IBJNews

Steak n Shake dispute with franchisees reaches to Denver

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An ongoing dispute between Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake and some of its franchisees over company pricing policies has stretched to a federal court in Colorado.

The hamburger chain filed suit July 3 to stop a Denver restaurant owner from operating under its logo after the franchisee refused to follow a corporate policy prohibiting restaurants from setting their own menu prices.

The latest salvo from Steak n Shake follows three lawsuits brought by franchise owners in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis earlier this year.

The three suits 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 who challenged the practice.

In the Colorado dispute, the Denver franchisee filed a countersuit Aug. 1 against Steak n Shake, hoping to stop the chain from terminating franchise agreements for its two locations in the Denver area.

Larry and Christopher Baerns of Aurora, Colo., say in their counterclaim that they should be able to set their own prices because food costs are higher in the Denver area than in other parts of the country where Steak n Shake operates. They further claim that the prices they charge and the menu items they offer have been approved by Steak n Shake.

“Steak n Shake’s lawsuit and its attempt to terminate the Denver area franchise agreements is clearly retaliation against the Denver owners for daring to raise questions about the fairness of the corporate policies, and whether what was promised as a measure for success could ever actually be achieved,” attorneys for the franchisee said in a prepared statement.

Steak n Shake policy prohibits commenting on pending litigation. The three other suits are pending in federal court in Indianapolis.

The three franchisees who brought the complaints against Steak n Shake in April 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 franchises for refusing to comply with the pricing policy. They also are suing for breach of contract and fraud.

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 dating 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 in August 2012, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Illinois federal court’s ruling in Stuller’s favor.

Steak n Shake operates 508 restaurants, including 94 franchised locations. The chain is operated by San Antonio-based holding company Biglari Holdings Inc.

In its fiscal first quarter ended April 10, Steak n Shake reported revenue of $219.1 million, an increase of less than 1 percent from the same quarter in 2012.

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Just bring the fish sandwich back...
    I really don't care about the pricing. Just bring the fish sandwich back and I'm happy.

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 IBJ 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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now

ADVERTISEMENT