Fast food chain wins partial appeals court victory but possibility remains of collective PAGA claims

The California Court of Appeal partly granted a motion to compel arbitration filed by In-N-Out Burgers in connection with lawsuits alleging that it required employees to purchase, wear, and maintain specific clothing articles without reimbursing them for such expenses.

Tom Piplack and Donovan Sherrod – the plaintiffs in the case of Piplack et al. v. In-N-Out Burgers – were former employees of In-N-Out. They signed arbitration agreements with In-N-Out, which required them to pursue any employment-related claims through arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

The arbitration agreements had a waiver that prevented those signing from bringing a private attorney general action. This waiver was severable in certain circumstances.

In late 2019, the plaintiffs sued In-N-Out. They asked for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) on behalf of themselves and other similarly affected employees. They claimed that In-N-Out required employees to buy and wear certain articles of clothing and to buy and use special cleaning products to maintain these clothes, all without reimbursement.

Read more: Court rejects restaurant's explanation for diner's slip-and-fall injury

In February 2022, In-N-Out filed a motion to compel arbitration. It cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022), which required arbitration of the...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMikAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5oY2FtYWcuY29tL3Vz...