Court decertifies class action by Domino’s drivers
Dominos Pizza drivers who sued the company for mishandling their tips were dealt a blow yesterday by a federal appeals court.
February 05, 2013 at 06:32 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Domino's Pizza drivers who sued the company for mishandling their tips were dealt a blow yesterday by a federal appeals court.
The 8th Circuit decertified the class action that 1,600 Domino's Pizza delivery drivers filed, saying they didn't have enough in common for class certification. The court, citing Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes in its ruling, knocked down a federal court ruling in November 2011 that certified the class.
The drivers filed suit against Domino's in Minnesota, claiming the company wrongfully withheld gratuities from them and forced them to share gratuities with other drivers in violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. The class included Domino's drivers who worked for the company in Minnesota from March 6, 2006, to Feb. 28, 2010.
The disagreement stemmed from confusion over a delivery charge Domino's first instituted in 2005 for $1 and raised in 2008 to $1.50. While some drivers communicated the charge to customers, other didn't. Additionally, Domino's sometimes told customers about the charge—when they ordered online, for example—and other times didn't mention it. By 2009, the company began communicating to some customers that the charge was not a tip for drivers, and eventually, in 2010, it began communicating that message to all customers.
The variety of transactions “made it unreasonable for some customers to construe the delivery charge as a payment for personal services, thereby preventing one-stroke determination of a class-wide question,” the 8th Circuit wrote yesterday, remanding the case back to the lower court.
For more InsideCounsel stories about tipping disputes in the foodservice industry, see:
Starbucks appeals $14.1 million tip-pooling class action suit
Darden Restaurants accused of underpaying servers
Wage and hour suits on the rise, study says
Batali, Bastianich to pay $5.25 million for allegedly cheating workers
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1The FTC’s Noncompete Rule Is Likely Dead
- 2COVID-19 Vaccine Suit Against United Airlines Hangs on Right-to-Sue Letter Date
- 3People in the News—Jan. 10, 2025—Lamb McErlane, Saxton & Stump
- 4How I Made Partner: 'Be Open With Partners About Your Strengths,' Says Ha Jin Lee of Sullivan & Cromwell
- 5Essential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250