XML 47 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies

On October 4, 2013, Brooke Cardoza and Cody Hancock (collectively, the “Nevada Plaintiffs”), two current employees, filed a purported collective action lawsuit against the Company, OSI, and two of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring employees to work off the clock, complete on-line training without pay, and attend meetings in the restaurant without pay. The suit seeks to certify a nationwide collective action that all hourly employees in all Outback Steakhouse restaurants would be permitted to join. The suit seeks an unspecified amount in back pay for the employees that join the lawsuit, an equal amount in liquidated damages, costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees. The Nevada Plaintiffs also filed a companion lawsuit in Nevada state court alleging that the Company violated the state break time rules. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and is vigorously defending all allegations. However, the Company is unable to predict the outcome.

On November 8, 2013, Holly Gehl, Chris Armenta, and Trent Broadstreet (collectively, the “California Plaintiffs”) filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, OSI and OS Restaurant Services, LLC, two of its subsidiaries, and T-Bird Restaurant Group, Inc. (“T-Bird”), one of its franchisees. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Alameda. The defendants removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in December 2013. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation, and violations of California’s Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be appropriate. The Company does not believe the California Plaintiffs have any standing to bring claims against the Company or its subsidiaries as all were employed by the Company’s franchisee. The Company intends to request that the court dismiss it and the Company’s subsidiaries from this action. Should the court deny the Company’s request for dismissal it will vigorously defend the lawsuit. However, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this case.