Did Cracker Barrel Face a Nationwide Overtime Lawsuit That the Ninth Circuit Narrowed on Jurisdiction Grounds?

Current and former Cracker Barrel servers filed a nationwide wage-and-hour lawsuit alleging violations of labor laws related to tip pooling practices.

Case: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Docket Nos.: 23-15650 and 24-1979

Decision Date: July 1, 2025

Trial Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

District Court Case No.: 2:21-cv-00940-DJH

Get to Know the Plaintiffs in the Case:

The plaintiffs, Andrew Harrington, Katie Liammaytry, Jason Lenchert, and Dylan Basch, are current and former Cracker Barrel employees who allege violations related to pay practices for tipped workers.

Learn More About the Defendant in the Case:

The defendant, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., is a restaurant chain incorporated and headquartered in Tennessee.

Case History: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The case was filed in Arizona District Court as an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The district court authorized notice to a proposed collective that included servers in multiple states where Cracker Barrel allegedly used a tip-credit pay model, using the standard two-step conditional certification process.

Cracker Barrel objected to nationwide notice, arguing that some workers may be subject to arbitration agreements and that the Arizona court lacked personal jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state opt-ins with no connection to Arizona. The district court still authorized nationwide notice based on an Arizona-based named plaintiff. Cracker Barrel responded by obtaining an interlocutory appeal. As a result, the case ended up in the Ninth Circuit Court.

What is the Main Question Considered in the Case?

The main issue was whether the Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers Squibb personal-jurisdiction framework applies to FLSA collective actions in federal court. The court needed to decide if it must evaluate personal jurisdiction for each opt-in plaintiff’s claim instead of relying on a named plaintiff’s forum connection to support claims nationwide.

Summary of the Allegations: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The plaintiffs alleged that Cracker Barrel violated the FLSA regarding wages for tipped employees, particularly in its use of the federal tip credit. Although the Ninth Circuit’s opinion focused on procedural issues, the case was a nationwide wage-and-hour dispute over tip-credit practices.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling in Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit made three key holdings:

• The two-step conditional certification process is permissible. The panel found the district court did not abuse its discretion by using this procedure at the preliminary stage.

• If the validity of arbitration agreements is genuinely disputed, the district court is not required to resolve arbitrability for absent employees before authorizing notice.

• The Ninth Circuit held that Bristol-Myers applies to FLSA collectives. When a court relies on specific jurisdiction, it must determine whether each opt-in plaintiff’s claim is sufficiently connected to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. The panel vacated the nationwide notice order and remanded the case because the district court did not conduct the Bristol-Myers analysis.

• In a separate memorandum disposition issued the same day, the Ninth Circuit also addressed Cracker Barrel’s motion to compel arbitration as to one plaintiff’s claims.

Why This Was a Landmark Wage-and-Hour Case in 2025

The decision in this wage and hour case didn’t change overtime law, but it reshaped where and how nationwide wage and hour cases can be litigated in the Ninth Circuit.

1. Limits nationwide FLSA collectives filed outside an employer’s home state.

2. Affects early case strategy

FAQ: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

Q: What is an FLSA “collective action”?

A: It is a procedure under the FLSA that allows employees to pursue overtime or minimum-wage claims together, but workers generally must opt in by filing a written consent.

Q: What did the Ninth Circuit actually “narrow” in this case?

A: The court narrowed the ability to send nationwide notice from a forum that may not have personal jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state workers. The district court must evaluate jurisdiction for each opt-in claim when the case relies on specific jurisdiction.

Q: Does this decision mean workers can never bring nationwide FLSA cases?

A: Not necessarily. It means plaintiffs must choose a forum that can support jurisdiction over the broader set of claims (for example, where the employer is subject to general jurisdiction) or tailor the collective to workers whose claims have a sufficient connection to the forum.

Q: Did the Ninth Circuit decide whether Cracker Barrel violated wage laws?

A: No. The opinion addressed procedural issues—notice, arbitration timing, and personal jurisdiction—not the ultimate merits of the wage claims.

If you believe you were denied overtime pay, paid under an unlawful tip-credit practice, or not compensated for all hours worked, the wage-and-hour attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you evaluate your options under federal and state law. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss potential unpaid wage claims.