"*" indicates required fields
This lawsuit was filed on January 5, 2022 on behalf of Pizza delivery drivers who worked for any of the company’s Jet’s Pizza stores between July 5, 2016 through the present.
The Claims
The lawsuit asserted claims that are all too common in the pizza industry.
Unreimbursed for Vehicle Costs
First, the plaintiff claimed that the drivers were not adequately reimbursed for the costs associated with using their own vehicles to perform work for the Unlimited Potential Pizza Inc. stores. Throughout the relevant time Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc’s reimbursement payments resulted in reimbursements that are less than the IRS standard business mileage rate for each mile driven.
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 67 cents per mile.
Learn more about the drivers’ “under-reimbursement” claim here.
Paid Tipped Wage Rate for Hours Worked Inside Restaurant
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.
The Court entered an amended scheduling order resetting the case deadlines and requiring Defendants to supplement their responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on or before December 23, 2024.
The Court entered a Protective Order.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Status Conference to resolve any outstanding issues with the entry of the Protective Order and to address issues with Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests.
The Court entered an Order noting that Defendants’ Motion to Stay the case was moot as the Sixth Circuit had already issued its opinion about the employer’s obligations regarding reimbursement. The Sixth Circuit held that an employer is not permitted to reasonably approximate its delivery drivers’ expenses for purposes of determining the amount of reimbursement the delivery driver should receive for providing a personal vehicle for the job. The Sixth Circuit’s decision can be found here.
The Court also entered an Order granting Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order, and requested the Parties submit a proposed Protective Order for the Court to enter.
In order to help get the new Judge up to speed on the case, Plaintiff filed a case status update summarizing the events of the case and the pending motions awaiting the Court’s decision.
This case was reassigned to Judge Jeffrey Hopkins.
Defendants filed their Reply briefs in support of their Motion to Stay and their Motion for a Protective Order. The briefing is now complete and the Parties will await the Court’s decisions.
Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay because (in summary) regardless of the outcome of the Sixth Circuit Appeal, the Parties would still need to engage in substantial discovery in order to resolve the case.
Plaintiff also filed his response in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order arguing, among other things, that the information requested should not be confidential due to the public-private nature of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants will have a chance to file a Reply brief in support of each Motion and then the briefing will be complete.
Defendants filed a Motion for entry of a Protective Order. Defendants claimed a Protective Order was necessary to protect wage and hour information for non-parties that was requested during the discovery process by Plaintiff. Plaintiff plans to oppose the Motion.
Defendants also filed a Motion to Stay this case (put the case on hold) while the Sixth Circuit decided an appeal regarding the appropriate method for an employer to reimburse its delivery drivers. Plaintiff intends to oppose this Motion.
Defendant JDMLB, Inc. filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint generally denying the allegations.
Defendants Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc., DW & KV Pizza, Inc., Milford Pizza, Inc., Sandeaver, Inc., Symmes Pizza, Inc., TGD Food Group, Inc., Weaver Dream Team, Inc., and Marylu Weaver filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint generally denying the allegations.
Plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint that added JDMLB, Inc. as a Defendant.
Defendants Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc., DW & KV Pizza, Inc., Milford Pizza, Inc., Sandeaver, Inc., Symmes Pizza, Inc., TGD Food Group, Inc., Weaver Dream Team, Inc., and Marylu Weaver filed their Answer to the Complaint generally denying the allegations.
Plaintiff files his Complaint in the United States District court for the Southern District of Ohio.