Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Legal Matters

v3.10.0.1
Legal Matters
6 Months Ended
Aug. 04, 2018
Legal Matters  
Legal Matters

 

17.  Legal Matters

 

On February 17, 2016, Anthony Oliver filed a putative class action lawsuit against our Men's Wearhouse subsidiary in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:16-cv-01100).  The complaint attempts to allege claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In particular the complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones beginning October 1, 2013 to the present day. After we demonstrated that the Company had the plaintiff's permission to send him texts, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the Company sent text messages exceeding the number plaintiff had agreed to receive each week.  The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on what constitutes a “week” and the Court recently issued an order granting the plaintiff’s motion and denying our motion on what period constitutes a “week.” On or about August 17, 2018, we entered into a settlement agreement for an immaterial amount consisting of a combination of cash and coupons. The settlement agreement, which is subject to preliminary and final approval of the Court, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. 

On August 2, 2017, two American Airlines employees, Thor Zurbriggen and Dena Catan, filed a putative class action lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:17-cv-05648). The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability, negligence, and medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. On September 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding nine additional named plaintiffs, adding American Airlines, Inc. as a defendant, and adding claims for civil battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On November 17, 2017, the Company and American Airlines filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. On September 4, 2018, the Court issued an Order denying our Motion to Dismiss and the matter will proceed in due course. We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On March 29, 2018, Juliette Onody and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a second class action lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary and four related American Airlines entities in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:18-cv-02303). The complaint contains the same substantive factual allegations against Twin Hill as the Zurbriggen case noted above and asserts identical claims for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, strict liability, negligence, and medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. Additionally, the same counsel represents the plaintiffs in both cases. On April 13, 2018, the Company filed an unopposed motion to stay this case in its entirety pending the motions to dismiss in the Zurbriggen case and the Court granted that motion on April 16, 2018. We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On September 27, 2017, Heather Poole and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG17876798).  The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. On December 11, 2017, the Company filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint.  On February 20, 2018, the Court granted our demurrer and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Complaint ruling that the plaintiffs did not allege enough facts to state a claim against Twin Hill. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2018 and again on April 27, 2018, which added allegations regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and named Tailored Brands as a defendant.  On May 10, 2018, Twin Hill removed the case to United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-2758).  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court and, on August 20, 2018 the Court issued an Order remanding the case.  Plaintiffs also filed a Third Amended Complaint and Twin Hill and Tailored Brands will have until September 13, 2018 to respond.  We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On October 30, 2017, Melodie Agnello, Denise Mumma, and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG17880635).  The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. On December 11, 2017, the Company filed a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint.  On February 20, 2018, the Court granted our demurrer and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Complaint ruling that the plaintiffs did not allege enough facts to state a claim against Twin Hill. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 27, 2018, which added allegations regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and named Tailored Brands as a defendant.  On May 10, 2018, Twin Hill removed the case to United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-2756).  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court and, on August 20, 2018 the Court issued an Order remanding the case.  Plaintiffs also filed a Third Amended Complaint and Twin Hill and Tailored Brands will have until September 13, 2018 to respond.  We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On April 27, 2018, Alexandra Hughes, and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary and Tailored Brands in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG18902727).  The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees.  On May 10, 2018, Twin Hill removed the case to United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:18-cv-2762).  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which is scheduled to be heard on August 31, 2018.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court and, on August 20, 2018 the Court issued an Order remanding the case.  Plaintiffs also filed a Third Amended Complaint and Tailored Brands will have until September 13, 2018 to respond.  We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On April 27, 2018, Rosemary Mackonochie, and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary and Tailored Brands in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG18902720).  The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees.  On May 10, 2018, Twin Hill removed the case to United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:18-cv-2761).  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which is scheduled to be heard on August 31, 2018.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court and, on August 20, 2018 the Court issued an Order remanding the case.  Plaintiffs also filed a Third Amended Complaint and Twin Hill and Tailored Brands will have until September 13, 2018 to respond.  We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On August 24, 2018, Lisa Joy and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a third class action lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary and four related American Airlines entities in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:18-cv-05808). The complaint contains the same substantive factual allegations against Twin Hill as the Zurbriggen case noted above and asserts identical claims for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, strict liability, negligence, and medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. Additionally, the same counsel represents the plaintiffs in both cases. On August 31, 2018, the Company filed an unopposed motion to stay this case in its entirety pending the motions to dismiss in the Zurbriggen case and the Court granted that motion on September 11, 2018.  We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition, we are involved in various routine legal proceedings, including ongoing litigation, incidental to the conduct of our business.  Management does not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.