The food and beverage industry is always evolving and our attorneys are up-to-date on the multitude of unique issues faced by those in the industry. Since its inception, BSCR has successfully defended food and beverage businesses. With years of experience, our attorneys bring a keen sense of industry knowledge and an astute understanding of the broad range of issues our clients encounter.
Whether confronted with matters related to: nutrition labeling; food contamination; dram shop liability; consumer protection act claims; product liability; premises liability; employment claims; franchising; or, commercial issues, our attorneys have the experience to guide matters to an efficient resolution.
BSCR represents national and regional restaurant chains, national coffee chains, food and beverage manufacturers, distributors, grocery stores, packaged food companies, taverns, and other food and beverage businesses. Our attorneys have successfully defended national class-action matters on behalf of a national restaurant chain on issues arising from menu nutrition labeling; a complex area that is constantly evolving.
With a national reputation in products liability defense, BSCR also handles product claims related to the food and beverage industry. Our depth of experience in handling employment issues is also a benefit to industry clients. We assist clients in matters related to employer policy manuals, non-compete agreements, wrongful termination disputes, and sexual harassment claims.
Our attorneys routinely speak at seminars for insurers and in-house counsel, who are tasked with guiding their respective companies through the maze of issues that impact the food and beverage industry.
For more information about the services we provide to the Food & Beverage industry contact Kara Stubbs or Shawn Rogers at 816.471.2121.
| The Missouri Court of Appeals rules that a worker may owe an independent duty of care to a co-worker, which is separate and distinct from her employer’s non-delegable duties.
| In a recent decision, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals sided with consumers asserting deceptive labeling practice claims against merchants under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).
| A Missouri plaintiff did not irrevocably waive the protections of the work product doctrine simply by designating an expert witness and then withdrawing the designation without disclosing the expert’s analysis or conclusions.
| On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Green v. Brennan in order to resolve a split among the Circuits on whether, in an action for constructive discharge, the 45-day limitation period for the employee to initiate contact with the EEOC begins to run after the employer’s last discriminatory act, or at the time of the employee’s resignation.
| In its current state, the MMPA has allowed consumers to collect substantial verdicts in cases that have strayed from the original intent of lawmakers. SB793 hopes to restore a balance that requires not only that businesses act fairly, but also that consumers act reasonably.
| While a Kansas court may grant relief from a final judgment based on excusable neglect, it is an abuse of discretion to grant that relief when the party seeking that relief has failed either to explain what facts constituted excusable neglect or to provide any evidence to support that claim.
| It has long been thegeneral rule in Missouri that for a party to contractually release itself from or limit liability for its own future negligence, the language in the contract must be clear, unequivocal, conspicuous and must explicitly include the word “negligence” or “fault.” However, when the contract is negotiated at arm’s length between “sophisticated commercial entities”, a party can release itself from or limit liability with less precise language.
| The Eighth Circuit recently analyzed the application of the “outside sales” and “administrative” exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the context of promotional workers. Also, the Court was asked to decide, for the first time, what constitutes a valid waiver of an employee’s rights under the FLSA.
| A defendant removing a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act need not provide evidence proving the jurisdictional amount in controversy in the notice of removal. A “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” is sufficient.
| Individuals and businesses relying upon contractors to provide labor services may be exposing themselves to liability if these contractors fail to pay their employees in accordance with the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
| A company may sue for unfair competition under the Lanham Act, challenging a competitor’s food and beverage labels. Such claims are not precluded by the FDCA
| K.S.A. 60-19a02 has been amended, increasing Kansas's long-standing cap on non-economic damages (pain and suffering) recoverable in personal injury. K.S.A. 60-456(b) has also been amended to mirror the requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 702.
| Experts are not required to rule out all possible causes when performing the differential etiology analysis if the experts have properly ruled in the alleged cause.
| A Kansas plaintiff may amend their pleadings to assert punitive damages up until the day of the pretrial conference.
| A man who sued his former employer, alleging he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, appealed on the basis that the trial court used a jury instruction with the wrong standard. In a 5-2 decision written by Judge George W. Draper III, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected the 'exclusive causation' standard and replaced it with the "contributing factor" standard. On remand and in future cases, the jury must determine whether the plaintiff's filing of a workers' compensation claim was a "contributing factor" to his or her discharge.
| Based on its adoption of a statutory scheme of comparative negligence, Kansas has abolished common law assumption of the risk as a bar to recovery. Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299, 312 P3d 345, 355 (Kan. 2013).
| The plaintiff has the burden of proving standing, which is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time.
| In Kansas, the parties bind themselves to an enforceable settlement, even though the parties contemplate subsequent execution of a formal instrument. However, when the parties specifically condition a contract on it being reduced to writing and signed, there is no enforceable contract until such act is accomplished.