Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.1 Page 1 of 30
`
`NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
` Craig M. Nicholas (SBN 178444)
` Alex Tomasevic (SBN 245598)
` Shaun Markley (SBN 291785)
`225 Broadway, 19th Floor
`San Diego, California 92101
`Tel: (619) 325-0492
`Fax: (619) 325-0496
`Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
`Email: atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
`Email: smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`(5) UNLAWFUL DEDUCTIONS
`FROM WAGES;
`
`
`(6) FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY FOR
`NECESSARY EXPENDITURES;
`AND
`
`(7) FAILURE TO PROVIDE
`PROPER WAGE STATEMENTS.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DANIEL LUDLOW, an individual,
`
`
` vs.
`
`FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a
`Georgia corporation; FLOWERS
`BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia
`limited liability company;
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`(2)
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No.
`
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`(1) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
`UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
`STANDARDS ACT (FLSA);
`
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
`RESTITUTION UNDER
`CALIFORNIA’S UCL;
`
`(3) FRAUD;
`
`(4) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
`UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW;
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`'18
`
`CV1190
`
`BLM
`
`JAH
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.2 Page 2 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Daniel Ludlow (“Ludlow” or “Plaintiff”) alleges, on information
`
`and belief, as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Flowers Foods, Inc., through its regional subsidiaries, deploys an
`
`elaborate fraud to cheat its employees, its competition, and the state and federal
`
`governments. Flowers1 does so, primarily, by willfully and systematically
`
`misclassifying its hundreds of driver/Delivery Employees as “Independent
`
`Contractors.” In doing so, Flowers denies these employees, including the named
`
`Plaintiff, access to critical benefits and protections they are entitled to by law, such
`
`as minimum wage, overtime compensation, indemnification for business expenses,
`
`family and medical leave, unemployment insurance, and safe workplaces.
`
`Through its willful misclassification, Flowers also robs the federal and state
`
`governments of tax revenues and generates losses to state unemployment insurance
`
`and workers’ compensation funds and gets an undue advantage over its law-
`
`abiding competition.2
`
`2.
`
`Flowers sells billions of dollars of baked goods to retailers throughout
`
`the United States. To help sustain its profits, Flowers has concocted a model
`
`where it advertises “independent contractor” distributor opportunities (for
`
`“Delivery Employees,” such as Plaintiff). As part of the model, Flowers makes
`
`employees purchase a specific sales territory in which the Delivery Employee is
`
`supposedly going to purchase, take title to, re-sell, and distribute Flowers’ bakery
`
`products to the Delivery Employees’ prearranged (by Flowers) customers. The
`
`Delivery Employees often pay in excess of $100,000 for the right to the
`
`
`1 As used here, “Flowers” refers to all Defendants—who carry out the acts
`described herein jointly.
`
`2 See U.S. Dept. of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, “Misclassification of
`Employees
`as
`Independent
`Contractors,”
`available
`at
`https://www.dol.gov/whd/workers/Misclassification/
`(describing
`the
`repercussions of misclassification) (last accessed June 1, 2018).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.3 Page 3 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`“independent business opportunity” outlined in Flowers’ advertisements and its
`
`uniform Distributor Agreement (“DA”). Delivery Employees also have to cover
`
`business operational costs like paying for the vehicles used to carry out their
`
`distribution work, gas/mileage, and insurance costs.
`
`3.
`
`In short, Flowers sells the notion that these “independent contractors”
`
`will run and control their own sales-based business with their own customers for
`
`their own profit and gain. But Flowers never actually operates its business under
`
`these terms, despite Delivery Employees’ heavy investment and reliance on the
`
`promises Flowers makes.
`
`4.
`
`In reality, the distributor role is far from “independent.” For example,
`
`for the vast majority of product sales, Flowers itself contracts directly with its own
`
`large retailer customers (like Wal-Mart and Costco) and maintains title over the
`
`baking products until the retailers take possession. But in no case do Delivery
`
`Employees ever actually receive title to products that go into Flowers’ retail
`
`locations. Instead, Delivery Employees merely deliver the product and stock
`
`Flowers’ customers’ shelves for a non-negotiable commission that Flowers
`
`unilaterally establishes.
`
`5.
`
`Flowers also dictates the set route or territory that the Delivery
`
`Employees sell within. Flowers maintains control over that territory or route with
`
`respect to things like which Flowers’ products will be available, price, shelf space,
`
`displays, and promotions. Flowers also unilaterally dictates when unsold bakery
`
`products must be reclaimed from retail locations (a.k.a. “stales” or stale product) as
`
`dictated by its retail customers and passed down to Delivery Employees.
`
`Curiously, even though Flowers purports to pass “title” to the bakery products to
`
`the “independent distributors,” Flowers mandates that stale products must be
`
`returned to Flowers warehouse and not used for any other purpose by the Delivery
`
`Employees, even where they are forced to pay market price for them.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.4 Page 4 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Flowers also dictates which products and brands of goods will be sold
`
`within each territory. Notably, if Flowers elects to change which retailers it serves
`
`or which brands it will carry, the Delivery Employee does not receive a
`
`corresponding change in the valuation of the route that he was forced to buy. This
`
`is true even where Flowers drastically devalues the Delivery Employee’s route
`
`because Flowers unilaterally chose to discontinue a certain brand or stop selling to
`
`a particular retailer within that route.
`
`7.
`
`Flowers also hires management and sales employees at each of its
`
`local, regional subsidiaries to carry out sales and to directly supervise and instruct
`
`the so-called “independent distributors” in performance of their distribution and
`
`merchandizing responsibilities within their routes.
`
`8.
`
`Flowers also controls the Delivery Employees’ appearance as well as
`
`the appearance of their vehicle. For example, Flowers can make Delivery
`
`Employees paint their vehicles to Flowers’ specifications or remove advertising
`
`that the Delivery Employee has chosen for his/her vehicle. Delivery Employees
`
`must also abide by “Good Industry Practices” as defined by Flowers. Failure to
`
`abide by any of these requirements risks termination by Flowers and often results
`
`in “breach notices” by Flowers where it insists on specific performance obligations
`
`with the threat of fines or termination.
`
`9.
`
`As such, rather than operating the sales-oriented independent business
`
`promised to them, Delivery Employees primarily carry out a vital portion of
`
`Flowers’ direct-store-delivery (“DSD”) business operations—delivering and
`
`merchandizing bakery products to Flowers retail customers for a set commission.
`
`10. The discrepancy between the business model set forth in Flowers’ DA
`
`and the one actually put in place by Flowers is not accidental. Flowers sees its
`
`DSD model and specifically the use of “independent distributors” as a significant
`
`competitive advantage. It wants, and legally it needs, the appearance of separate,
`
`independent businesses to avoid having to treat “distributors” as employees. Yet, at
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.5 Page 5 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`the same time Flowers must be able to ensure delivery to its blue-chip retail
`
`customers and control the timely and effective distribution of its products pursuant
`
`to the terms of its contracts with those retailers. Attempting to walk this invisible
`
`line or to simply capture the best of both worlds, Flowers presents the illusion of
`
`independence in its DA and related advertisements with no intention of actually
`
`operating its business as necessitated by its retail customers and its personal
`
`preference.
`
`11. Plaintiff is a present Delivery Employee who entered into the DA with
`
`Flowers. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly
`
`situated Delivery Employees. This hybrid action is brought as a “collective” action
`
`under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) as well as a Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, Rule 23 class action based on numerous violations of California
`
`state law. Plaintiff seeks recovery for fraud, lost wages (including overtime),
`
`unfair competition, as well as an injunction putting an end to Flowers’ bait-and-
`
`switch “independent distributor” business model. He also seeks reimbursement for
`
`business expenses and illegal deductions.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal law
`
`FLSA claims pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, Sections 1331 and
`
`1343(a)(4), because these claims seek redress for violations of Plaintiff’s federal
`
`civil and statutory rights. There is also diversity among the parties as Plaintiff is a
`
`California citizen who brings claims against out-of-state Defendants. The value of
`
`these claims readily exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
`
`III. THE PARTIES
`
`13. Plaintiff Daniel Ludlow is, and at all times mentioned was, an
`
`individual residing in the County of San Diego, California. Daniel Ludlow is
`
`employed by and works for Defendants as a distributor in the State of California,
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.6 Page 6 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`County of San Diego. Daniel Ludlow has been employed by Defendants from
`
`approximately 2013, through present.
`
`14. Defendant Flowers Foods, Inc. (“Flowers Foods”), is a publicly traded
`
`Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Thomasville, Georgia
`
`(NYSE:FLO). It is a leading manufacturer and seller of bakery goods in the United
`
`States with gross profits of over $1.9 billion in 2017 (and of over $581 Million in
`
`the first quarter alone of 2018). It does business in the County of San Diego,
`
`California by establishing subsidiaries with the intent of carrying out operations in
`
`this region. This entity establishes layers of national and regional subsidiaries to
`
`carry out its sham “independent distributor” business model that in fact just secures
`
`workers to carry out the delivery and merchandizing of Flowers’ customers’ retail
`
`locations. Flowers Foods ultimately takes responsibility for and recognizes all
`
`revenue generated from its sale of bakery goods through its local subsidiaries and
`
`its Delivery Employees. It also guarantees and assumes responsibility for the
`
`performance of its subsidiaries that execute the DA with Delivery Employees
`
`(sometimes called “local subsidiaries”) throughout California. Specifically,
`
`“Flowers Foods, Inc. will absolutely and unconditionally guarantee
`
`the
`
`performance by [its local subsidiary] of [the subsidiary’s] obligations under the
`
`Distributor Agreement.” As a result, Flowers Foods, along with Flowers Bakeries,
`
`LLC, are ultimately, and jointly, responsible for these claims.
`
`15. Flowers Bakeries, LLC, is a Georgia limited liability corporation with
`
`its principle place of business in Thomasville, Georgia. This entity is the Flowers
`
`Foods subsidiary that is charged with sales related activities. It negotiates with
`
`retailers on things such as price, shelf space, and service requirements that are then
`
`carried out by the Delivery Employees at the direction of the local subsidiaries.
`
`Results of these high-level deals make their way down through the local
`
`subsidiaries to the Delivery Employees.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.7 Page 7 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`16. One step further down the Flowers’ chain is the local DSD
`
`subsidiaries such as non-parties Flowers Baking Co. of California, LLC and
`
`Flowers Baking Co. of Modesto, LLC.3 These entities’ only member is Flowers
`
`Bakeries, LLC (who in turn is entirely owned by Flowers Foods). These local
`
`subsidiaries are set up to execute the policies and instructions passed down from
`
`the higher up Flowers entities (the Defendants). Each local subsidiary has a
`
`president, a vice president of sales, and a director of distributor relations, along
`
`with several directors of sales/sales managers. These employees execute sales and
`
`pricing agreements as well as visit the actual brick-and-mortar locations that
`
`Flowers has contracted to service to keep up customer relationships and ensure the
`
`Delivery Employees are meeting their needs as specified in the Flowers Foods
`
`negotiated contracts (that Delivery Employees ultimately are tasked with carrying
`
`out). They also act as the go-between for Delivery Employees and the other
`
`Flowers entities.
`
`17. All of these entities, including Defendants, are part of the Flowers
`
`enterprise that jointly and collectively manufacture, advertise, sell, and distribute
`
`bakery products throughout California and the United States. They operate jointly
`
`in carrying out the common fraud and misclassification against their Delivery
`
`Employees and the state of California.
`
`IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A. Overview of Flowers’ Business
`
`18. Flowers Foods, Inc. is a leading national packaged bakery foods
`
`company. It bakes, sells, and distributes breads, buns, rolls, snack cakes, and
`
`tortillas, among other items throughout the country under well-known brand names
`
`
`3 On information and belief, Flowers Foods initially established a California-wide
`local subsidiary called Flowers Baking Co. of California which later split and
`transferred its Northern California operations to Flowers Baking Co. of
`Modesto and its Southern California operations to Flowers Baking Co. of
`Henderson around February 2014. With the transfers assigned all of its
`Distributor Agreements to these new entities.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.8 Page 8 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`like “Wonder Bread,” “Sunbeam,” “Tasty Cake,” “Nature’s Own,” and “Dave’s
`
`Killer Bread.” It has two business segments—a direct-store-delivery segment
`
`(“DSD Segment”) and a warehouse delivery segment. The DSD Segment is at
`
`issue here. It produces a wide variety of fresh bakery foods that are sold through a
`
`DSD route delivery system to Flowers’ retail and foodservice customers in
`
`California and other locations.
`
`19. Within the DSD segment, Flowers Foods, Inc. establishes a web of
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary companies to enter into agreements with the “Delivery
`
`Employees,” such as Plaintiff, who are charged with delivering the bakery products
`
`from the warehouse to the retail locations and keeping the shelves stocked.
`
`According to Flowers Foods, Inc.’s website, it “sells its products through a
`
`network of independent distributors [i.e., Delivery Employees] to retail and
`
`foodservice customers.” (https://www.flowersfoods.com/investors/flo-overview/at-
`
`a-glance [emphasis added].) These Delivery Employees are, thus, integral to
`
`Flowers’ normal business operations—and they are selling for Flowers, not
`
`themselves.
`
`B. How Flowers Sells Its So-Called “Independent Distributor
`Opportunity” to Delivery Employees.
`
`20. Flowers classifies Delivery Employees as “independent contractors”
`
`and advertises routes as independent business opportunities for Delivery
`
`Employees where the Delivery Employees supposedly buy product from Flowers
`
`and re-sell it for a profit. Specifically, in disclosure documents, Flowers represents
`
`that the independent contractor Delivery Employee will “pay [Flowers] for the
`
`bakery products [distributor] purchase[s] for resale to [distributor’s] outlets.” It
`
`reiterates that Flowers “will sell [bakery products] to [distributor] at terms and
`
`prices established by [Flowers], and [Flowers] will derive income from these sales.
`
`Upon delivery, these products will belong to [the distributor].”
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.9 Page 9 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`21. Flowers makes the same representations in the form DA presented to
`
`every Delivery Employee. Flowers states that, under its system, it seeks to divide
`
`its bakery goods market into territories operated by “independent contractor
`
`distributors.” Flowers claims to grant the right both to sell and distribute authorized
`
`Flowers products within the territory. Under this model, as described in the DA,
`
`the Delivery Employee will purchase from Flowers, take ownership of the product,
`
`and then resell the products to retail outlets within their territories at a profit.
`
`22. By claiming that the Delivery Employee is “purchasing” the products
`
`from Flowers, Flowers feels it can pass certain business risks to the Delivery
`
`Employee. So Flowers makes the Delivery Employees, like Plaintiff, assume the
`
`risk of loss for non-payment by Flowers’ retail customers, loss resulting from
`
`missing or otherwise unaccounted for inventory, and loss resulting from excess
`
`stale products.
`
`23.
`
`In short, and in no uncertain terms, the disclosure documents and the
`
`DA claim that: (1) Flowers sells bakery products to Delivery Employee; (2)
`
`Delivery Employee takes title; and (3) Delivery Employee re-sells to retailers at a
`
`profit. In the scenario described by Flowers, Flowers makes a profit by selling to
`
`the distributor and passing off title at that time. The Delivery Employee then
`
`executes its own independent sale to the retailer. Furthermore, Flowers describes
`
`itself, in the DA, as merely the agent of the Delivery Employee in reaching
`
`agreements for purchases with retail chain accounts that the Delivery Employee
`
`then executes. In its description of this tripartite relationship, Flowers states that it
`
`will merely carry accounts receivable for these retail accounts and credit the retail
`
`sales price to Delivery Employees.
`
`24. Flowers uses its described business model to both (1) justify the
`
`“independent” nature of Delivery Employees in an effort to support its
`
`misclassification of them as independent contractors, and to (2) justify passing
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.10 Page 10 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`business losses and risks to the Delivery Employees who supposedly “take title” to
`
`the products.
`
`C.
`
`Flowers’ Actual Business Model
`
`25. Flowers’ representations in its disclosure documents and in its DA are
`
`false as evidenced by its own statements and accounting policies. To summarize,
`
`Flowers represents to Delivery Employees that they own the product and control
`
`their destinies. It does that to justify its misclassification of the Delivery
`
`Employees as “independent contractors,” and to thus avoid the wages, employer-
`
`side taxes, and other protections and burdens that would normally come with
`
`properly categorizing these workers as “employees.” It also does this to justify
`
`passing certain risks and losses to the Delivery Employees. But on the other hand,
`
`and as proven by its actions as well as what Flowers tells accountants and the
`
`Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Flowers is the one that controls the
`
`entire enterprise and actually owns the product. Upon information and belief, this
`
`allows Flowers to claim higher revenues and present a healthier business to
`
`potential customers and its investors. In short, Flowers is having its cake and eating
`
`it too.
`
`26. More specifically, rather than selling to and vesting rights in the
`
`distributors to make retail sales, Flowers itself negotiates, carries out, and receives
`
`gross proceeds from the vast majority of bakery sales which are in turn merely
`
`delivered by its “distributors” who receive a commission based on Flowers’ sales.
`
`The reality of selling products to national retailers like Wal-Mart and Costco is that
`
`deals are negotiated on a national, or at least regional level and then simply carried
`
`out by the local subsidiaries that make up Flowers’ DSD Segment. Sales to these
`
`retailers accounts for over 75% of Flowers’ business in the increasingly corporate
`
`“big retail” market that exists in the United States and California.
`
`27. Flowers’ own website and SEC filings confirm that the distributors
`
`merely have “the right to distribute,” and that sales are actually made and
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.11 Page 11 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`controlled by Flowers (i.e., Flowers sells products “through” distributors). It is
`
`Flowers who enters contracts for retail purchase and negotiates all relevant retail
`
`terms like pricing. Individual distributors do not, for example, have a contract with
`
`the local Wal-Mart within their territory and have no control over the price Wal-
`
`Mart agrees to pay Flowers for products that distributors put on Wal-Mart’s
`
`shelves. Price, product selection, and even product placement within these retail
`
`locations are all controlled by Flowers well above the Delivery Employees’ level
`
`of operation.
`
`28. Under Flowers’ actual business model, Delivery Employees do not,
`
`in-fact, take title and then resell the products. Instead, Flowers executes sales with
`
`retail locations and “distributors receive a percentage of the wholesale price of
`
`product sold to retailers and other customers.” In doing so, and as a matter of
`
`accounting, Flowers then actually recognizes the sale to the retail customer as
`
`revenue “at the time of delivery when title and risk of loss pass to the [retail]
`
`customer.” See Flowers’ SEC Form 10-K for fiscal year ended January 1, 2011
`
`(“2011 SEC Filing”) at p. F-7.4 Flowers does not recognize the revenue when it
`
`supposedly “sells” the products to the Delivery Employees because no sale to these
`
`individuals actually occurs. Indeed, in its SEC filings, Flowers explicitly admits
`
`that it bears risk of loss and owns title to the products until the retailer or end
`
`consumer (like Wal-Mart) actually takes possession. This directly contradicts the
`
`representations that Flowers makes to its “distributors,” including in the DA, where
`
`Flowers claims the Delivery Employees “buy” the product from Flowers and own
`
`it upon taking possession.5
`
`29.
`
` Flowers’ most recent quarterly SEC filing removes any doubt that the
`
`DA and its related disclosures are a sham. In its filing, Flowers explicitly admits
`
`
`4 https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/us/flowers_foods/SEC/sec-
`show.aspx?Type=html&FilingId=7747320&CIK=0001128928&Index=10000.
`
`5 A “sale” consists of passing of title from the seller to the buyer. See U.C.C. 2-106.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.12 Page 12 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`that, for purposes of sales to its retail chain customers (the vast majority of Flowers
`
`products sold), Flowers is the principal, and the employee distributor is the
`
`“agent.” See Flowers’ Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 21, 2018
`
`(“2018 SEC Filing”), at p. 9.6 This directly contradicts what Flowers told the
`
`employee distributors, including Plaintiff, in the franchise disclosure and the DA.
`
`30.
`
`In that recent filing, Flowers also admits again that revenue is
`
`recognized based on the retail sales price (as opposed to the wholesale price it
`
`supposedly “sells” products to the Delivery Employee for) only once product is
`
`delivered to the end customer. Additionally, “[t]he company retains inventory risk,
`
`establishes . . . pricing, and fulfills the contractual obligations for [retail] sales.”
`
`See 2018 SEC Filing at p. 9-10. Again, Flowers wants to save money on wages and
`
`employment taxes by claiming that employees are “independent distributors,” but
`
`it needs to maintain control over the enterprise, the products, and the distribution
`
`networks to satisfy its other financial and accounting goals.7
`
`31. Additional facts proving Flowers’ control over the relationship with
`
`its Delivery Employees (and thus the falsity of the “independent contractor”
`
`classification) are as follows:
`
`a.
`
`Delivery Employees are forced to incorporate and retain a
`
`majority ownership in their corporation. I.e., they cannot choose their own business
`
`form. This forced corporation then enters into the DA with the Flowers Foods, Inc.
`
`subsidiary to show the appearance of a business-to-business relationship.
`
`
`6 https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/us/flowers_foods/SEC/sec-
`show.aspx?Type=html&FilingId=12761070&CIK=0001128928&Index=10000.
`
`7 Notably, prevailing accounting standards dictate that in order for Flowers to
`claim, as it repeatedly does, that it is the principal and the distributor is the
`“agent” in the arrangement, Flowers must be the one that has control over the
`“right to a service to be performed by [the distributor], which gives [Flowers]
`the ability to direct [the distributor] to provide the [distribution] service to
`[retail] customer. . . .” See Accounting Financial Standards Board (FASB),
`Topic 606. This, of course, is directly at odds with Flowers’ characterization
`of the distributors as “independent contractors” that make their own sales and
`over whom they allegedly lack control.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.13 Page 13 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Despite the forced incorporation, the Delivery Employee
`
`himself or herself must personally guarantee the contract. The personal guarantee
`
`makes the individual Delivery Employee liable for performance under and
`
`compliance with the DA. This gives Flowers its desired individual employee.
`
`c.
`
`Flowers assigns each Delivery Employee a set route and set
`
`brands of Flowers’ bakery products to sell within that route to Flowers’ retail
`
`customers. Delivery Employees pay for the rights to the route. The price is usually
`
`$100,000 or more. Moreover, Flowers usually finances the purchase of the route at
`
`exorbitant interest rates. Flowers then automatically deducts the principal and
`
`interest from the commissions otherwise owed to the Delivery Employees.
`
`d.
`
`Flowers also controls: (i) which retailers will receive which
`
`Flowers’ products within the territory; (ii) the price its retailers pay for products;
`
`and (iii) which products and brands of goods will remain available to the retailers
`
`and, in turn, to the Delivery Employees.
`
`e.
`
`Flowers maintains the right to change which retailers it and its
`
`Delivery Employees serve and which brands will be sold to those retailers or
`
`otherwise available within a Delivery Employee’s territory.
`
`f. When Flowers makes changes to the products offered and/or
`
`the retailers it offers them to, it does not re-value the route the Delivery Employee
`
`originally bargained for or otherwise re-evaluate the money the individual owes to
`
`Flowers for that route. This is true even where Flowers has drastically reduced the
`
`value of a given route by unilaterally choosing to discontinue a product or stop
`
`selling to a retailer in that territory.
`
`g.
`
`Flowers deploys a management structure within each local
`
`subsidiary including branch and/or sales managers who manage relationships with
`
`retail customers, carry out sales, and directly supervise and instruct the Delivery
`
`Employees in performance of their responsibilities. Again, the distributors are not
`
`“independent.” They have bosses at Flowers.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 PageID.14 Page 14 of 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`h.
`
`Flowers also dictates when unsold bakery products must be
`
`reclaimed from retail locations (a.k.a. “stales” or stale product). Flowers demands
`
`that such products, despite supposedly being the “property” of the Delivery
`
`Employee, be returned to a Flowers warehouse for Flowers’ further benefit or re-
`
`sale, not the Delivery Employees. For example, if there is stale product within a
`
`Delivery Employee’s territory above the threshold level unilaterally established by
`
`Flowers, Flowers charges the Delivery Employee retail price for the products but
`
`maintains possession of these products itself and, on information and belief, sells
`
`these products to its thrift customers.
`
`i.
`
`Delivery Employees must also agree to maintain a certain
`
`physical appearance for both themselves and their vehicles. Flowers retains and
`
`exercises the right to force Delivery Employees to paint their vehicles to Flowers’
`
`specifications or remove advertising that the Delivery Employees have chosen for
`
`their vehicle.
`
`j.
`
`Delivery Employees must abide by “Good Industry Practices”
`
`as defined by Flowers. Failure to abide by any of these requirements risks
`
`termination by Flowers.
`
`k.
`
`The DA has no end date and Delivery Employees often work
`
`for Flowers for long periods of time. Per Flowers, these are “long-term financing
`
`arrangements.”
`
`l.
`
`Flowers sets a calendar or schedule of days that Delivery
`
`Employees must work and what tasks are to be completed on those dates (i.e.,
`
`managing inventory vs. dropping new product). Flowers also requires that work be
`
`performed on the route each day of the week as its customers require and expect
`
`under their contracts with Flowers. Flowers describes its frequency of deliveries
`
`and shelf-stocking as “an increasingly important competitive fac