike or Stay Motion for Conditional Certification, arguing that their Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay the Case should prevent Plaintiff from moving the case forward.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective in this lawsuit. The FLSA permits workers to bring lawsuits on behalf of themselves and their “similarly situated” co-workers. This motion asks the Court to recognize that Plaintiff and the pizza delivery drivers are similarly situated (because they all have the same job—delivering pizzas) and asks the court to authorize notice so Plaintiff’s co-workers will have the opportunity to join the lawsuit.
Defendant Papa John’s International, Inc. filed its Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay the Case addressing the arguments in Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition. This issue is now fully briefed, the Parties await the Court’s decision.
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay the Case to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay the Case, arguing that this case should continue and explaining the differences between this lawsuit and the litigation in New York.
Defendant Papa John’s International, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay the Case, arguing that because there is another similar pizza delivery driver case in New York, this case should be dismissed, transferred to New York, or stayed pending the outcome of the lawsuit in New York.
Plaintiff filed a Class and Collective Action Complaint against Papa John’s International, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Pizza, Inc., It’s Only Downtown Pizza II Inc., It’s Only Papa’s Pizza LLC, and Michael Hutmier alleging violations of Federal minimum wage and hour law (the FLSA) as well as Ohio wage and hour laws.