Lawsuit filed: Pizza Hut, Thompson & Brock, Tricon Global Restaurant, Taco Bell KFC, employee abuse, pay shortages time card fraud. Read the filed lawsuit here.

The following is a lawsuit that was filed against Pizza Hut in Apache Junction Arizona. This is the result of hundreds of complaints that came to the attention of the Rip-offReport.com and the badbusinessbureau.com.

Rip-off Report.com made many attempts to mediate the recovery of pay shortages and other various damages for about 5 to 8 different former employees. The number kept growing weekly as more and more employees read the Rip-off Reports.

After repeated attempts by the RipoffReport.com to mediate a settlement, Pizza Hut said, "Go ahead, sue us. We have done nothing wrong." ..Well, that was a year ago.

After placing advertisements in several local newspapers looking for other possible victims of Pizza Hut, hundreds of existing and former employees came forward including customers who had information backing up claims made by the victimized employees.

From the working poor, to students, and even senior citizens, the Carter family did not discriminate as to whom they ripped off. According to the information we received, and after interviewing hundreds of former employees who were victimized, we then realized this outrageous behavior was going on for 10 to 15 years under the Betty Carter regime.

Below is one of several lawsuits that were filed. We have reason to believe that there will be more lawsuits to come including several for sexual harassment.

At the end of the lawsuit below, there is a link that will bring you to a complete list of all the Rip-off Reports that were filed on Pizza Hut by victims.

EDitor@badbusinessbureau.com
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

GRANT, WILLIAMS
& DANGERFIELD, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NINTH FLOOR 302 NORTH FIRST AVENUE
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
TELEPHONE (602) 258-1700

Maria Crimi Speth, # 012574
Michael S. Ryan, # 018139
Attorneys for Plaintiff


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JAMES LOUY, a single man; JOSH LITTELL, a single man, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiffs,vs.

(1) PIZZA HUT OF APACHE JUNCTION, INC., an Arizona corporation; (2) THOMPSON & BROCK MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida corporation; (3) TRICON RESTAURANT SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation;
(4) BETTY CARTER and MICKY CARTER, wife and husband;
(5) RICK CARTER and VANESSA CARTER, husband and wife; (6) TIM CARTER and MICHELLE CARTER, husband and wife;(7) DOES I-X; (8) CORPORATIONS A - Z.Defendants.

No. COMPLAINT .........(Jury Trial Demanded)

This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all people, except Defendants, who were ever employed at the Pizza Hut located at 495 West Apache Trail, Apache Junction, Arizona as an hourly- paid employee. ("Class Members").

1. THE PARTIES

1.Plaintiffs James Louy and Josh Littell are both residents of Pinal County, Arizona.

2. Defendant Pizza Hut of Apache Junction, Inc. is an Arizona corporation, authorized to do business and is doing business in the State of Arizona.

3. Defendant Thompson & Brock Management, Inc., upon information and belief, is a Florida corporation, doing business in the State of Arizona.

4. Defendant Tricon Restaurant Services Group, Inc., d/b/a Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc., and Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell, and KFC, is a Delaware corporation doing business in Arizona.

5. Defendant Betty Carter and Micky Carter are husband and wife who reside in Arizona.

6. All acts of Betty Carter alleged herein were done on behalf and for the benefit of the Carter's marital community.

7. Upon information and belief, Betty Carter is an owner or operator or manager or all three of Defendant Pizza Hut of Apache Junction, Inc.

8. Defendants Rick Carter and Vanessa Carter are husband and wife who reside in Arizona.

9. All acts of Rick and Vanessa Carter alleged herein were done on behalf and for the benefit of the Carter's marital community.

10. Defendants Tim Carter and Michele Carter are husband and wife who reside in Arizona.

11. All acts of Tim Carter alleged herein were done on behalf and for the benefit of the Carter's marital community.

II. JURISDICTION

12. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1331.

III. FACTS

13. Defendants employed Plaintiffs and paid them an hourly wage.

14. Defendants permitted, encouraged and coerced Plaintiffs to perform unrecorded work, i.e. work which was not included on their time cards, not accounted for, and not compensated. Plaintiffs performed unrecorded overtime and non-overtime work.

15. Defendants, withheld certain wages altogether in violation of A.R.S. ' 23-352.

16. Defendants regularly required Plaintiffs to clean the restaurant in advance of health inspections without compensation.

17. Defendants regularly held mandatory meetings for which Plaintiffs were not compensated.

18. Defendants required Plaintiffs to record their time on their time cards in pencil and discouraged and/or prohibited the use of ink on the time cards.

19. Defendants routinely erased and changed Plaintiffs= time cards to reduce the number of hours recorded.

20. Defendants consistently paid Plaintiffs for less hours than Plaintiffs actually worked.

21. Defendants often refused and failed to pay Plaintiffs for recorded overtime hours worked at time and one half their regular rate of pay.

22. Defendants often failed to provide Plaintiffs with their final paycheck within the time period prescribed by A.R.S. ' 23-353.

23. Defendants withheld the first week of pay for each employee and often failed to provide that paycheck to Plaintiffs when Plaintiffs' employment ended.

24. Upon information and belief, Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Defendants have failed to systematically maintain the original records of hours worked, i.e. time cards and daily labor reports.

25. Each Defendant either directly or indirectly encouraged or knowingly acquiesced in these labor violations in order to minimize labors costs and meet performance levels which were financially rewarded by Defendants.
26. Defendants conduct constitutes a wilful violation of the law and of the rights of the Class Members.

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

27. Definition of the Class. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class: All people, except Defendants, who were ever employed at the Pizza Hut located at 495 West Apache Trail, Apache Junction, Arizona as an hourly-paid employee.

28. Numerosity of the Class. The Class Members are so numerous that their individual joinder herein is impracticable. Plaintiff Representatives are informed and believe that more than one thousand (1,000) people have been hourly employees for Defendants and that none of them were fully compensated in accordance with state and federal laws.

29. Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, supplemented (if deemed necessary or appropriate by the Court) by published notice.

30. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class Members. These questions predominate over the questions affecting only individual Class Members. These common legal and factual questions include, without limitation, the following:

(a) whether Defendants permitted, encouraged and coerced Plaintiffs to perform unrecorded work, i.e. work which was included on their time cards, not accounted for, and not compensated;

(b) whether Defendants withheld certain wages altogether in violation of A.R.S. ' 23-352;

(c) whether Defendants regularly required Plaintiffs to clean the restaurant in advance of health inspections without compensation;

(d) whether Defendants regularly held mandatory meetings for which Plaintiffs were not compensated.;

(e) whether Defendants required Plaintiffs to record their time on their time cards in pencil and discouraged and/or prohibited the use of ink on the time cards;

(f) whether Defendants routinely erased and changed Plaintiffs= time cards to reduce the number of hours recorded;

(g) whether Defendants consistently paid Plaintiffs for less hours than Plaintiffs actually worked.

(h)whether Defendants often refused and failed to pay Plaintiffs for recorded overtime hours worked at time and one half their regular rate of pay.

(i) whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with their final paycheck within the time period prescribed by A.R.S. ' 23-353.

(j) whether Defendants withheld the first week of pay for each employee and failed to provide that paycheck to Plaintiffs when Plaintiffs' employment ended.

(k) whether Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiffs.

31. Typicality. Plaintiff Representatives' claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members since Defendants failed to pay certain wages altogether in violation of A.R.S. ' 23-352,

Defendants encouraged and coerced Plaintiff Representatives to perform unrecorded work, Defendants regularly required Plaintiff Representatives to clean the restaurant in advance of health inspections without compensation,

Defendants regularly held mandatory meetings for which Plaintiff Representatives were not compensated, Defendants required Plaintiff Representatives to record their time on their time cards in pencil and discouraged and/or prohibited the use of ink on the time cards; Defendants routinely erased and changed Plaintiff Representatives= time cards to reduce the number of hours recorded;

Defendants consistently paid Plaintiff Representatives for less hours than Plaintiff Representatives actually worked, Defendants often refused and failed to pay Plaintiff Representatives for recorded overtime hours worked at time and one half their regular rate of pay, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff Representatives with their final paycheck within the time period prescribed by A.R.S. ' 23-353, and Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff Representatives with a paycheck which covered the first week of their employment.

32. Adequacy. Plaintiff Representatives are adequate representatives of the Class because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class Members they seek to represent. They have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and they intend to prosecute this action vigorously.

33. Superiority. The class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiff Representatives and Class Members. The damages suffered by each individual Class Member is too small to justify individual lawsuits. The burden and expense of individual prosecution of each of these claims would far out way the damages. Further, it would be virtually impossible for the Class Members individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to them. Individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation presented by the voluminous records which will need to be reviewed would increase the delay and expense to all parties, and to the court system. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides for the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

34. In the alternative, this action may be certified as a class action under the provisions of Rule 23(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because:

(a) the prosecution of separate actions by the individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual Class Members which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants; and

(b)the prosecution of separate actions by the individual Class Members would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class Members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.

35. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the proposed class may be divided into subclasses as necessary predicated upon appropriate separation and delineation. At the present time, those subclasses cannot be delineated with specificity and the delineation will occur after discovery in the course of the proceedings.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of 29 U.S.C. ' 206)

36. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

37. Defendants failed to pay Class Members minimum wage as required by 29 U.S.C. '206.

38. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. '216, Class Members are entitled to recover their earned wages which have not been paid and are entitled to recover double that amount as a liquidated damage.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of 29 U.S.C. ' 207)

39. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

40. Defendants failed to pay Class Members one and a half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week as required by 29 U.S.C. '206.

41. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. '216, Class Members are entitled to recover their overtime wages which have not been paid and are entitled to recover double that amount as liquidated damages.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of A.R.S. '23-352 )

42. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

43. Defendants failed to pay Class Members earned wages as required by A.R.S. ' 23-352

44. Pursuant to A.R.S. ' 23-355 Class Members are entitled to recover three times the amount of their earned wages which were not paid in a timely fashion.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of A.R.S. ' 23-353)

45. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

46. Defendants failed to pay Class Members earned wages as required by A.R.S. ' 23-353.

47. Pursuant to A.R.S. ' 23-355, Class Members are entitled to recover three times the amount of their earned wages which were not paid in a timely fashion.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief for themselves and Class Members:
a) Back wages in an amount to be proven at trial;
b) Statutory penalties in an amount to be proven at trial;
c) Prejudgment interest;
d) Costs;
e) Attorneys fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. '216 and A.R.S. '' 12-341 and 12-341.01;
f) Post Judgment interest;
g) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this _____ day of ________________, 2001.

GRANT, WILLIAMS &
DANGERFIELD, P.C.

By_______________________________
Maria Crimi Speth
302 North First Avenue, 9th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1565
Attorneys for Plaintiffs