COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Sep. 04, 2012

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE M – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

We are presently, and from time to time, subject to pending claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business.  We provide reserves for such claims when payment is probable and estimable in accordance with GAAP.  At this time, in the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of pending legal proceedings, including the matter referred to below, will not have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial position, or cash flows.

On September 30, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Pittsburgh Area Office filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging the Company was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") by failing to hire employees within the protected age group in five Pennsylvania restaurants and one Ohio restaurant.  On October 19, 2009, the EEOC filed a Notice of an ADEA Directed Investigation ("DI"), regarding potential age discrimination in violation of the ADEA in hiring and discharge for all positions at all restaurant facilities.  We have denied the allegations in the lawsuit and are vigorously defending against both the suit and the DI.  We have filed motions seeking to dismiss the lawsuit based on the EEOC's failure to conciliate the matter prior to filing suit and objecting to the EEOC filing suit and launching the DI simultaneously.  Discovery is ongoing in both matters.  Despite the pending suit and DI, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial position, or cash flows.

On November 8, 2010, a personal injury case styled Dan Maddy v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., which had been filed in the Circuit Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee, was resolved through mediation.  Included in the Maddy settlement was a payment made by our secondary insurance carrier of $2,750,000.  Despite making this voluntary payment, our secondary insurance carrier filed a claim against us based on our alleged failure to timely notify the carrier of the Maddy case in accordance with the terms of the policy. 

We believe our secondary insurance carrier received timely notice in accordance with the policy and we are vigorously defending this matter.  Should we incur potential liability to our secondary carrier, we believe we have indemnification claims against two claims administrators. 

We believe, and have obtained a consistent opinion from outside counsel, that we have valid coverage under our insurance policies for any amounts in excess of our self-insured retention.  We believe this provides a basis for not recording a liability for any contingency associated with the Maddy settlement.  We further believe we have the right to the indemnification referred to above.  Based on the information currently available, our September 4, 2012 and June 5, 2012 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets reflect no accrual relating to the Maddy case.  There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful in our defense of our carrier's claim against us.