Domino’s Drivers Seek $850K Settlement in Mileage Dispute

Domino’s Pizza Inc. and a group of delivery drivers have asked a federal court in Ohio to approve a proposed $850,000 settlement of allegations that the company’s reimbursement calculations resulted in an hourly rate less than the federal minimum wage.

Several Domino’s franchises in Colorado are defending lawsuits with similar claims. The drivers in those cases argue that reimbursement based solely on deliveries made—rather than by a mileage calculation like that provided by the IRS that takes vehicle wear and tear into account—results in improper underpayment.

Kyle Arledge’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, says his Domino’s franchise paid him and the other drivers in the collective action 90 cents per delivery, regardless of miles driven or gasoline purchased. Domino’s and their franchisee, TJK-ELS West End, Inc, agreed in the settlement to pay the drivers an additional 30 cents per mile, or a total of $850,000.

Half of the repayment is for a mileage reimbursement of 15 cents per mile, and the other half is for other damages negotiated between the parties. The joint motion for final approval of the settlement was filed with the court Oct. 1.

“We think this settlement is a good result for our delivery driver class members,” attorney Andrew Biller of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC in Columbus, Ohio, told Bloomberg Law in an Oct. 2 email. The franchise owners, Christopher Koehler and Edward Schlater Jr., “seemed to care about their workers and making things right,” Biller said.

“We hope that our client’s actions in this case give other pizza delivery drivers the courage to come forward and speak up about the pizza industry’s policies that under-reimburse drivers for their car expenses,” he said.

Fisher & Phillips LLP in Chicago, which represented the corporate and individual defendants, didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Law’s request for comment.

The case is Arledge v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., S.D. Ohio, No. 3:16-cv-00386, motion for settlement approval 10/1/18.