Commitments and Contingencies | 10 . Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations The Company had outstanding contracts and purchase orders for capital projects and services totaling $50.4 million at September 26, 2020. Amounts due under these contracts were not included on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of September 26, 2020. Guarantees The Company from time to time enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require it to indemnify various parties against claims from third parties. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) certain real estate leases under which subsidiaries of the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities and other claims arising from their use of the applicable premises; (ii) certain agreements with the Company’s officers, directors, and employees under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their employment relationship; and (iii) customer agreements under which the Company may be required to indemnify customers for certain claims brought against them with respect to the supplied products. Generally, a maximum obligation under these contracts is not explicitly stated. Because the obligated amounts associated with these types of agreements are not explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been required to make payments under these obligations and, therefore, no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. Litigation The Company is engaged in various legal proceedings that have arisen but have not been fully adjudicated. The likelihood of loss arising from these legal proceedings, based on definitions within contingency accounting literature, ranges from remote to reasonably possible to probable. When losses are probable and reasonably estimable, they have been accrued. Based on estimates of the range of potential losses associated with these matters, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect upon the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company. However, the final results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and, if the Company failed to prevail in one or more of these legal matters, and the associated realized losses were to exceed the Company’s current estimates of the range of potential losses, the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations could be materially adversely affected in future periods. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Lawsuit . In March 2009, the Baltimore Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Field Office served the Company with company-wide (excluding, however, our Vistar and Roma Foodservice operations) subpoenas relating to alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), seeking certain information from January 1, 2004 to a specified date in the first fiscal quarter of 2009. In August 2009, the EEOC moved to enforce the subpoenas in federal court in Maryland, and the Company opposed the motion. In February 2010, the court ruled that the subpoena related to the Equal Pay Act investigation was enforceable company-wide but on a narrower scope of data than the original subpoena sought (the court ruled that the subpoena was applicable to the transportation, logistics, and warehouse functions of the Company’s broadline distribution centers only and not to the Company’s PFG Customized distribution centers). The Company cooperated with the EEOC on the production of information. In September 2011, the EEOC notified the Company that the EEOC was terminating the investigation into alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act. In determinations issued in September 2012 by the EEOC with respect to the charges on which the EEOC had based its company-wide investigation, the EEOC concluded that the Company engaged in a pattern of denying hiring and promotion to a class of female applicants and employees into certain positions within the transportation, logistics, and warehouse functions within the Company’s broadline division in violation of Title VII. In June 2013, the EEOC filed suit in federal court in Baltimore against the Company. The litigation concerns two issues: (1) whether the Company unlawfully engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice of failing to hire female applicants into operations positions; and (2) whether the Company unlawfully failed to promote one of the three individuals who filed charges with the EEOC because of her gender. The EEOC seeks the following relief in the lawsuit: (1) to permanently enjoin the Company from denying employment to female applicants because of their sex and denying promotions to female employees because of their sex; (2) a court order mandating that the Company institute and carry out policies, procedures, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females; (3) back pay with prejudgment interest and compensatory damages for a former female employee and an alleged class of aggrieved female applicants; (4) punitive damages; and (5) costs. The court bifurcated the litigation into two phases. In the first phase, the jury will decide whether the Company engaged in a gender-based pattern and practice of discrimination and the individual claims of one former employee. If the EEOC prevails on all counts in the first phase, no monetary relief would be awarded, except possibly for the single individual’s claims, which would be immaterial. The remaining individual claims would then be tried in the second phase. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the number of individual trials that could occur in the second phase of the litigation or the value of those claims. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in the event of an adverse finding in the first and second phases of the litigation . In May 2018, the EEOC filed motions for sanctions against the Company alleging that we failed to preserve certain paper employment applications and e-mails during 2004 – 2009. In the sanction’s motions, the EEOC sought a range of remedies, including but not limited to, a default judgment against the Company, or alternatively, an order barring the Company from filing for summary judgment on the EEOC’s pattern and practice claims. The court denied the EEOC’s motions in June 2019, but reserved ruling on whether the unavailability of certain documents will prejudice the EEOC’s ability to present expert testimony at the trial. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, on March 18, 2020, the court denied both parties’ motions, which means the case will be set for trial. The court has not yet determined a trial date and has informed the parties that it is unsure of when the case could be set because of COVID-19. In the meantime, and because the hiring practices of the Company have changed significantly over the past several years, the Company and the EEOC have engaged in substantive settlement discussions to determine if the litigation could be resolved on mutually agreeable terms. The Company has accrued an amount deemed immaterial to the consolidated financial statements related to a potential settlement payment. The Company cannot assure that the EEOC will agree to a settlement offer or that it will not need to accrue or pay additional amounts in the future. If these discussions do not result in a resolution of the case, the Company will continue to vigorously defend itself. JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. In October 2019, a Multidistrict Litigation action (“MDL”) was initiated in order to centralize litigation against JUUL Labs, Inc. (“JUUL”) and other parties in connection with JUUL’s E-Cigarettes and related devices and components in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 11, 2020, counsel for Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee filed a Master Complaint in the MDL naming, among several other entities and individuals including JUUL, Altria Group, Inc., Philip Morris USA, Inc., Altria Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution Company, Altria Enterprises LLC, certain members of management and/or individual investors in JUUL, various e-liquid manufacturers, and various retailers, including the Company’s subsidiary Eby-Brown as a defendant. The Master Complaint also named additional distributors of JUUL products (collectively with Eby-Brown the “Distributor Defendants”). The Master Complaint contains various state law claims and alleges that the Distributor Defendants: (1) failed to disclose JUUL’s nicotine contents or the risks associated; (2) pushed a product designed for a youth market; (3) engaged with JUUL in planning and marketing its product in a manner designed to maximize the flow of JUUL products; (4) met with JUUL management in San Francisco, California to further these business dealings; and (5) received incentives and business development funds for marketing and efficient sales. Individual plaintiffs may also file separate and abbreviated Short Form Complaints (“SFC”) that incorporate the allegations in the Master Complaint. JUUL and Eby-Brown are parties to a Domestic Wholesale Distribution Agreement dated March 10, 2020, and JUUL has agreed to defend and indemnify Eby-Brown under the terms of that agreement and is paying Eby-Brown’s outside counsel fees directly. On May 29, 2020, JUUL filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the alleged state law claims are preempted by federal law and a motion to stay/dismiss the litigation based on the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) primary jurisdiction to regulate E-Cigarette and related vaping products and pending FDA review of JUUL’s Pre-Market Tobacco Application (“PMTA”). On June 29, 2020, Eby-Brown, along with the other Distributor Defendants, filed similar motions incorporating JUUL’s arguments The court has also entered an order governing the selection of bellwether plaintiffs and setting key discovery and other deadlines in the litigation. Bellwether trials are test cases generally intended to try a contested issue common to several plaintiffs in mass tort litigation. The results of these proceedings are used to shape the litigation process for the remaining cases and to aid the parties in assessing potential settlement values of the remaining claims. Here, the court authorized a pool of twenty-four bellwether plaintiffs, with plaintiffs selecting six cases, the combined defendants selecting six cases, and the court selecting twelve cases at random. Fact discovery concerning the pool of twenty-four cases is scheduled to close in April 2021, at which time the parties will submit confidential briefs explaining which cases they view best for trial. The court will then select the four bellwether trial cases and additional discovery will be conducted in those cases. The first bellwether trial has been set for February 22, 2022 with the remaining three trials set for the second and third calendar quarters of 2022. At this time, the Company is unable to predict whether FDA will approve JUUL’s PMTA, nor is the Company able to estimate any potential loss or range of loss in the event of an adverse finding against it in the litigation. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself. Tax Liabilities The Company is subject to customary audits by authorities in the jurisdictions where it conducts business in the United States, which may result in assessments of additional taxes. |