CAVA Lawsuits: PFAS, Pesticides, Wages, and Retaliation

CAVA Group, the fast-casual Mediterranean chain, has been the defendant in several notable lawsuits: a proposed class action alleging PFAS in its food packaging, a District of Columbia consumer-protection suit brought by the nonprofit Toxin Free USA over pesticide residues and packaging chemicals, an $850,000 California wage-and-hour settlement under the Private Attorneys General Act, a federal appellate case on Title VII retaliation, and a shareholder class action tied to CAVA’s acquisition of Zoes Kitchen. The PFAS class action ended in a dismissal with prejudice in April 2024, the Toxin Free USA case remains pending, and the California labor settlement is being reworked after a court flagged an outdated payment split.

The PFAS Class Action Over Packaging

Hamman et al. v. Cava Group, Inc. was filed on April 27, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of U.S. consumers who bought CAVA grain and salad bowls. The plaintiff alleged that CAVA’s fiber trays and bowls contained organic fluorine at more than 508 parts per million, well above the 100 ppm threshold used as an industry screening benchmark for PFAS.¹ The complaint cited California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, arguing that CAVA had marketed its products as “healthy,” “sustainable,” and free of PFAS while concealing the presence of these chemicals in its packaging.

CAVA moved to dismiss in July 2022, arguing the plaintiffs had not alleged any actual harm and were relying on “anxiety about the sheer possibility of future physical injury.” The company also contended that the organic fluorine detected in testing is not equivalent to harmful PFAS and that some fluorinated substances are FDA-approved for food contact.²

Judge Michael M. Anello issued a mixed ruling. He rejected CAVA’s standing argument, finding the plaintiff had shown economic injury because he would not have bought the products had he known about the PFAS, and he let the California consumer-protection claims proceed. The court dismissed the common-law fraudulent-omission claim, agreeing that CAVA had no duty to disclose PFAS. In a follow-up ruling on December 4, 2023, the court declined to dismiss claims for punitive damages, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment.³

The case never reached class certification. On April 12, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice, and the court granted the dismissal on April 15, 2024.⁴ Dismissal with prejudice means the claims cannot be refiled. No settlement terms were publicly disclosed, and the docket does not indicate whether a private settlement was reached.

Toxin Free USA’s Pesticide and Packaging Suit

On October 13, 2023, the nonprofit Toxin Free USA sued CAVA in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The complaint challenges CAVA’s marketing of its food as “healthy” and “environmentally sustainable” on two fronts: PFAS in packaging and pesticide residues in food.⁵

On packaging, the complaint cites testing that found 228 parts per million of organofluorine in CAVA’s pita chip bags, over the 100 ppm PFAS screening threshold. It also alleges that CAVA publicly committed to eliminating PFAS from its packaging by mid-2021 or the end of 2022 and missed both deadlines.⁵ On food, the suit alleges independent testing found residues of six synthetic pesticides and biocides — glyphosate, imazalil, piperonyl butoxide, isoprothiolane, tebuconazole, and tricyclazole — in products including cabbage slaw, lentils, pita bread, pita chips, and rice.⁶

The case does not seek monetary damages. Toxin Free USA asked the court for an injunction against what it calls false marketing and a declaratory judgment that CAVA’s conduct violates D.C. consumer protection law.⁵ The complaint expressly disclaims any class certification; the organization brought the action on behalf of the general public of the District of Columbia. As of the most recent available information, Case No. 2023-CAB-006356 remains pending.⁷

The California Wage-and-Hour Settlement

Eugene Lawson, et al. v. CAVA Group, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24STCV16024) was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, on behalf of CAVA’s non-exempt hourly employees in the state. The suit, brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, alleged unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, and other Labor Code violations.⁸

The parties agreed to an $850,000 gross settlement covering everyone employed as a non-exempt worker by CAVA Group and CAVA Mezze Grill in California between March 16, 2023, and September 23, 2025. The proposed allocation set aside roughly $283,334 for attorney fees split among four firms, about $27,791 in litigation expenses, and $12,500 for settlement administration by Atticus Administration LLC. The remainder, roughly $526,376, was to be split under the standard PAGA formula: 75 percent to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25 percent pro rata to affected employees.⁹

The court denied approval without prejudice on September 23, 2025, finding that the 75/25 split reflected an outdated version of PAGA. Amendments to the statute now require a 65/35 split, giving workers a larger share.¹⁰ New settlement documents appeared on the case website in November 2025, indicating the parties are working to resubmit with the corrected allocation.¹¹ Affected employees don’t need to take any action to participate; payments will be distributed automatically once the court grants final approval.

The Title VII Retaliation Case

Villa v. Cava Mezze Grill, LLC, decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7, 2017, has become a reference point in retaliation law. Patricia Villa, a former low-level manager at a CAVA restaurant in Merrifield, Virginia, sued for retaliation under Title VII after she was fired.¹²

Villa had reported to CAVA’s director of operations that a general manager solicited sex from a subordinate employee in exchange for a raise. When the director investigated, the subordinate and other employees denied the allegations. It later came out that the subordinate had lied to Villa about the harassment. CAVA concluded Villa had fabricated the report and fired her.¹²

Villa argued her termination was retaliation because she had reported harassment in good faith. CAVA responded that it genuinely believed she had made a false report and fired her for that reason. Villa conceded that CAVA’s stated reason was its actual motivation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CAVA, holding that Title VII retaliation requires proof of retaliatory motive. Because CAVA believed Villa had engaged in misconduct rather than protected activity, the firing did not amount to retaliation, even if the company’s factual conclusion turned out to be wrong. The court wrote that “a good-faith factual mistake is not the stuff of which Title VII violations are made.”¹²

The Zoes Kitchen Acquisition Challenge

In October 2018, a class action was filed in federal court in Delaware over CAVA Group’s $300 million acquisition of the Zoes Kitchen chain. The plaintiff, Jonathan Reigrod, alleged that materials sent to Zoes Kitchen shareholders in connection with the deal were “incomplete and misleading” in violation of SEC rules. The complaint claimed the financial relationship between the company and a financing group led by Ron Shaich was not properly disclosed and that the financial analysis behind the deal was incomplete. The suit named Zoes Kitchen directors and executives as defendants and asked the court to rescind the merger.¹³

1
ClassAction.org. CAVA Food Packaging Contains Unsafe PFAS, Class Action Claims
2
Legal Newsline. Worry Over Getting Sick Not Standing to Sue, Says CAVA in PFAS Lawsuit
3
Food-Safety.com. PFAS Litigation and FDA Updates for the Food Industry
4
CourtListener. Hamman v. Cava Group, Inc.
5
Toxin Free USA. Toxin Free USA v. CAVA Group Complaint
6
PR Newswire. Toxin Free USA Sues CAVA for Food Containing Pesticides and Food Packaging Containing PFAS
7
Justice Pesticides. Toxin Free USA v. CAVA Groupe Inc.
8
CAVA PAGA Settlement. Eugene Lawson, et al. v. CAVA Group, Inc., et al.
9
CAVA PAGA Settlement. Cava Approval Order
10
Trellis Law. Eugene Lawson vs. Cava Mezze Grill LLC et al.
11
CAVA PAGA Settlement. Settlement Documents
12
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Villa v. Cava Mezze Grill, LLC
13
Restaurant Business Online. Class Action Suit Filed Over Zoes Kitchen, CAVA Deal