Case: Haynes v. Shoney's Inc.

3:89-cv-30093 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida

Filed Date: April 4, 1989

Closed Date: 1993

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 4, 1989, Black employees and applicants to Shoney's restaurants filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, (Judge Roger Vinson) alleging racial discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, and while on the job. Please note that all docket entries before January 25, 1993 appear on a hard copy of the docket. This document is available on PACER and is posted in the database. A copy of the complaints and amended complaints are not ava…

On April 4, 1989, Black employees and applicants to Shoney's restaurants filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, (Judge Roger Vinson) alleging racial discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, and while on the job. Please note that all docket entries before January 25, 1993 appear on a hard copy of the docket. This document is available on PACER and is posted in the database.

A copy of the complaints and amended complaints are not available. However, according to the information in the several opinions posted in the database, the nine representative plaintiffs were former employees or applicants of restaurants operated by the defendant corporation and its franchisees. The plaintiffs alleged company wide racial discrimination—specifically that Shoney's refused to hire blacks or only hired them for "back of the restaurant" jobs where they would not come into contact with customers. They also alleged discrimination in promotion, discharge, retaliation, and harassment on the job. The plaintiffs filed their suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and sought class certification. They demanded more than half a billion dollars in back pay and punitive damages, in addition to a court-ordered plan to counteract claims of years of racially discriminatory company policies.

In an unpublished opinion, the District Court dispensed with numerous motions by both parties on September 27, 1991. <i>Haynes v. Shoney, Inc.,</I> No. 89-30093, 1991 WL 354933 (N.D. Fla. 1991). In a published opinion on March 12, 1992, the District Court declined to retroactively apply the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which would have created a new cause of action and changed rules pertaining to damages. <i>Haynes v. Shoney, Inc.,</I> 803 F. Supp. 393 (N.D. Fla. 1992). In an unpublished order on June 22, 1992, the District Court certified a class as: "A class of black restaurant employees shall be, and is, certified to represent claims of failure to hire, harassment, failure to promote, discriminatory discharge, and retaliation. The designation of this class action as a Rule 23(b)(2) or a Rule 23(b)(3) action will be deferred while the parties are given the opportunity to address the matters raised herein regarding the extent to which unresolved equitable issues remain. This class will consist of employees from Shoney's restaurants and Captain D's restaurants only. This class action will not proceed against Shoney's, Inc.'s franchisees, RIC, or the non-restaurant divisions, such as Mike Rose Foods, the Commissary or Shoney's Lodging. The class will be temporally limited with a beginning cut off date of February 4, 1988, and ending April 19, 1991. Only those plaintiffs who worked at the store level shall be joined as class action plaintiffs. Thus, clerical or upper-level managerial (above store level) employees are not included." <i>Haynes v. Shoney's, Inc.,</I> No. 89-30093, 1992 WL 752127 (N.D. Fla. 1992). The Court also severed several plaintiffs from the class action, allowing them to pursue individual claims, and dismissed the claims of two plaintiffs as untimely. A week later in an unpublished order, the District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

In an unpublished opinion on January 25, 1993, the District Court approved a consent decree and included it in its entirety as an exhibit. <i>Haynes v. Shoney's, Inc.,</i>No. 89-30093, 1993 U.S. Dist. Lexis 749 (N.D. Fla. 1993). The settlement class had two parts: (1) all blacks who were applicants or constructive applicants at any time during the class period; and (2) all blacks who were employees of the covered concepts at any time during the class period. The parties agreed to $132,500,000 in damages and substantial injunctive relief, including $20 million in attorneys' fees. The injunctive relief included the designation by Shoney's of a senior management official to supervise Shoney's human resources and personnel functions, the designation of two equal employment opportunity managers, the designation of two recruitment administrators, the establishment and publication by Shoney's of an internal procedure to receive and act upon complaints, the establishment of hiring and promotion goals for black persons, the creation of training and education programs, the creation of a tuition reimbursement program for black employees, and the adoption and implementation of job qualification and performance standards designed to insure that equal employment opportunities are denied to no individual on account of race.

According to a law review article examining the settlement, by 1997, African Americans constituted 21% of Shoney's managers (compared to 14.5% when the lawsuit was filed in 1989) and 35% of its workforce (compared to 28% in 1989). The decree had a 10-year term, but it allowed Shoney's to petition for termination of oversight after 7 years; the court granted this petition. In 1998, Shoney's was listed by Fortune as the 13th best company for minorities to work for (based on hiring, promotion, and retention). But it lost ground (to 36th of 50) in the 2000 list, and was not included at all subsequently. Nancy Levit, <i>Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform,</i> 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367, 388-389 (2008).

The District Court continued to handle some matters, such as denying a motion to intervene, designating a bank to hold the funds, and so forth until July 26, 1995, the last entry on the old docket. The case was reopened in 2000 for the purpose of releasing the defendant from the consent decree. The last entry on the docket is November 11, 2005, and notes a copy of the original paper docket is available.

Summary Authors

Eric Weiler (8/18/2010)

People


Judge(s)

Vinson, Clyde Roger (Florida)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Feingold, Elaine B. (California)

Goldstein, Barry L (California)

Larkin, Jocelyn Dion (California)

Lawson, Antonio (California)

Pillard, Cornelia Thayer Livingston (New York)

Smith, Sam Jones (Florida)

Thomas, Sheila Yvette (California)

Warren, Thomas A. (Florida)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Brown, Gary M. (Tennessee)

Judge(s)

Vinson, Clyde Roger (Florida)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Feingold, Elaine B. (California)

Goldstein, Barry L (California)

Larkin, Jocelyn Dion (California)

Lawson, Antonio (California)

Pillard, Cornelia Thayer Livingston (New York)

Smith, Sam Jones (Florida)

Thomas, Sheila Yvette (California)

Warren, Thomas A. (Florida)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Brown, Gary M. (Tennessee)

Halgren, Jack H. (California)

Partington, Donald H. (Florida)

Ramsey, James (Tennessee)

Tallent, Stephen E. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:89-cv-30093

"Hard" Docket

Haynes v. Shoney's

Nov. 21, 2005

Nov. 21, 2005

Docket

3:89-cv-30093

Docket 2 of 2

Haynes v. Shoney's

Nov. 21, 2005

Nov. 21, 2005

Docket

3:90-cv-30093

Order [Denying As Moot Plaintiff's Emergency Motion To Strike]

Haynes v. Shoney's

1991 WL 354933, 1991 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 20612

Sept. 27, 1991

Sept. 27, 1991

Order/Opinion

3:89-cv-30093

Order [Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Retroactively Apply Civil Rights Act of 1991, Which Had Only Recently Become Law]

Haynes v. Shoney's

803 F.Supp. 393

March 12, 1992

March 12, 1992

Order/Opinion

3:89-cv-30093

Order [Severing Individual Claims Of Some Plaintiffs From Class Action; Dismissing One Individual's Claims For Untimeliness]

Haynes v. Shoney's

1992 WL 752127

June 22, 1992

June 22, 1992

Order/Opinion

3:89-cv-30093

Order Approving Consent Decree

Haynes v. Shoney's

1993 WL 19915, 1993 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 749

Jan. 25, 1993

Jan. 25, 1993

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated May 30, 2022, 3:20 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

Case closed (jra,Pensacola) (Entered: 02/01/1993)

Jan. 25, 1993

Jan. 25, 1993

1126

NOTICE TO CHANGE ADDRESS of pltfs' attorney THOMAS A. WARREN, to 2145 Delta Blvd, Suite 200, P.O. Drawer 1657, Tallahassee, FL 32302 ; Telephone 850/385−1551 (cbj,Pensacola) (Entered: 04/07/1998)

March 26, 1998

March 26, 1998

1127

NOTICE TO CHANGE ADDRESS of pltf's attorney Barry Goldstein (PHV) to: SAPERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK &BALLER, PC, 300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612−3534 −− Phone: 510/763−9800 (cbj,Pensacola) (Entered: 12/28/1999)

Dec. 27, 1999

Dec. 27, 1999

1128

*NOTICE TO CHANGE ADDRESS of attorney GARY M BROWN for defendant SHONEY'S, INC *rec'd corrected signature page on 2/23/00 (cbj,Pensacola) Modified on 02/25/2000 (Entered: 02/25/2000)

Feb. 15, 2000

Feb. 15, 2000

1130

*AFFIDAVIT (Of Gail A. Frye in Support of) Re: [1129−1] Unopposed Petition to Terminate Consent Decree by JOSEPHINE HAYNES, SHONEY'S, INC *rec'd corrected signature page on 2/23/00 (cbj,Pensacola) Modified on 02/25/2000 (Entered: 02/25/2000)

Feb. 15, 2000

Feb. 15, 2000

1131

STIPULATION In Support of Shoney's, Inc.'s Unopposed Petition To Terminate Consent Decree (doc.1129) by defendant SHONEY'S, INC, plaintiff JOSEPHINE HAYNES (cbj,Pensacola) (Entered: 02/25/2000)

Feb. 23, 2000

Feb. 23, 2000

1132

ORDER (TERMINATING CONSENT DECREE) by Judge Roger Vinson re: [1129−1] joint motion to Terminate Consent Decree. The Consent Decree of 1/25/93 is hereby TERMINATED, effective 2/29/00. Shoney's Inc. shall have 30 days to comply with Section XX.B.2 of the Consent Decree regarding payment of all remaining attorney's fees owed pursuant to that provision. Copies sent as noted on document. (cbj,Pensacola) (Entered: 02/29/2000)

Feb. 29, 2000

Feb. 29, 2000

DOCUMENT Location re: [1128−1] change address notice, [1129−1] joint motion to Terminate Consent Decree by JOSEPHINE HAYNES, SHONEY'S, INC, [1130−1] affidavit, [1131−1] stipulation by JOSEPHINE HAYNES, SHONEY'S, INC, [1132−1] order Sent to Federal Record Center Reason: for filing. − Accession # 021 97 0575, 31 boxes*, Location D1154611BAN *with request to advise as to which box documents were placed. (cbj,Pensacola) Modified on 11/23/2005 (jrm, Pensacola). (Entered: 04/19/2001)

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

1133

HARD DOCKET Copy of hard docket (pgs 1 thru 25) ending with document number 1125 (Attachments: # 1 Pages 26 thru 52) (djb, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/21/2005)

Nov. 21, 2005

Nov. 21, 2005

Case Details

State / Territory: Florida

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 4, 1989

Closing Date: 1993

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

(1) all blacks who were Applicants or constructive applicants at any time during the class period, and (2) all blacks who were employees of the covered concepts at any time during the class period.

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Shoney's Incorporated, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $130m

Order Duration: 1993 - 2003

Content of Injunction:

Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Discrimination Prohibition

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Promotion

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Discipline

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Hiring

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black