ILNews

More franchisees join revolt over Steak n Shake menu pricing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More Steak n Shake franchisees are revolting over the company’s policy that prohibits restaurants in the chain from setting their own menu prices.

Three franchise owners filed suit last month against Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake, including two on the same day – April 22 – in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis.

They argue the company continues to force its franchisees to abide by the menu policy even after a federal appeals court sided last year with a fellow franchise owner that first challenged the practice.

“Steak n Shake’s royalties are calculated as a percentage of a franchisee’s revenue, not profits, which explains why Steak n Shake wants to increase customer volume through the sale of lower-priced food without concern as to whether franchisees actually make a reasonable profit,” the franchisees argue in their lawsuits.

Reached by phone, Steak n Shake lawyer Tonya Sallee declined to discuss the suits, citing company policy that prohibits commenting on pending litigation.

The dispute over pricing started in 2010, when Springfield, Ill.-based Stuller Inc. brought its complaint against Steak n Shake in a federal court in Illinois. Stuller operates five Illinois Steak n Shake restaurants under franchise agreements with predecessors that date back to 1939, making it the oldest Steak n Shake franchise in the country.

The court granted Stuller a preliminary injunction to stop Steak n Shake from forcing menu prices on franchisees.

Steak n Shake appealed. But last August, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Illinois federal court’s ruling in Stuller’s favor.

Yet, even after the failed appeal, the three franchisees suing Steak n Shake argue that the company “has held steadfast in its ongoing, and system-wide, breach of those [franchise] agreements by continuing to force its franchisees to abide by the policy.”

They argue in their suits that Steak n Shake’s executive leadership, led by CEO Sardar Biglari, decided that it would set menu prices contrary to existing language in the franchise agreements that says otherwise.

Steak n Shake shareholders elected Biglari CEO in 2008, and the company now is operated by San Antonio-based holding company Biglari Holdings Inc.

The three franchisees who filed suits last month against Steak n Shake are Georgia-based People Sales & Profit Co., Missouri-based Druco Restaurants Inc. and Pennsylvania-based Scott’s S&S Inc. In total, they operate eight Steak n Shake restaurants in the three states.

They’re seeking a permanent injunction to bar Steak n Shake from mandating company-wide menu prices and from terminating their franchise for refusing to comply with the pricing policy. They also are suing for breach of contract and fraud.

One of the lawyers representing them, Richard Shevitz of Indianapolis-based Cohen & Malad LLP, said more lawsuits could be forthcoming.
 
Steak n Shake operates 501 restaurants, including 87 franchised locations.

In its fiscal first quarter ended Dec. 19, Steak n Shake reported revenue of $163.2 million, a 1.7-percent increase from the same time in 2011.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT