United States: Food And Beverage Law Update: December 2016

Nathan A. Adams IV is a Partner in our Tallahassee office Christine Fuqua Gay is a Senior Counsel in our Miami office.

Wage and Hour

Overtime Rules Enjoined Nationwide

By Nathan A. Adams IV

In State of Nev. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor Case No. 4:16-cv-00731-ALM, 2016 WL 6879615 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2016), a Texas district court enjoined nationwide the Department of Labor's (DOL) final rule relating to the "white collar" or "EAP" (executive administrative professional) exemption to overtime requirements, described at 81 Fed. Reg. 32,391 (Final Rule), from taking effect on Dec. 1, 2016. The Final Rule required that employers pay executive, administrative or professional employees a minimum salary of at least $921 per week or $47,892 annually to be exempt from overtime requirements. As authority for its Final Rule, DOL relied on 29 U.S.C. §213(a)(1), which provides, in relevant part, that "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity ... as such terms are defined and delimited from time to time by regulations of the Secretary" shall be exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements. Because Congress did not define the terms "bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity," DOL argued it had delegated authority to interpret them to require a minimum salary level, but the district court ruled that Congress defined them exclusively with regard to duties or the tasks an employee actually performs.

Because Congress did not intend salary to categorically exclude an employee with EAP duties from the exemption (such that the employee could suddenly lose the exemption while performing the same job responsibilities), the district court determined that the Final Rule is not a permissible construction of the statute and, thus, does not merit so-called Chevron deference. The district court issued a nationwide injunction based on authority, indicating that the scope of injunctive relief should be dictated by the extent of the violation, not by the geographical extent of the plaintiff class. The nationwide injunction leaves in place the current minimum salary level to qualify for the exemptions as $455 per week or $23,660 annually, because the district court ruled that it was "not making a general statement on the lawfulness of the salary-level test for the EAP exemption," only the salary-level test as amended in the Final Rule. The states invited the district court also to determine that the Final Rule violates the Tenth Amendment by coercing them to implement the rule as it applies to state workers, but the court declined to do so in light of precedent. The opinion was appealed on Dec. 1, 2016, but the Final Rule may also come under scrutiny by President-Elect Trump.

Tip Pooling Before the U.S. Supreme Court

By Nathan A. Adams IV

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit got it right the first time when it approved tip pooling inclusive of employees not customarily tipped by employers who do not take a tip credit in Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc., 596 F. 3d 577 (9th Cir. 2010) or the second time when it disapproved of the same arrangement in Or. Rest. and Lodging Ass'n v. Perez, 816 F. 3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2016). Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers who have "tipped employees" can meet the minimum-wage requirement in either of two ways: 1) they can pay the employees a cash wage at or above the minimum, or 2) they can pay a cash wage below the minimum, but only if the employee receives enough money in tips to make up the difference. 29 U.S.C. §203(m). Employers who choose the second option take a "tip credit." The FLSA expressly prohibits an employer who takes a tip credit from engaging in "tip pooling," inclusive of employees who are not customarily and regularly tipped, such as kitchen staff. The FLSA is silent about this type of tip pooling when an employer does not take a tip credit.

Unhappy with the outcome in Cumbie, the DOL issued regulations to the contrary, the Updating Regulations Issued Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 18,832 (Apr. 5, 2011), and began to enforce them in the Ninth Circuit. The Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association challenged the rule, but in a surprise 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit upheld the rule contrary to Cumbie. Or. Rest. and Lodging Ass'n v. Perez, 816 F. 3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2016). The Association asked for en banc review by the full Ninth Circuit. It was denied, subject to a blistering dissent from 10 judges. Or. Rest. and Lodging Ass'n v. Perez, No. 13-35765, 14-15243, 2016 WL 4608148 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2016). The decision created a circuit split with Trejo v. Ryman Hosp. Props., Inc., 795 F. 3d 442 (4th Cir. 2015), which followed Cumbie. Several district courts have also followed Cumbie. See Malivuk v. Ameripark, LLC, No. 1:15–CV–2570–WSD, 2016 WL 3999878 (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2016); Brueningsen v. Resort Express Inc., No. 2:12–CV–00843–DN, 2015 WL 339671 (D. Utah Jan. 26, 2015); Mould v. NJG Food Serv. Inc., No. CIV. JKB–13–1305, 2014 WL 2768635 (D. Md. June 17, 2014); Stephenson v. All Resort Coach, Inc., No. 2:12–CV–1097 TS, 2013 WL 4519781 (D. Utah Aug. 26, 2013); see also Trinidad v. Pret A Manger (USA) Ltd., 962 F.Supp.2d 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on Aug. 1, 2016, and was distributed for conference of Oct. 7, 2016. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC v. Joseph Cesarz, Case No. 16-163 (Aug. 4, 2016). The Supreme Court requested a response in opposition that was distributed for conference on Jan. 6, 2017.


Is Your Website Accessible? Is It Required to Be? 

By Christine Fuqua Gay

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities and places of public accommodation, including, but not limited to, restaurants, hotels and shopping centers. For many years, plaintiffs have sued places of public accommodation, claiming, for example, that a restaurant is inaccessible because it allegedly does not have the required number of wheelchair accessible parking spaces or entrance ramps. Now, some ADA plaintiffs' claims have moved away from restaurants' physical spaces and into the virtual space of restaurants' websites.

The ADA, which was signed into law on July 26, 1990, predates the internet as it exists today. As a result, the ADA itself does not expressly address whether websites are required to be accessible. Likewise, although they were recently updated by the Department of Justice (DOJ), federal regulations implementing the ADA do not specifically address website accessibility or provide any particular guidance regarding websites.

Claims related to website accessibility often center around screen readers. To navigate the internet, some visually impaired individuals use screen readers, which read aloud web content. When websites are not coded to interact with these screen readers, they do not work properly and, as a result, they simply say aloud "image" or "blank," rather than what actually appears on the computer screen. A visually impaired plaintiff can claim that a website that cannot be read by a screen reader is inaccessible, and as a result, the plaintiff is unable to buy a product, read a menu or obtain information about the business in the same manner as a sighted person.

Despite the lack of legally enforceable guidelines, website accessibility lawsuits and threats of lawsuits have become big business for the plaintiffs' bar. In 2015 and 2016 alone, close to 250 lawsuits have been filed in federal court, with the vast majority of those lawsuits filed in Florida, Pennsylvania, New York and California. For example, Miami resident Juan Carlos Gil, who is legally blind, has sued more than 30 businesses this year, claiming that their websites violate the ADA. To date, however, only one California state trial court has definitively ruled that a private company violated the ADA when its website was not accessible to a disabled individual. Davis v. BMI/BNB Travelware Co., CIVDS1504682, 2016 WL 2935482 (Cal. Super. San Bernadino Cnty. Mar. 21, 2016) (order granting plaintiff's summary judgment motion).

Notwithstanding the ADA's silence regarding websites, the DOJ has taken the position that the ADA applies to websites of public entities and places of public accommodations. Specifically, DOJ relies on the fact that discrimination includes not providing an "auxiliary aid or service," including "accessible electronic and information technology" that could assist an individual with disabilities, unless providing the aid or service would fundamentally alter the good or service provided, or result in an undue burden. Prior to the election, the DOJ indicated that it plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing website accessibility. It is unclear whether the inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump will change these plans.

Despite the fact that there are no legally binding guidelines requiring websites of public accommodations to be accessible, plaintiffs and the DOJ have been pushing companies to develop accessible websites through settlement agreements after filing lawsuits or by conducting compliance reviews. Frequently, plaintiffs and the DOJ require businesses to follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), notwithstanding that the WCAG can be costly to implement. While the regulatory landscape remains unclear, it is expected that the number of lawsuits filed will continue to rise. As a result, businesses may want to review their websites to determine any parts that may be incompatible with a screen reader.


American Express Anti-Steering Rules Upheld

By Nathan A. Adams IV

In United States v. Am. Express Co., 838 F. 3d 179 (2d Cir. 2016), the court of appeal reversed the district court's decision, finding that American Express engaged in restraint of trade by including nondiscriminatory provisions (NDPs) in its contracts with merchants that prevent them from steering customers to alternative card brands. NDPs provide that a merchant that accepts an American Express card may not 1) indicate or imply that [it] prefer[s], directly or indirectly any other payment products; 2) try to dissuade cardmembers from using the card; 3) criticize or mischaracterize the card; 4) try to persuade or prompt card members to use another payment product or method of payment; 5) impose any restrictions, conditions, disadvantages or fees when the card is accepted that are not imposed equally on all other payment products, except for electronic funds transfer, cash and check; 6) engage in activities that harm American Express' business or brand; or 7) promote any other payment products more actively than American Express' card, except private label cards that the merchant issues for use solely at its establishments. According to the court of appeal, the fatal defect in the district court decision was that the relevant market is two-sided to include the market for general purpose credit and charge card network services, as well as the market for card holders. The court stated, "Without evidence of the net price affecting consumers on both sides of the platform, the District Court could not have properly concluded that a reduction in the merchant-discount fee would benefit the two-sided platform overall." The court also concluded that American Express' 26.5 percent market share was not sufficiently indicative of it creating a barrier to entry for other competitors to demonstrate an indirect adverse effect on competition.


Franchisor's Forum Selection Clause Upheld Despite Litigation in Same Forum

By Nathan A. Adams IV

In SGIC Strategic Global Investment Capital, Inc. v. Burger King Europe GmbH, 839 F. 3d 422 (5th Cir. 2016), the court ruled that a restaurant franchisor did not waive its right to enforce a franchise agreement's forum selection clause, which specified Munich, Germany, as the exclusive venue for disputes arising out of the agreement. The action was brought by franchisees for tortious interference with the franchise agreement when the franchisor filed a separate action against the franchisees in the North District of Texas to recover franchise fees from that individual franchisee under a personal guarantee. The franchises at issue in the personal guarantee litigation are different from those at issue in the franchise agreement litigation, but concern materially identical language in the franchise agreement. The defendant is a Swiss corporation and the franchisor of Burger King restaurants in Germany. The plaintiff owned and operated numerous Burger King restaurants in Germany; it entered into an agreement to sell them when the franchisor notified the prospective buyers that the relevant franchise agreements required its approval for the sale, that the franchisor opposed the sale and that the franchisor could unilaterally terminate the franchise agreements. The prospective buyers pulled out of the deal and the franchisees sued the franchisor. The court of appeal affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the franchisees' claims against the franchisor on grounds of forum non conveniens, but remanded the case to allow the franchisees leave to amend.


New Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes

By Nathan A. Adams IV

San Francisco (62 percent to 38 percent), Albany, Calif. (71 percent to 29 percent), Oakland, Calif. (62 percent to 38 percent) and Boulder, Colo. (55 percent to 45 percent) passed taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. Berkeley, Calif., was the first locality to pass a soda tax in November 2014. In San Francisco, the tax approved is 1 cent per ounce of sugar-sweetened beverages, defined as a beverage that contains added sugar and 25 or more calories per 12 ounces, including soft drinks, sports drinks, iced tea, juice drinks, energy drinks, syrups and powders for fountain drinks. Excluded are diet sodas, beverages containing only natural fruit and vegetable juice, infant formula, milk from animal or vegetable sources, nutritional therapy, rehydration and other beverages for medical use and alcoholic beverages. The Boulder tax is 2 cents per ounce on distributors.

Regulation and Legislation

President-Elect Trump's campaign criticized the "FDA Food Police, which dictate how the federal government expects farmers to produce fruits and vegetables and even dictates the nutritional content of dog food." A September 2016 fact sheet drew into question FDA food inspections and user fees and regulations governing food production hygiene, packaging and temperatures.

Industry groups hope to prevail on the administration to derail proposed guidance on sodium reduction issued on June 2, 2016; proposed guidance on use of the term "healthy" in labeling issued in September 2016; and to thwart or delay the compliance deadline with the Nutrition Facts Panel regarding added sugar delineation in the FDA's final rule issued in May 2016. Additional FDA guidance on the new added sugar provision relating to standard calculations is pending.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions