Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

14. Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Guarantees. As of December 30, 2012, the Company is a guarantor under 38 Fiesta restaurant property leases, with lease terms expiring on various dates through 2030, and is the primary lessee on five Pollo Tropical restaurant property leases, which it subleases to Fiesta. The Company is fully liable for all obligations under the terms of the leases in the event that Fiesta fails to pay any sums due under the lease, subject to indemnification provisions of the Separation and Distribution Agreement.

The maximum potential liability for future rental payments the Company could be required to make under these leases at December 30, 2012 was $59.1 million. The obligations under these leases will generally continue to decrease over time as these operating leases expire. No payments related to these guarantees have been made by the Company to date and none are expected to be required to be made in the future. The Company has not recorded a liability for those guarantees in accordance with ASC 460 - Guarantees as Fiesta has indemnified the Company for all such obligations and the Company did not believe it was probable it would be required to perform under any of the guarantees or direct obligations.

Litigation. On November 16, 1998, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (the “Court”), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, against Carrols. The complaint alleged that Carrols engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation against former and current female employees. The EEOC ultimately attempted to present evidence of 511 individuals that it believed constituted the “class” of claimants for which it was seeking monetary and injunctive relief from Carrols. On April 20, 2005, the Court issued a decision and order granting Carrols' Motion for Summary Judgment that it filed in January 2004, dismissing the EEOC's pattern or practice claim. Carrols then moved for summary judgment against the claims of the 511 individual claimants. On March 2, 2011, the Court issued a decision and order granting summary judgment against the claims of all but 131 of the 511 individual claimants and dismissed 380 of the individual claimants from the case. Both the EEOC and Carrols subsequently filed motions for reconsideration in part of the Court's March 2, 2011 decision and order, which motions were denied by the Court in a decision and order issued February 10, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's order the parties submitted on March 1, 2012 letter briefs outlining their respective proposals on how the Court should proceed with the trials of the remaining claimants. The Court had ruled in part on the March 1, 2012 letter briefs requiring that depositions of the remaining claimants and other identified witnesses was to be completed in 2012.

On January 8, 2013, Carrols and the EEOC agreed to settle the above described claims and entered into a Consent Decree (the "Consent Decree") which fully resolved and settled all remaining claims without any admission of wrongdoing by Carrols. Under the Consent Decree, (1) Carrols agreed to make cash payments to the 89 remaining claimants in the lawsuit totaling $2.5 million, with allocations among the claimants being determined by the EEOC; (2) Carrols agreed to continue to uphold its obligations under Title VII and to continue to maintain its existing and comprehensive anti-harassment policies and procedures and training programs; and (3) Carrols agreed to make certain enhancements to such existing policies and procedures and training programs and to report on the results of its efforts to the EEOC over a two year period.  On January 10, 2013, the Court approved the Consent Decree. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the Company established a reserve for $2.5 million as of December 30, 2012. The Company paid the amounts due under the Consent Decree in the first quarter of 2013. 

The Company is a party to various other litigation matters incidental to the conduct of the Company’s business. The Company does not believe that the outcome of any of these other matters will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.