Cracker Barrel Server Wage Class Action

The Cracker Barrel Server Wage Class Action involves allegations that Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. violated federal wage laws by failing to pay servers for side work performed while they were not clocked in. The case, formally titled Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., centered on whether the restaurant chain improperly applied the federal “tip credit”—which allows employers to pay tipped workers below minimum wage when tips make up the difference—to work that generated no tips and should have been compensated at the full minimum wage rate. For example, if a server wiped down tables, rolled silverware, or prepped food without customers present, they should have been paid at least minimum wage for that time, regardless of whether tips were involved. The case has faced significant legal obstacles.

Originally, more than 106,000 Cracker Barrel servers across the nation sought certification for a collective action. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July 2025 that personal jurisdiction had to be assessed individually for each participating worker, which dramatically narrowed the scope to approximately 3,000 employees in Arizona. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case in February 2026, leaving the smaller class in place. As of the latest available information, no final settlement or verdict has been announced, and the case remains in active litigation at the district court level. This article examines the allegations, the court’s ruling, and what the outcome means for servers who worked at Cracker Barrel during the relevant period.

Table of Contents

• WHAT WERE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CRACKER BARREL?
• THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION RULING AND ITS IMPACT
• HOW THE BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB DECISION SHAPED THE OUTCOME
• WHY THE COLLECTIVE ACTION WAS LIMITED TO ARIZONA WORKERS
• THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION NOT TO REVIEW THE CASE
• WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CASE AFTER THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION
• IMPLICATIONS FOR CRACKER BARREL WORKERS AND SIMILAR CASES
• Conclusion

WHAT WERE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CRACKER BARREL?

The core allegation in this case involves violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets minimum wage and overtime rules for U.S. workers. Under federal law, employers can pay tipped employees a lower minimum wage (the federal tip credit is $2.13 per hour) as long as their tips bring them up to the full federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. However, there is a critical requirement: this lower wage only applies to work that is directly connected to tipped service—typically taking orders, serving food and drinks, and clearing plates.

Any work that is not part of tipped duties must be compensated at the full minimum wage. Cracker Barrel servers alleged that the company violated this rule by requiring them to perform non-tipped side work—such as wiping down chairs and tables, prepping food in the kitchen, washing dishes, rolling silverware, and cleaning equipment—while they were clocked out or being paid only the tipped minimum wage. A concrete example would be a server arriving 15 minutes before their shift officially began to roll silverware and set up table stations, or staying 20 minutes after clocking out to deep-clean the dining room. Under FLSA rules, this preparatory and closing work should have been compensated at the regular minimum wage since it generated no direct tips. The plaintiffs argued that Cracker Barrel systematically underpaid workers by failing to account for this time in their paychecks.

THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION RULING AND ITS IMPACT

The case took a major turn on July 1, 2025, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Harrington v. Cracker Barrel. However, the court did not rule on the merits of whether Cracker Barrel actually violated wage laws. Instead, it issued a narrow ruling on personal jurisdiction—essentially, which workers could participate in the lawsuit based on where they worked and how federal courts can exercise authority over defendants. The critical holding was that personal jurisdiction must be assessed on a claim-by-claim basis for opt-in plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions, rather than on a nationwide basis.

In practical terms, this meant that not every server who worked for Cracker Barrel across the country could automatically join the lawsuit simply because the restaurant operates nationwide. Instead, each worker would need to demonstrate that the court had personal jurisdiction over Cracker Barrel for their individual claim. This ruling dramatically reduced the potential size of the collective. The original scope included 106,000+ employees nationwide seeking certification; after the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the case was remanded to district court with a narrowed scope of approximately 3,000 workers in Arizona. This limitation creates a significant downside for workers in other states—they may have identical claims but are no longer part of this particular lawsuit, though they could theoretically file separate claims in their own jurisdictions.

HOW THE BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB DECISION SHAPED THE OUTCOME

The Ninth Circuit’s decision did not occur in a vacuum. The court explicitly applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, which established stricter standards for when courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants in multi-state disputes.

The Ninth Circuit joined the Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in interpreting Bristol-Myers Squibb to require claim-by-claim jurisdiction assessments in FLSA collective actions, rather than allowing a single jurisdictional finding to cover all opt-in workers nationwide. This precedent fundamentally changed how FLSA collective actions work in certain circuits. Before Bristol-Myers Squibb, it was common for courts to certify nationwide collectives under the theory that the defendant’s nationwide operations created nationwide personal jurisdiction. The new standard is more restrictive, requiring courts to consider factors like where each individual worker was employed, where they suffered the alleged wage violation, and whether the defendant has sufficient ties to that particular state. While this approach protects defendants from being sued in forums where they have limited connections, it also makes it much harder for workers in multiple states to band together in a single lawsuit, potentially forcing them to pursue claims separately or through different legal actions.

WHY THE COLLECTIVE ACTION WAS LIMITED TO ARIZONA WORKERS

Following the Ninth Circuit’s remand in July 2025, the district court reassessed which workers could participate in the collective action under the new personal jurisdiction standard. The result was that approximately 3,000 Cracker Barrel workers in Arizona qualified for certification, while servers in other states—even those working at the same restaurant chain during the same time period—were excluded from this particular action. The reasons for the Arizona limitation likely relate to specific jurisdictional factors, such as where the defendant has its principal place of business, where the majority of alleged violations occurred in terms of the court’s geographic reach, or other factors that gave the Arizona court stronger connections to the claims.

This geographic limitation presents a significant tradeoff for workers outside Arizona. While Arizona servers have a certified collective to pursue their claims, servers in other states face higher barriers to recovery. They would need to file separate claims in their own states, pursue individual lawsuits, or wait for similar collective actions to be certified in other jurisdictions. Some states may have more worker-friendly wage laws or longer statutes of limitations that could benefit workers filing in those venues, but the burden of organizing and pursuing separate claims is substantially greater than participating in a nationwide action.

THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION NOT TO REVIEW THE CASE

In February 2026, the plaintiffs’ request for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision was denied. When the Supreme Court declines to review a case, it does not comment on the merits or the reasoning. However, this denial is significant because it leaves the Ninth Circuit’s narrow jurisdiction ruling in place. For workers in the Ninth Circuit (which includes Arizona, California, Hawaii, and several other western states), this decision is binding.

However, it also means that the Supreme Court did not use this case to resolve the split among federal circuits regarding how Bristol-Myers Squibb applies to FLSA collective actions. A key limitation and warning for workers is that the denial of Supreme Court review does not resolve the underlying wage dispute on the merits. The case has not been decided on whether Cracker Barrel actually violated the FLSA. The class remains in active litigation at the district court level, meaning there is no final settlement amount or verdict to report. Workers should be cautious about any claims of a “settled” case or a guaranteed payout—as of the available information, the case remains unresolved and could take years to conclude.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CASE AFTER THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION

After the Ninth Circuit’s July 2025 ruling and the Supreme Court’s February 2026 refusal to review, the case was remanded to the district court. The district court then reassessed the scope of the collective action based on the new personal jurisdiction standard and certified the Arizona workers. Since that certification, the case has proceeded through additional procedural phases, but the underlying wage violation claims have not been resolved on the merits.

This means the parties are likely engaged in discovery, motions practice, potential settlement discussions, or trial preparation. As of the information available, no final settlement agreement or jury verdict has been announced. Workers should not assume that because the case has been ongoing for years, a resolution is imminent. FLSA collective actions can take many years to resolve, especially after significant appellate decisions that require the case to be reassessed at the trial court level.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CRACKER BARREL WORKERS AND SIMILAR CASES

The Cracker Barrel case has broader implications for how FLSA collective actions are pursued in the Ninth Circuit and potentially beyond. The narrow personal jurisdiction ruling makes it more difficult to organize nationwide FLSA collectives, which can lead to fragmented litigation across multiple states. However, the case also keeps alive the underlying legal theory that servers should be paid minimum wage for non-tipped side work, which remains sound under federal law regardless of jurisdiction.

For workers in other circuits and states, the Cracker Barrel litigation underscores the importance of understanding your state’s wage laws and statutes of limitation. Some states have longer deadlines for filing wage claims or more generous rules for collective actions. The decision also highlights that pursuing wage claims may require individual action or organizing state-by-state rather than waiting for a national collective to form.

Conclusion

The Cracker Barrel Server Wage Class Action alleged that the restaurant chain violated federal wage laws by failing to pay servers the full minimum wage for non-tipped side work such as table setup, food prep, and cleaning. The case originally sought to represent more than 106,000 workers nationwide but was narrowed to approximately 3,000 Arizona employees following a Ninth Circuit ruling on personal jurisdiction in July 2025. The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case in February 2026 left the narrower scope in place, though the underlying wage violation claims remain unresolved.

If you are a current or former Cracker Barrel server and believe you were not properly compensated for side work or other non-tipped duties, it is important to understand your eligibility based on where you worked and when. The case remains active at the district court level, with no final settlement announced. Workers outside Arizona who have similar claims may need to pursue them separately or through state-specific wage claim procedures. Consulting with an employment attorney in your state can help you understand your rights and available legal remedies.

You Might Also Like

• Wendy’s Employee Wage Hour Violation Class Action
• UPS Driver Overtime Wage Violation Class Action
• Subway Franchisee Wage Theft Class Action

Browse more: Class Action | showcase | Uncategorized