ORTIZ v. ARBY'S RESTAURANT GROUP



The Settlement


On November 17, 2015, the Court approved a settlement in this matter.

IF YOU WERE EMPLOYED AT ARBY’S OWNED BY ARG RESOURCES, LLC (“ARG”) AS AN HOURLY RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE IN CALIFORNIA ANY TIME BETWEEN MAY 30, 2010 AND NOVEMBER 17, 2015, THEN YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER.

Class Members who file a Claim Form by February 16, 2016 are eligible to receive payment from the Settlement. The payment to each Class Member will depend on a number of factors, but we expect the average individual Class Member to receive something between $676 and $2,253 depending on the number of Class Members who file Claim Forms.

If you are a Class Member and have not received a Claim Form by January 2, 2016, contact the Settlement Administrator:


Rust Consulting
Ortiz v. ARG Settlement Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting – 4939
PO Box 2396
Faribault, MN 55021-9096
(877) 310-0493
WWW.ARGCAWAGECLASSACTION.COM


You can also contact us with any questions.

Case Background


The lawsuit addresses several issues. The first issue affects all employees: meal breaks. In California, the law, with some limited exceptions, generally requires that your employer make sure you are relieved of all duty for a meal break by the fifth hour of your shift. If you are not relieved of duty by the fifth hour, or if you work your entire shift without a meal break, you are generally entitled to receive an extra hour of pay for that day. We believe that ARG had a policy under which the break was not required until the sixth hour of a shift. ARG also failed to pay the extra hour of wages that it owed when employees worked more than five hours before being relieved of duty. ARG denied and continues to deny all of these claims.

The other issues are limited to General Managers and people who worked in Lead Positions like Shift Lead, Shift Manager, Assistant Manager, Assistant General Manager, Fast Track Manager, Manager, or Manager Trainee. We believe that ARG required these employees to use cell phones for work, but did not reimburse them for their cell phone bills. We also believe that ARG required these employees to use their own cars for work — for example, when picking up and dropping off supplies and traveling to and from meetings. Here again, ARG did not reimburse these employees for their mileage. Finally, we believe these employees were required to answer phone calls and do other work outside of the restaurants for which they were never paid. ARG denied and continues to deny all of these claims as well.

Case Documents