Contingencies and Legal Matters

3 Months Ended

Jul. 05, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies and Legal Matters

CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL MATTERSLegal matters — We assess contingencies, including litigation contingencies, to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in our financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the financial statements if it is probable that liability is adverse to the Company and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating litigation contingencies, we may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the availability of appellate remedies, insurance coverage related to the claim or claims in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matter. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation against us may be unsupported, exaggerated, or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of our potential liability or financial exposure. We regularly review contingencies to determine the adequacy of the accruals and related disclosures. The ultimate amount of loss may differ from these estimates. As of July 5, 2020 and September 29, 2019, the Company had recorded aggregate liabilities of $14.9 million and $10.0 million, respectively, within “Accrued liabilities” on our condensed consolidated balance sheets, for all matters including those described below, that were probable and reasonably estimable. While we believe that additional losses beyond these accruals are reasonably possible, we cannot estimate a possible loss contingency or range of reasonably possible loss contingencies beyond these accruals.

Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc. — In August 2010, five former employees instituted litigation in federal court in Oregon alleging claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Oregon wage and hour laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to pay non-exempt employees for certain meal breaks and improperly made payroll deductions for shoe purchases and for workers’ compensation expenses, and later added additional claims relating to timing of final pay and related wage and hour claims involving employees of a franchisee. In 2016, the court dismissed the federal claims and those relating to franchise employees. In June 2017, the court granted class certification with respect to state law claims of improper deductions and late payment of final wages. In February 2019, plaintiffs’ counsel reduced their earlier demand from $62.0 million to $42.0 million. In November 2019, the court issued a ruling on various dispositive motions, disallowing approximately $25.0 million in claimed damages. The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on March 16, 2020, but the matter did not settle. The plaintiffs recently filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior denial of class certification regarding meal and rest break claims which was denied by the court. The plaintiffs have now filed a motion requesting permission to appeal this ruling. The Company has opposed the motion and will continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Marquez v. Jack in the Box Inc. — In August 2017, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in California state court and as a Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) representative suit alleging that the Company failed to provide all non-exempt California employees with compliant rest and meal breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements, and final pay upon termination of employment. On January 29, 2020, the parties participated in voluntary mediation and reached a tentative agreement to settle the case. The parties have executed a settlement agreement and submitted the settlement to the court for final approval. The settlement was approved on July 1, 2020.

Ramirez v. Jack in the Box Inc. — On June 11, 2019, an unfavorable jury verdict was delivered in a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Company in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff in the case was a restaurant employee who was terminated in 2013. The jury’s verdict included $5.4 million in compensatory damages and $10.0 million in punitive damages. The Company filed post-trial motions with the trial judge for the purpose of setting aside or significantly reducing damages. These motions were granted, resulting in a reduction of damages from $15.4 million to $3.2 million. The plaintiff accepted the reduction. In October 2019, the plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $5.1 million. On January 9, 2020, the court issued its ruling awarding $4.1 million in attorney fees and costs. As of July 5, 2020, we have recorded an accrual for legal settlement of $7.3 million within “Accrued liabilities” and a litigation insurance recovery receivable of $7.3 million, which represents the expected payment of the settlement by the Company’s insurance carriers, within “Accounts and other receivable, net” in our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Other legal matters — In addition to the matter described above, we are subject to normal and routine litigation brought by former or current employees, customers, franchisees, vendors, landlords, shareholders or others. We intend to defend ourselves in any such matters. Some of these matters may be covered, at least in part, by insurance or other third party indemnity obligations. We record receivables from third party insurers when recovery has been determined to be probable. We believe that the ultimate determination of liability in connection with legal claims pending against us, if any, in excess of amounts already provided for such matters in the consolidated financial statements, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, our annual results of operations, liquidity or financial position; however, it is possible that our business, results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition could be materially affected in a particular future reporting period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more matters or contingencies during such period.