Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

9. Commitments and Contingencies

In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line wall in the Company's restaurants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws. On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit in the same court making the same allegations on a class action basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2008.

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and minimal damages to the plaintiff which the Company has accrued. The Company and the plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and remanded the case to the district court. The district court will now determine the damages and injunctive relief and final award of attorneys fees to which Antoninetti is entitled based on the court of appeals ruling.

The Company lowered the height of its serving line walls throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief in both the individual and class actions moot, and has the lower serving lines in a significant majority of its restaurants outside of California as well. The Company will vigorously defend the class action cases, including by contesting certification of a plaintiff class. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any additional potential liability from, these cases.

A lawsuit has been filed against the Company in California alleging violations of state laws regarding employee record-keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and related practices with respect to its employees. The case originally sought damages, penalties and attorney's fees on behalf of a purported class of the Company's present and former employees. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify the purported class, and as a result the action can proceed, if at all, as an action by a single plaintiff. The plaintiff has appealed the court's denial of class certification, and the appeal remains pending. Although the Company has various defenses, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this case.

Following an inspection during 2010 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") of the work authorization documents of the Company's restaurant employees in Minnesota, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS ("ICE") issued to the Company a Notice of Suspect Documents identifying a large number of employees who, according to ICE and notwithstanding the Company's review of work authorization documents for each employee at the time they were hired, appeared not to be authorized to work in the U.S. The Company approached each of the named employees to explain ICE's determination and afforded each employee an opportunity to confirm the validity of their original work eligibility documents, or provide valid work eligibility documents. Employees who were unable to provide valid work eligibility documents were terminated in accordance with the law. In December 2010, the Company was also requested by DHS to provide the work authorization documents of restaurant employees in the District of Columbia and Virginia, and the Company provided the requested documents in January 2011. The Company has received additional requests for work authorization documents covering a small number of individual restaurants as well, and ICE's investigation remains ongoing. In April 2011 the Company also received notice from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that it is conducting an investigation into these matters through its criminal division. The Company believes its practices with regard to the work authorization of its employees, including the review and retention of work authorization documents, are in compliance with applicable law. However, the termination of large numbers of employees in a short period of time does disrupt restaurant operations and results in a temporary increase in labor costs as new employees are trained. It is not possible at this time to determine whether the Company will incur any fines, penalties or further liabilities in connection with these matters.

In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to other proceedings, lawsuits and claims. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Consequently, the Company is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of June 30, 2011. These matters could affect the operating results of any one quarter when resolved in future periods. Management does not believe that any monetary liability or financial impact to the Company as a result of these proceedings or claims will be material to the Company's annual consolidated financial statements. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims resulting in greater liabilities than the Company currently anticipates, could materially and adversely affect the Company's business, financial condition, results of operation or cash flows.