Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 27, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

(6)Commitments and Contingencies

The estimated cost of completing capital project commitments at September 27, 2011 and December 28, 2010 was approximately $77.6 million and $52.8 million, respectively.

We entered into real estate lease agreements for franchise restaurants located in Everett, MA, Longmont, CO, Montgomeryville, PA, Fargo, ND and Logan, UT before granting franchise rights for those restaurants. We have subsequently assigned the leases to the franchisees, but remain contingently liable if a franchisee defaults under the terms of a lease.  The Longmont lease was assigned in October 2003 and expires in May 2014, the Everett lease was assigned in September 2002 and expires in February 2018, the Montgomeryville lease was assigned in October 2004 and expires in June 2021, the Fargo lease was assigned in February 2006 and expires in July 2016 and the Logan lease was assigned in January 2009 and expires in August 2019.  As the fair value of the guarantees is not considered significant, no liability has been recorded.  As discussed in note 7, the Everett, MA, Longmont, CO, and Fargo, ND restaurants are owned, in whole or part, by certain of our officers, directors or 5% shareholders.

We currently buy most of our beef from three suppliers. Although there are a limited number of beef suppliers, management believes that other suppliers could provide a similar product on comparable terms. A change in suppliers, however, could cause supply shortages and a possible loss of sales, which would affect operating results adversely. We have no material minimum purchase commitments with our vendors that extend beyond a year.

On September 30, 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit titled Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC, Texas Roadhouse Management Corp. in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Civil Action Number 1:11-cv-11732. The complaint alleges that we engaged in a pattern and practice of age discrimination in hiring for certain restaurant positions in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The complaint alleges that applicants over the age of 40 were denied employment in our restaurants in bartender, host, server and server assistant positions due to their age.  The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief, remedial actions,  payment of damages to the applicants and costs.  We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims made by the EEOC, and we intend to vigorously defend against them. Based on the preliminary status of this matter, we cannot estimate the possible amount or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter.

On January 19, 2011, a civil case styled as a class action complaint titled Jenna Crenshaw, Andrew Brickley, et al, and all others similarly situated v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, Texas Roadhouse of Everett, LLC and Texas Roadhouse Management Corp., d/b/a Texas Roadhouse (“Crenshaw”) was filed.  The complaint was subsequently amended to add additional plaintiffs. The complaint is pending in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Civil Action Number 1:11-cv-10549. The complaint alleges a failure to comply with Massachusetts labor laws, specifically that we improperly shared pooled tips with ineligible employees in all of our restaurants in Massachusetts. Currently, we operate nine restaurants in the state. We have filed an answer denying all material allegations and are in the early phases of discovery.

We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims made in the Crenshaw case, and we intend to vigorously defend against them, including plaintiffs’ efforts to certify a class action. Based on the preliminary status of this matter, we cannot estimate the possible amount or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. However, if the court imposes statutory penalties, including restitution of the difference between the tip credit wage and minimum wage, restitution of tips, treble damages and attorneys’ fees, then the case could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operation or cash flows.

We are involved in various other claims and legal actions arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.