Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

13. Commitments and Contingencies

Agar v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC

On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar (Agar), a former employee, filed a Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI). On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against SNI (the Complaint). Agar alleges that SNI improperly reported overtime pay on employees’ wage statements, in violation of the California Labor Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which concern the wage statements.

The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported overtime pay on its wage statements.

SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or any specific guidance from California decisional law, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the California Labor Commissioner’s Office. Finally, SNI contended that certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual arbitration.

SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in the case in December 2019, which was not successful. On March 17, 2020, the Court granted Agar leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which removed the claim that SNI had asserted was subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed a Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal of the remaining claim, on May 1, 2020. The Court overruled the Demurrer on September 1, 2020. SNI requested discretionary appellate review of this decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District granted SNI’s application on February 19, 2021 and ordered briefing by the Parties. Oral argument was held on April 5, 2022. On April 18, 2022, the Court of Appeal ruled that a peremptory writ of mandate should be issued directing the trial court to set aside its prior order overruling SNI’s Demurrer to the complaint and to enter an order sustaining SNI’s Demurrer without leave to amend, which has the effect of dismissing Agar’s complaint against SNI. The Court of Appeal’s decision becomes final thirty days after issuance. Agar has ten days from the date that the Court of Appeal’s decision becomes final to file a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.

Kelley v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC; Bryan v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC

On March 4, 2020, Monique Kelley filed a Class Action Complaint against SNI in Merced County Superior Court in California. Ms. Kelley worked at SNI for less than a week in 2017 through a temporary staffing company. Ms. Kelley has brought suit for purported violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code on her own behalf, and on behalf of all current and former California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of SNI. Ms. Kelley specifically asserts claims for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest break premiums, failure to timely pay final wages upon termination, non-compliant wage statements, and unreimbursed business expenses. SNI filed a Demurrer on May 21, 2020, seeking dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that it contains only boilerplate allegations that fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and it is otherwise uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. SNI further sought dismissal of one cause of action based upon the statute of limitations. SNI simultaneously filed a Motion to Strike certain allegations in the Complaint as improperly pled. The Court sustained the Demurrer with leave to amend on August 25, 2020. The Court also granted the Motion to Strike. Ms. Kelley has amended her original pleading, asserting the same causes of action, to which SNI has filed a responsive pleading. The parties have begun discovery.

On June 15, 2020, the same law firm representing Ms. Kelley also filed notice with the State of California of the intent to pursue a claim on a representative basis pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). This notice was served on behalf of Julie Bryan, who worked at SNI through a temporary staffing agency in early 2020. The notice states the intent to pursue relief on behalf of Ms. Bryan as well as other alleged aggrieved employees, identified as all current and former hourly or non-exempt employees of SNI, whether hired directly or through staffing agencies or labor contractors. The notice alleges that SNI failed to properly pay Ms. Bryan and the other alleged aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage statements, and failed to reimburse for all necessary business-related expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. On August 19, 2020, Ms. Bryan filed a Complaint in Merced County Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in her PAGA notice. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and the parties entered the discovery phase of the case. On May 20, 2021, however, Ms. Bryan filed a Request for Dismissal of her action, without prejudice.

On April 26, 2021, prior to the filing of the above-referenced Notice of Dismissal, the same law firm filed an additional notice with the State of California of the intent to pursue a claim on a representative basis pursuant to PAGA. This notice was served on behalf of Patrick Walters, an employee of SNI. The notice states the intent to pursue relief on behalf of Mr. Walters as well as other alleged aggrieved employees, identified as all current and former hourly or non-exempt employees of SNI, whether hired directly or through staffing agencies. The notice alleges that SNI failed to properly pay Mr. Walters and the other alleged aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage statements, and failed to reimburse for all necessary business-related expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. On July 30, 2021, Mr. Walters filed a Complaint in Merced County Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in his PAGA notice. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response. Ms. Kelley and Mr. Walters have agreed to attempt a joint mediation with Ms. Sofia Rodriguez (see case description below), which is scheduled for August 2022. SNI intends to vigorously defend its interests in both the Kelley and Walters matters, absent a reasonable resolution.

Sofia Rodriguez v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC and One Source Staffing Solutions, Inc.

On June 10, 2021, Sofia Rodriguez filed notice with the State of California of the intent to pursue a claim on a representative basis pursuant to PAGA. The notice was served on behalf of Ms. Rodriguez, who worked at SNI through One Source Staffing Solutions, Inc. for five months in 2020. The notice states the intent to pursue relief on behalf of Ms. Rodriguez as well as other alleged aggrieved employees, identified as all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in the State of California, and who were paid on an hourly basis. The notice alleges that SNI failed to allow Ms. Rodriguez and the other alleged aggrieved employees to take statutorily required meal and rest periods. The notice further alleges that Defendants suffered and permitted Ms. Rodriguez and other alleged aggrieved employees to work off the clock, failed to pay for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate for minimum and overtime wages, failed to issue compliant wage statements, and failed to pay wages owed upon termination of employment, in violation of the California Labor Code. Ms. Rodriguez also asserts that she was taken off the schedule and not returned to work after complaining about the alleged wage and hour violations set forth in the PAGA notice. On August 17, 2021, Ms. Rodriguez filed a Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in her PAGA notice. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response. Ms. Rodriguez has agreed to attempt a joint mediation with Ms. Monique Kelley and Mr. Patrick Walters (see case descriptions above), which is scheduled for August 2022. SNI intends to vigorously defend its interests in the Rodriguez matter, absent a reasonable resolution.

Other Claims

The Company is subject to various claims and litigation arising in the normal course of business. The Company establishes reserves for claims and proceedings when it is probable that liabilities exist and reasonable estimates of loss can be made. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters, based on our assessment of the facts and circumstances now known, we do not believe that these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, actual outcomes may be different from those expected and could have a material effect on our results of operations or cash flows in a particular period.

See Note 2, Divestitures, for information about estimated environmental remediation costs associated with our Granada, Spain, location.