Dozens of former employees making claims they were fired From bowler The attorney representing the claimants said Monday they plan to sue the bowling chain based on their age or retaliate after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dropped its case against the company.
Bowlero was the world’s largest owner and operator of bowling centers. EEOC embroiled in investigation The lawsuit involves more than 70 former employees dating back to 2016 who claim they were unlawfully fired, the company previously disclosed in a securities filing.
He alleged in complaints to the EEOC that Bowlero fired him for being too old as it worked to transform hundreds of its locations into what the company described as “dirty” bowling alleys. advanced experience With upscale food and beverage offerings, CNBC previously reported. Bolero denies the claims.
The company, which went public in late 2021 via a special purpose acquisition company, was one of a handful of successful stocks to emerge from the SPAC boom. It owns the two largest brands in bowling – AMF and Lucky Strike – and operates more than 300 bowling centers in North America as of July, the latest data available. Between 2021 and 2023, Bolero plans to nearly triple its annual revenue from $395 million to $1.06 billion, according to company filings. Bolero stock is down nearly 21% as of Monday’s close.
On Monday, Bolero disclosed in its fiscal third quarter earnings release and quarterly securities filing that the EEOC has closed its case and will not move forward with a lawsuit.
“The Company has received a positive update on the status of age discrimination claims pending with the EEOC…The EEOC has issued closure notices for individual age discrimination charges that, in most cases, were filed with the EEOC several years ago. “The notices certainly provide the claimants with an individual right to sue,” Bowlero said in his press release.
Boullero said he received a letter from the EEOC stating that the agency has decided not to prosecute the company. In a letter, the agency said closing the cases does not absolve the company of any wrongdoing.
“By concluding dealing with this matter, the Commission does not certify that [Bowlero] Is in compliance. “Further, terminating the investigation does not affect any victim’s right to file a private lawsuit or the Commission’s right to intervene in a subsequent lawsuit or subsequent private civil action,” the EEOC’s letter, dated Friday, read. Sent to, said.
During the company’s earnings call with Wall Street analysts on Monday, executives said the EEOC investigation was now behind them and would no longer be a distraction.
“For eight and a half years, the company has vigorously denied and contested the false allegations made against it,” CEO Thomas Shannon said in his opening remarks. “We are pleased to report these extremely positive developments on behalf of our shareholders.”
Later, when asked about the financial impact of the EEOC investigation, finance chief Robert Lavan said that “there have been a few million dollars” that have flowed through the income statement, but “the more important thing is that this attention It is misleading.”
“So now we’re happy to focus 100% on our business and put this behind us,” Lavan said.
However, Daniel Dovey, a lawyer representing dozens of claimants, said the case was not over – it would now take another form.
He told CNBC that the EEOC’s decision allows the former employees to move forward with their own lawsuits, and Dovey expects to file a single lawsuit on behalf of more than 70 former employees. Dovey plans to seek monetary compensation in connection with the case.
According to Boulero’s securities filings and Dove, the EEOC had previously found reasonable cause in 58 complaints brought against Boulero, and the remaining investigations were still ongoing when the agency closed its case. He said employees whose cases are still pending with the EEOC also have the right to sue and are among the potential plaintiffs Dovey is representing.
The company disclosed in the filing that the EEOC’s investigation also resulted in a determination of reasonable cause that Boulero had engaged in a “pattern or practice” of age discrimination – a term that indicates systemic issues – since at least 2013. Also denies. The EEOC’s pattern or practice investigation was also closed, Boulereau said.
When the EEOC finds reasonable cause in a complaint, it means it believes discriminated against, The agency typically makes this determination only in a small number of cases each year, EEOC data shows,
Under the EEOC process, when the agency finds that discrimination has occurred, it works to resolve the situation between the employer and the victim, it states on its website. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the EEOC must decide whether to sue the employer – a matter on which the EEOC commissioners are required to vote.
The EEOC said, “Due to limited resources, we cannot file lawsuits in every case where we find discrimination.” As stated on its website,
The EEOC tried to settle complaints with Bolero for $60 million in January 2023, but those efforts failed last April, CNBC previously reported.
It is unclear whether the question of whether to sue Bolero came up in a vote with EEOC commissioners. The EEOC declined to comment because most of its procedures are confidential under federal law.
Dovey said he requested the agency close his case last month so his clients could move forward with their lawsuit. He said he was pleased the case was now ready for private action.
“The investigations were thorough and thorough and resulted in a 58 to zero decision in our favor, so our clients felt we should let the EEOC do its job,” Dovey said.
She said age discrimination “is one of the worst forms of discrimination. All you hear in discrimination cases is about race and gender, but age is terrible because people are at the end of their careers, They can’t go back. Going to college and coming back is humiliating, it kind of puts their life in jeopardy.”
He told CNBC that he plans to sue Bolero for $80 million plus legal fees. As of March 31, Bolero had approximately $212.4 million of cash and cash equivalents available, according to its quarterly securities filings. Dovey said he has until mid-July to file the lawsuit.
Some complaints against Bowlero are years old and can be challenged under the statute of limitations, the company has previously said. Dovey said he is confident his clients will prevail in federal court and that they have a “strong” case.
In response, Bolero’s attorneys Alex Spiro and Hope Skibitsky at the law firm Quinn Emanuel said they were “pleased with the outcome of the EEOC investigation.” The lawyers said the company would fight any claims filed by its previous employees.
“The Bolero will defeat those claims,” the lawyers said. In previous statements, he vehemently denied the claims against Bolero.
In a separate but related case, a request from former Bowler executive Thomas Tansey counter bowling series Claims of extortion and retaliation were dismissed in Virginia federal court last week. Tanase’s attorneys previously said that if the request is denied, the lawsuit could and “likely” will be filed as a new action. Bolero also denied Tanase’s claims.
Tanase’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.