This website is a source of information about the Fast v. Applebee’s case. This case concerns a lawsuit about whether Applebee’s International, Inc. d/b/a Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar (“Applebee’s”) failed to pay proper wages to its servers and/or bartenders as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, Plaintiffs Gerald Fast, Talisha Cheshire and Brady Gehrling allege that Applebee’s directed and/or permitted them and other servers and bartenders to perform duties that would not generate tips such as general maintenance and/or preparatory work without paying proper wages for such work. Applebee's denies plaintiff's allegations. This case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division. To access the formal notice of the lawsuit, click here.

  • UPDATE: The Honorable Judge Nannette K. Laughrey approved the parties’ proposed Settlement Agreement on November 1, 2012. The class administrator is currently working diligently to process the award checks for each class member, which will be sent out by mail within the next several months. Again, if you have not updated your contact information with the administrator, please click here to do so.
  • As of the filing deadline 5,543 current and/or former Applebee’s servers and bartenders submitted a timely Consent to Join Form.
  • UPDATE: Plaintiffs and Applebee’s have entered into a settlement of this case. The settlement is subject to Court approval. It is expected that detailed information regarding the settlement will be provided to the class members within the next several weeks. If you are an opt in member of this class action and if your email and/or mailing address has changed since you provided your Consent to Join Form (late 2007/early 2008), please email the class administrator at administrator@applebeesclassaction.com and provide your updated contact information.
  • This matter was set to go to trial on September 8 of 2009. In preparing for trial, certain legal issues arose regarding the precise standard that was to be applied to the case, and which party had the burden of proof. Rather than proceed to trial and leave these important issues unresolved until a post-trial appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which could lead to yet another trial, the trial court and parties have agreed to take these issues to the Court of Appeals for resolution prior to trial. We believe that this is the most efficient way of handling the case and providing for a “cleaner” and more focused trial. The trial has thus been stayed for the time being so these issues may be resolved by the Court of Appeals.