Famous Dave's of America, Inc.
4 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2011–2022)
3 trusted published court opinions across 2 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Famous Dave's of America, Inc. as an employer in 4 distinct federal employment cases between 2011 and 2022.
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Discrimination, and Retaliation.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in MD.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 2 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Famous Dave's of America, Inc. appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Graham v. Famous Daves of America, Inc. (2022) — Settlement. This case involved a dispute between an employee (Graham) and the restaurant chain Famous Dave's of America over alleged violations of federal wage laws. Graham claimed that Famous Dave's violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets rules for minimum wage, overtime pay, and other worker protections. Read the ruling.
Clinton v. Famous Dave's of America, Inc. (2022) — Dismissed. A worker filed a lawsuit against Famous Dave's of America claiming discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and defamation. The worker alleged mistreatment based on protected characteristics and unfair treatment after complaining about workplace conditions. Read the ruling.
Graham v. Famous Daves of America, Inc. (2020) — Defendant Win. A worker named Graham sued Famous Dave's restaurant chain, claiming the company failed to pay proper wages. Graham wanted to combine his case with other tipped employees across New Jersey, New York, and Nebraska into one group lawsuit, which would have been stronger and easier to pursue together. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft, Discrimination, Retaliation. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Discrimination and Retaliation.
Published opinions span Maryland (2), Illinois (1). Maryland is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Maryland rulings and Illinois rulings.
These published opinions sit within the hospitality sector, where wage theft, tip-pooling violations, and sexual-harassment claims are common.
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Hospitality & Food Service employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.