Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 28, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies.

Commitments and Contingencies

4. Commitments and Contingencies

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) audited our tax returns for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 with respect to the deductibility, under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m), of certain compensation in excess of $1 million per year paid to three current executive officers and one former executive officer resulting from their respective exercises of stock options later determined to be misdated (the “162(m) Dispute”).  In May 2008, the IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment to us disallowing the deduction of approximately $5.1 million of compensation expense with respect to the exercise of stock options by such executive officers.  We believe that such stock option compensation qualifies as performance-based compensation that is not subject to the limitations on deductibility under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m).  We received a Statutory Notice of Deficiency from the IRS for fiscal 2005 only and petitioned for redetermination of this notice with the United States Tax Court.  In May 2010, we conducted a settlement conference with the IRS Office of Appeals resulting in an agreement to resolve the 162(m) Dispute as to tax year 2005 only.  That agreement was approved by the United States Tax Court in August 2010 (Docket No. 23591-09).  This court order resolved the 162(m) Dispute as to tax year 2005, and, because the 162(m) Dispute as to tax year 2006 consisted solely of a reduction to tax credits carried over from tax year 2005 resulting from the IRS Notice of Deficiency, such court order also resolved the 162(m) Dispute as to tax year 2006.  In October 2010, we filed a complaint (The Cheesecake Factory v. United States of America, Case No. CV108157), in  the United States District Court for the refund of income taxes with respect to tax years 2003 and 2004, including interest and penalties.  In March 2011, the Court ordered that Case No. CV108157 be dismissed, without prejudice and extended the statute of limitations for filing our claim for refund with respect to the remaining 162(m) Dispute to December 31, 2011. While we believe that all stock option compensation in the as yet unresolved years of the 162(m) Dispute qualifies as performance-based compensation under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) and is not subject to the limitations on deductibility, we have reserved $1.4 million for estimated taxes, interest and penalties due through June 28, 2011.

On August 10, 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for the Cleveland Field Office issued a determination letter in EEOC Charge 532-2009-1050 in favor of the Charging Party and a class of 15 unidentified employees, alleging that we subjected them to a hostile work environment based on national origin and/or race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).  The EEOC is seeking payment of alleged actual damages incurred by the claimants as well as compensatory and/or punitive monetary costs and remedial actions. On January 18, 2011, the EEOC issued a Notice of Intent to Rescind Determination and refer Charge No. 532-2009-1050 for further investigation. We are cooperating with the EEOC in connection with this investigation.  Based upon the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On July 2, 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for the Cleveland Field Office issued determination letters in Charges 532-2006-01040, -01030, -01042 in favor of three former employees alleging that we engaged in a pattern and practice of sex discrimination, and in the case of one claimant, racial discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).  The determination alleges that our actions resulted in females as a class being denied entry and progression into upper ranks of management at our restaurants.  We deny these allegations.  The EEOC sought payment of alleged actual damages incurred by the claimants as well as compensatory and/or punitive monetary costs and remedial actions.  The parties failed to reach a conciliated settlement in 2008.  On July 30, 2008, the EEOC Cleveland District Office also filed a Commissioner’s Charge 532-2008-01856 alleging we violated Title VII for failing or refusing to select females for management positions in our restaurants because of their sex.  This Charge arose out of the facts alleged in EEOC Charges 532-2006-01040, -01030, -01042.  On February 3, 2011, the EEOC completed its investigation and administratively closed Charge No. 532-2008-01856 without further action.  On July 12, 2011, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter on Charges 532-2006-0140, -01030 and -01042, after failing to reach a resolution during conciliation.  Based upon the current status of Charges 532-2006-0140, -01030 and -01042, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On January 9, 2007, two former hourly restaurant employees in the State of California filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against us alleging violations of California’s wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure to pay proper wages, improper payroll deductions, and violations of the California meal and break period laws, among other claims (Guardado v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. BC360426).  This case was previously stayed by the parties through December 2008, pending the California Supreme Court’s decision to review Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (No. S166350, 2008).  On July 6, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs motion for class certification.  A notice of appeal was subsequently filed by the plaintiffs on August 3, 2010.  On June 20, 2011, the parties reached a negotiated settlement agreement in Case No. BC360426.  The settlement in Case No. BC360426 is subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court.   Based on the current status of Case No. BC360426, we have reserved an immaterial amount for potential future payments.

On May 10, 2010, three hourly restaurant employees in the State of California filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer County, against us alleging violations of the California Labor Code by requiring employees to purchase uniforms and other work tools to perform their jobs, among other claims (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. S CV 27073).  In October 2010, we gave notice to the respective courts in Case No. S CV 27073 and Case No. BC360426 (see below) that such cases may be related.  On July 28, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against us in the Santa Clara County Superior Court (Rusteen v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. 1-10-CV-178233) claiming similar and additional allegations to those asserted in Case No. BC360426 including, among other things, violations of California’s wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure to pay the plaintiff overtime, reporting time pay and minimum wages, allow proper meal breaks or rest periods, and provide adequate pay statements.  In October 2010, we gave notice to the respective courts in Case No. 1-10-CV-178233 and Case No. BC360426 that such cases may be related.  The plaintiff in Case No. 1-10-CV-178233 seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of himself and other purported class members.  On April 6, 2011, a Class Action Complaint in Intervention was filed by a former staff member from our Irvine, California restaurant seeking to join Case No. S CV 27073.  The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees.  We intend to vigorously defend against these actions.  Based on the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for potential future payments.

We are also subject to other private lawsuits, administrative proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business.  These claims typically involve claims from guests, staff members and others related to operational issues common to the foodservice industry.  A number of these claims may exist at any given time and some of the employee claims may be plead as class actions.  We could be affected by adverse publicity and litigation costs resulting from such allegations, regardless of whether these allegations are valid or whether we are determined to be liable.  From time to time, we are also involved in lawsuits with respect to infringements of, or challenges to, our registered trademarks.  At this time, we believe that the final disposition of these lawsuits, proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.