COVID-19 has fundamentally changed how we think about our world. From the way we interact with one another to the way businesses operate, nothing will be the same if and when a vaccine is found.
Because COVID-19 appeared so suddenly, many industries were completely blindsided by the disruptions that occurred as a result: businesses forced to close, employees transitioning to working from home where possible, mass layoffs and much more. One industry that has been affected, in particular, is the restaurant industry. Now, as certain states look to jumpstart their economies, restaurants in those states must weigh the pros and cons of opening their doors once more.
While the way restaurants conduct business is sure to change — California recently issued a set of guidelines for dine-in restaurants — they're likely to encounter an enhanced version of the risks they were already facing before COVID-19 struck.
Below are a few examples of what those in the restaurant industry may face going forward:
Workers' compensation: The key question for workers' compensation claims is whether the injury occurred at the workplace. If it did and that can be proven, the employee may be entitled to financial compensation from their employer. But if an employee claims that they contracted COVID-19 while working at that restaurant that employs them, the answer to whether they're entitled to financial compensation is up for debate.
Employment practices: Unemployment claims in the U.S. as a result of COVID-19 have soared past 36 million, and restaurant and bar workers account for a large portion of those claims. Many of the jobs were lost as part of a reduction in force (RIF), which is defined as a separation from employment due to lack of funds, redesign or elimination of positions or reorganization, with no likelihood or expectation that the employee will be recalled. However, a restaurant owner who defines their actions as RIF or mass layoff does not automatically receive protection from employment practices exposure.
Liquor liability: In an effort to retain as many employees as possible and keep sales afloat, restaurants have implemented the go-to sale of alcohol. Under normal liquor liability circumstances, the biggest exposure that restaurants and bars face is over-serving. Currently, customers aren't required to sign a waiver that they're not drinking and driving, and while the beverage is technically not an open container, it's not sealed either. Furthermore, restaurants aren't required to ask if the drink will be shared or if it's all being consumed by one person. So if a person comes down with alcohol poisoning from a mass amount of liquor that the restaurant sent them off with, the owner could technically be on the hook.
"The bottom line is that while the industry is currently dealing with a high volume of business interruption claims, restaurant owners and their insurance agents need to also think about the claims we haven't seen yet," Crystal Jacobs, vice president and program director at Restaurant Guard Insurance, said in a statement. "Over the next 12-24 months, we expect the industry will feel the true legal implications of COVID-19 — with workers' compensation, employment practices and even liquor liability claims leading at the forefront of the next wave of exposures."
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 AllSettlement Negotiations Taking Shape in Class Action Against Poppi Prebiotic Sodas
2 minute readK&L Gates Secures $10.5M Verdict for Washington Meat Retailer in Lawsuit Over 'Boneless' Chicken Product
Trending Stories
- 1Sidley Cross-Border Transactions Partner Heads to Winston & Strawn
- 2Another Latham Partner Exits for Sidley
- 3Clark Hill Adds Franchise Law Group to Growing Atlanta Office
- 4DLA Piper Adds Former Verizon GC Amid In-House Hiring Spree
- 5'I Couldn't Believe It': Attorney Jim Walden Petitions US Court for Right to Run for NYC Mayor as an Independent
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