Peacock v. First Order Pizza
On May 5, 2022, a former delivery driver filed suit against First Order Pizza, LLC, Ty Turner, and James Holmes, the alleged owners and operators of Domino’s Pizza franchises in Tennessee. The lawsuit is called Peacock v. First Order Pizza, LLC, et. al.
This lawsuit, like the many similar pizza delivery driver lawsuits around the country, alleges that the company and its owners under-pay their delivery drivers for the costs the drivers sustain when they use their cars for the company’s purposes—to make deliveries. Specifically, the drivers claim that the company reimburses a per-mile amount (for example, $.27/mile) that is not enough to cover the drivers’ vehicle expenses. The plaintiff alleges that this under-reimbursement results in a minimum wage or other wage and hour violations.
The Claims
Under-reimbursement of Vehicle Expenses
First, the plaintiff alleges that the company does not properly reimburse for vehicle expenses.
The drivers’ position is that they must be reimbursed at the IRS standard business mileage rate (currently $.625 per mile) when the employer does not collect records of the drivers’ actual expenses and reimburse based on those records.
Even if the company is permitted to reimburse based on an “approximation,” as companies usually argue, the drivers allege that the First Order Pizza Domino’s Pizza stores have failed to “reasonably approximate.”
Unjust Enrichment
Second, the drivers assert a claim for unjust enrichment, alleging that the First Order Pizza Domino’s Pizza stores’ policy of requiring their minimum wage delivery drivers to cover one of their most substantial business expenses without proper reimbursement results in a violation of common law unjust enrichment. The drivers are conferring a benefit on the company, the company is aware of the benefit, and as a result it would be unjust for the company to retain that benefit without commensurate compensation.
Update 08-29-2022
Domino’s Franchisee Defendants file a Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration.
Update 08-10-2022
Domino’s Franchisee Defendants file a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification
Update 08-03-2022
Plaintiff delivery drivers file their Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. Forced arbitration for minimum wage workers is fundamentally unfair to employees but is commonly required by employers. Our firm has filed similar briefs like this one around the country, arguing these contracts are invalid under the law. You can read more about forced arbitration here.
Update 07-25-2022
Domino’s Franchisee Defendants file a Reply in Support of their Motion to Stay Conditional Certification.
Update 07-20-2022
The Court grants Defendants’ Motion for an Extension of Time.
Update 07-19-2022
Plaintiff delivery drivers file their Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Conditional Certification.
Update 07-19-2022
Plaintiff delivery drivers file their Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for an Extension of Time.
Update 07-18-2022
Domino’s Franchisee Defendants file a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification.
Update 07-08-2022
Domino’s Franchisee Defendants file a Motion to Stay Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification.
Update 07-06-2022
Plaintiff delivery drivers file a Motion for Conditional Certification of an FLSA Collective, requesting authority to inform his fellow delivery drivers of the ongoing litigation.
Update 07-06-2022
Domino’s Franchisee Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration.
Update 05-20-2022
Plaintiff delivery drivers file a class and collective action Complaint in federal court.
This case is closed
This case is no longer accepting new class members. If you have questions, call (513) 202-0710.