Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Apr. 24, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

We are subject to various claims and contingencies related to lawsuits and other matters arising out of the normal course of business. We are of the opinion that there are no matters pending or threatened that are expected to have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In August 2012, a former Bob Evans Restaurant employee filed an action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, styled David Snodgrass v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cvg-00768 (“Snodgrass”). The lead plaintiff alleged that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt employees and failing to pay overtime compensation during the period of time the employee worked as an assistant manager. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of alleged back wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. The lead plaintiff sought to maintain the suit as a collective action on behalf of other similarly situated assistant managers employed at Bob Evans Restaurants between August 2009 and present. In December 2013, the Court in Snodgrass granted conditional certification of those assistant managers that elected to opt-in to the collective action.

In May, 2014, the same plaintiffs’ counsel in the Snodgrass matter filed essentially duplicative claims under the overtime laws of the State of Ohio and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, styled Utterback v. Bob Evans Farms, Case No. CV14826909 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (“Utterback”) and Mackin v. Bob Evans Farms, Case No. 2:14-cv-450 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“Mackin”), respectively. Neither the Utterback nor Mackin proceedings have been certified for class status at this time, and remain in the very early stages of litigation with significant uncertainty as to factual issues and outcome of legal proceedings (including any determination as to class certification).

We continue to believe that our assistant managers were properly classified as exempt from the respective Federal and State overtime requirements, have meritorious defenses to the claims in each of the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin matters, and have vigorously contested the actions.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 however, we received an unfavorable ruling related to the above mentioned Snodgrass litigation and therefore we recorded a charge of $6,000 in fiscal 2015. This reflects the low end of the range of probable loss for the Snodgrass litigation.

While a loss of up to $20,000 is possible if all three matters are settled prospectively, we do not believe that there is an amount within the estimated range which is more likely than any other and as such, we recorded an accrual of $6,000 as of April 24, 2015, related only to the Snodgrass litigation matter.

The expense was recorded to the Bob Evans Restaurant segment and in the S,G&A line of the Consolidated Statements of Net Income. We do not believe based on currently available information, that the outcome of these matters will have a material effect on our financial condition, although an adverse outcome could be material to our results of operations for a particular period.