Two former workers have hit the Hooters restaurant chain with a proposed class action in Florida federal court alleging the company violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by not giving employees any advance notice before executing layoffs last month due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiffs Ashton Scott and Amanda Seales said in their complaint filed Thursday that they are seeking damages equal to 60 days' compensation and benefits for a class covering all Hooters employees in Florida who were not given at least 60 days advance written notice before what the plaintiffs called a "mass layoff" on or about March 25.
Scott and Seales, who say they have worked for Hooters since 2012 and 2006, respectively, contend that named defendant Hooters III Inc. could have evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on its approximately 679 employees in Florida 60 days prior to giving them written notice on March 25 that they were being laid off immediately.
"In violation of the WARN Act, defendant failed to provide as much written notice as was practicable under the circumstance surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and also failed to provide a statement of the basis for reducing the notification period to zero days advance notice," the complaint says.
In a footnote, the plaintiffs allege that they had actually lost their jobs on March 20, although the exact parameters of that claim are unclear, including whether they are referring just to themselves or all proposed class members.
The WARN Act typically applies to workers at companies with at least 100 employees who have worked at least 20 hours a week and more than six of the past 12 months for the business. It aims to protect those qualified workers by requiring their employers to provide at least 60 calendar days' advance written notice of a plant closing or mass layoff at a single site of employment, according to a description of the law on the U.S Department of Labor's website.
The WARN Act "makes certain exceptions to the requirements when layoffs occur due to unforeseeable business circumstances, faltering companies, and natural disasters," the description also says.
Scott and Seales say that Hooters' failure to provide laid off workers any advance notice had a "devastating economic impact" on them.
"The fact that Congress recently made available to defendant and many other businesses nationwide millions of dollars in forgivable loans through the 'Paycheck Protection Program,' but defendant still opted to instead engage in a mass layoff — and do so without any advance written notice to its employees — only further underscores the severity of the WARN Act violations committed by Hooters," the complaint says.
The complaint says the plaintiffs believe Hooters employed about 679 workers across Florida in March, and that same approximate number were terminated without cause along with Scott and Seales.
The Hooters.com website lists 50 locations across Florida and, as of Friday, indicated that some restaurants were temporarily closed, while others were open solely for takeout or delivery orders. The complaint alleges that the defendant, Hooters III Inc., maintained an office in Tampa and multiple restaurants in the state, but does not specify how many or which ones.
In a March 13 statement posted to Hooters.com, HOA Restaurant Group LLC CEO Terry Marks detailed steps the company was taking to protect workers' and customers' health and safety. A follow-up statement on March 26 said that more than 80% of domestic restaurants were open, mostly for takeout and delivery only, but also said some workers had been let go.
"With our dining rooms closed and revenues more than halved, we and our franchisees have had no alternative but to dramatically reduce the size of our work force in response," the March 26 statement said. "Parting ways with friends under these conditions is incredibly painful for all involved. It is our fervent hope that conditions soon permit us to welcome our colleagues back."
Counsel for the plaintiffs and representatives for Hooters did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
Scott and Seales are represented by Luis A. Cabassa and Brandon J. Hill of
Wenzel Fenton Cabassa PA and Chad A. Justice of
Justice for Justice LLC.
Counsel information for Hooters was not immediately available.
The case is Scott et al. v. Hooters III Inc., case number 8:20-cv-882, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
--Editing by Alanna Weissman.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.