How an Arby’s Order Turned Into an Alleged Herpes Nightmare

There's no easy way to say this, but. both a criminal case and a civil case. are now at the center of allegations. that an Arby's worker deliberately spat. in a customer's food and gave her. herpes. We are breaking down the. criminal investigation [music]. and this massive lawsuit. Welcome to. Sidebar presented by Law & Crime. >> May I take your order, please? >> I'm Jesse Weber. Everybody loves a self-made [music]. success story, but. >> John Morgan says that is not how real.

life works. >> The great John Morgan, everybody. In his. new book, Life is luck, [music] the. founder of Morgan & Morgan gets real. about the role that luck plays in. success and how to recognize opportunity. when it shows up. >> And that seed was just lucky. >> From delivering newspapers as a kid to. building America's largest injury law. [music] firm, Morgan shares the moments. that change everything. >> It's a how-to book. to approach [music] life, luck, and. ultimately success.

>> This isn't another billionaire memoir. full of cheesy [music] advice. It's. honest, blunt, and packed with lessons. on turning good luck and bad luck into. something [music] bigger. So, I hope. people read it. I hope people appreciate. it. Buy Life is luck now on Amazon at. 4thepeople.com/lifeisluck. Look, I don't have to say this. This is. a very disturbing case. This is a pretty. disgusting one. If the allegations are. true about all this, I mean, my heart really goes out to the.

family here because this is not one you. hear every day, and I really hope that. you know, you got to sit down for this. one. So, fair warning, this is a tough. one. But, I say all that because there. are both criminal charges and a lawsuit. in connection with a former Arby's. manager in McCurtain County, Oklahoma, accused of not just spitting in a. woman's food, but also giving her. herpes. Unfortunately, let's discuss this. So, I'm going to. break it all down with you. I want to.

start with the criminal case and then. I'll get into the civil case. So, I want to read you directly from the. probable cause affidavit for the arrest. warrant for Amanda M. Hendricks. Quote, "On April 1st, 2026 at approximately. 16:30 hours, I, Zane Man, a commissioned. uniform officer with City of Broken Bow, took a walk-in report referencing an. Arby's worker spitting in a customer's. food. I met in contact with Jenica. Church who stated on March 28th, 2026, Jenica had gone in the Arby's drive-thru.

and made an order. Jenica ordered the. four for 10 sandwich meal. I was able to. contact Arby's for video footage and I. was informed I would need a search. warrant to obtain copies of the video. On April 10th, I was able to file and. serve a search warrant on April 16th. I. received a copy of footage from 2200. hours to 2300 hours the night of March. 28th. This was on April 16th. At 52. minutes and 57 seconds, Amanda is. removing meat from the slicer. Amanda.

has the meat in her hands and lifts it. to neck level and leans her head down. and you can see the saliva leave her. mouth and go into the sandwich. Amanda. continues making the other three. sandwiches and sending out the order. On. April 17th, I was able to contact Amanda. requesting an interview on April 18th. and she agreed to meet at the Broken Bow. Police Department. On April 18th, Amanda. called the Police Department and stated. to me that she was unable to make the. interview due to not having. transportation. While speaking with. Amanda, she made the utterance that I.

have the footage and she was not going. to waste my time. Yes, she did it. And. Church now claims that due to this. alleged spitting incident, she has. herpes. So, Hendricks has now been charged with. felony poisoning with intent to injure, which is my understanding carries up to. five years in prison. This is different. than what the initial suspected charges. were. But in this criminal case, my. legal perspective is. evidence seems arguably strong. Now, unless a defense attorney can get the. surveillance footage thrown out by.

arguing that the search warrant was. defective, that it was based on false. information, that it contained. misstatements, or that the officer. lacked sufficient probable cause that a. crime was committed to justify the. warrant. If that doesn't happen, if none. of that works, and the surveillance. footage comes in, and it is basically. how it's described, it's devastating. Now, I haven't seen. the footage myself. Do you actually see. a spitting incident? I mean, possibly. based on this description. But also, if. you have this alleged confession, if I'm. reading this correctly, that's going to. be problematic, too. Now, I don't know.

if a defense attorney will argue that, yes, she spit in the food, but she had. no intent to injure based on the. statute, based on the crime, no intent. to allegedly give herpes. And assuming. the spitting incident did give Church. herpes, that's an interesting connective. tissue. I want to explore that a little. bit more in the civil case section, but. does become an interesting point there, right? Knowledge. I mean, did she have. herpes, and did she deliberately spit in. the food knowing she had herpes? That's. going to be a key component. Because you. need that connective tissue.

Now, our understanding is that Hendricks. was arrested on Sunday, and she was. booked into the local jail. Why would. 38-year-old Amanda Hendricks do this? Well, reportedly, Church said that she. and Hendricks have a little history. Wasn't entirely clear what it was, hasn't been fully explained, but Church. reportedly said it was nothing major. According to 2 News Oklahoma, Church. said it was taking a little bit of time, meaning when she placed the order, and. she goes, "I thought that they were mad. at me because it was about to close,". meaning the restaurant was about to. close. Again, according to 2 News. Oklahoma, Church claims that Hendricks.

had been bragging about spitting in. Church's food, and that Broken Bow is a. small town, and that even Church's. daughter ended up hearing about it. Jennifer Church reportedly said, "I love. Arby's, not anymore." And here's the. problem, too. She apparently shared the. sandwiches that night with her. father-in-law. and grandmother-in-law. Her. mother-in-law reportedly saying, "My son. was sitting at my table eating breakfast. and he wanted a kiss and he cannot get. one. So, you bet I'm angry. I see what. it's doing to my grandchildren, my son,

my husband. I don't want to kiss my. husband. He ate the food. Because he. hasn't had an outbreak it doesn't mean. he doesn't have it." So, now we have the. civil lawsuit. This is a lawsuit filed. by Jannica Church and her family. including her husband, including her. children and it is against Arby's of. Broken Bow, ARBI ARC Restaurants LLC and. Flynn Restaurant Group LP which are. defined as the entities that either. owned, controlled or operated that local. Arby's restaurant. And also it's against. Hendricks as well, okay? But really the. big money you are going after the.

entities. That's the purpose of this. lawsuit. I want to read to you the. statement of facts in the complaint and. then we're going to talk about the. claims, the causes of action that. they're suing for. So, the complaint states that on March. 28th, 2026 Jannica went to the. drive-thru at this local Arby's in. Broken Bow. That she had just finished. working a long shift. Local reporting. suggests that she was bartending. She. went to pick up the food and the. complaint lays out that Hendricks was an. employee. She was responsible for. preparing the food and as you'll see. that is what attaches liability to the.

company, right? An employee allegedly. commits a tort, a wrongful act while in. the scope of their employment. And the. complaint alleged that Hendricks. intentionally and deliberately spit on. the food. So, they're saying this is not. an accident, right? Nothing like that. Intentional, deliberate. Moreover, the complaint claims that. Hendricks knew she had herpes, HSV1. How? The complaint claims that at the. time this happened Hendricks had a. herpes outbreak with visible lesions.

So, the idea is she allegedly. contaminated the food with her herpes. Complaint referenced the surveillance. footage that I mentioned before as well. But here's what allegedly happened after. the food was prepared and handed over. I'm going to read you verbatim. Quote, "Plaintiff Jenica Church ate one. sandwich from the order as she pulled. out of the parking lot. Plaintiff Jenica. Church then drove home. When Plaintiff. Jenica Church arrived home, she shared. the remaining food from the Arby's order. with Plaintiff Steven Dollarhide and his. mother. Plaintiff Steven Dollarhide.

consumed food from the contaminated. order. Steven Dollarhide's mother, who. was on hospice care, also consumed food. from the contaminated order. None of the. plaintiffs who consumed the food had any. knowledge that it had been contaminated. with Defendant Hendrick's HSV-1 infected. saliva. None of the plaintiffs who. consumed the food consented to consuming. food contaminated with bodily fluids or. HSV-1 infected saliva. Prior to March. 28th, 2026, Plaintiff Jenica Church did. not have HSV-1. Prior to the incident,

Plaintiff Jenica Church had never tested. positive for HSV-1. Prior to the. incident, Plaintiff Jenica Church had. never experienced any symptoms of HSV-1, including cold sores, lesions, or oral. herpes outbreaks. Prior to the incident, Plaintiff Jenica Church had no history. of HSV-1 infection. It goes on to say, quote, "After consuming the contaminated. food on March 28th, 2026, Plaintiff. Jenica Church developed symptoms of. HSV-1 infection. Plaintiff Jenica Church. developed a lesion or cold sore on her. lip following consumption of the.

contaminated food. Plaintiff Jenica. Church sought medical evaluation and. treatment from Dr. Herron. Plaintiff. Jenica Church was tested for HSV-1. Plaintiff Jenica Church tested positive. for HSV-1 following the incident. The. HSV-1 diagnosis was confirmed through. medical testing. Plaintiff Jenica Church. obtained medication from Palace Drugs to. treat the HSV-1 infection. Since. contracting HSV-1 from the contaminated. food, Plaintiff Jenica Church has. experienced multiple documented. outbreaks of oral herpes. These.

outbreaks have included painful lesions, cold sores, and other symptoms. associated with HSV-1. The outbreaks. have been triggered by stress and have. occurred on multiple occasions. Each. outbreak causes plaintiff Genica Church. physical pain, discomfort, visible. lesions. HSV1 is an incurable virus that. will remain in plaintiff Genica Church's. body for the rest of her life. Number of. things we got to establish here. So, first of all, this establishes or is. trying to establish the connection. between the contaminated food and the. herpes, right? Because defense counsel.

would attack that. How do you know you. didn't get herpes from something else or. someone else? This is going to be an. examination of Genica's life, her. lifestyle, her medical history. If she. can confirm the diagnosis and the. treatment, and it seems like it might be. memorialized, especially since you read. this complaint and has the detailed. names and locations and the addresses of. the medical providers, that is going to. be a major part of this case. That's. going to be a major piece of evidence to. document that. But again, she's going to. have to establish that she never had. this in the past and that there's no.

other cause that applies. But also, I. mean, my gosh, does this establish the. harm component that's necessary in civil. actions, right? I mean, one of the. things you have to establish is what's. your harm? What did you suffer? What was. done to you? So important for a damages. calculation. And I got to say, is that going to be a stretch for the. jury? You tell a jury that someone spat. on your food and gave you herpes, I think they're going to be able to. understand and appreciate the trauma of. that. Now, still there's a case that has. to be proven, but in terms of the harm. component, I think that's probably going.

to be easy to assess. Now, I'll even. say, herpes aside, the mere allegation. of someone spitting into your food is. disgusting enough to warrant probably. damages. Again, these are just. allegations, but let me expand on that. The complaint reads, quote, "Plaintiff. Genica Church will continue to. experience periodic outbreaks of HSV1. for the remainder of her life. Since. contracting HSV1, plaintiff Genica. Church has suffered debilitating fear. and anxiety about transmitting the virus. to her family members, children, and. friends. Plaintiff Genica Church lives.

in constant fear that she will transmit. HSV1 to her husband Jason Dollarhide. Plaintiff Genica Church lives in. constant fear that she will transmit. HSV1 to her minor children S.J.M.D. and. G.A.M.D. Plaintiff Genica Church lives. in constant fear that she will transmit. HSV1 to other family members and. friends. This fear and anxiety have. taken over Plaintiff Genica Church's. life. The fear and anxiety have caused. Plaintiff Genica Church to avoid. physical contact with her loved ones. including kissing and hugging your.

children. The fear and anxiety have. caused Plaintiff Genica Church to avoid. intimate contact with her husband. The. fear and anxiety have severely impaired. Plaintiff Genica Church's quality of. life and ability to enjoy normal family. relationships. The fear and anxiety have. caused Plaintiff Genica Church severe. emotional distress, mental anguish, and. psychological suffering. Plaintiff. Genica Church has required and will. continue to require medical treatment, counseling, and therapy to address the. physical and psychological effects of. the HSV1 infection and the alleged harm. suffered by Stephen is laid out as well.

in the complaint. But from there, this. document, this complaint claims that. Patricia contacted the companies, so the. defendants here, and that a rep claimed. we'll review the surveillance footage. But the complaint alleges that rep never. did it and didn't get back to Patricia. Apparently, there was a follow-up. contact, at least according to this. complaint, and the rep allegedly lied to. Patricia about watching the video and. claimed the food was safe and not. contaminated. The complaint alleges this. was done to avoid liability, to ensure.

the family didn't pursue the matter. legally, and furthermore, there's an. allegation that the representatives. called the plaintiff's home multiple. times and offered limited money to not. go forward with anything, namely free. sandwiches and $5. That this was. allegedly reckless and intentional. conduct, that it's a form of harassment. Now, one thing I'll say is how do you. prove the contents of that conversation? It's not going to be a recorded. conversation unless I don't know, maybe. [clears throat] it was on a recorded. line. You know, you call somebody do. they call a business to say it's a. recorded line, maybe. Not sure if. anything was memorialized in an email,

but if it's only a phone call, there's. no recording, you're probably going to. have different accounts of that. conversation, right? But again, you go. back to the harm, you go back to what. the damages are. The allegation is is. that they suffered severe emotional. distress, anxiety, mental anguish, psychological injury, loss of. consortium. That's an interesting one. that was thrown in there, where you lose. some benefits of a relationship because. a harm occurred. I'm going to get into. that a little bit more. But look, the. way you get the companies on the hook, the argument is is that the entities. failed to inspect the food. They failed. to do proper background checks. They.

failed to provide adequate training. They failed to discipline or fire. Hendrix. That they didn't set up. policies or procedures to prevent. something like this from happening, contamination, alleged contamination. And that it was these failures that. caused what happened. Now, yes, from a. legal point of view, if an employee. deliberately contaminates a customer's. food, it puts the company in a tough. position, for sure. Counter argument. would be, "Look, we don't have a crystal. ball. We did everything right. We. followed every procedure. We had no. reason to believe that she would ever do.

something like this." Again, assuming. the allegations are true. And I imagine. an argument could be that she never did. this to anyone in the past. You can't. prove that. Although, there is a part in. the complaint that says, quote, "Upon. information and belief, defendant. Hendrix has been reckless or intentional. in contaminating food for other guests. at the Arby's restaurant. Upon. information and belief, defendant. Hendrix has engaged in a pattern or. practice of contaminating food served to. customers. Upon information and belief, the entity defendants knew or should. have known of defendant Hendrix's. propensity to contaminate food and. failed to take appropriate action to.

prevent such conduct." And there's also. this part, quote, "The filing of. criminal charges against defendant. Hendrix confirms the intentional and. criminal nature of her conduct." So. look, the result of a criminal case. won't necessarily have a direct impact. on the civil case. Sometimes you could. have a not guilty verdict and a some a. finding of liability in a civil case, maybe even vice versa. I say that. because the standard of proof is. different, right? The civil case uses a. lower standard of proof. It's not beyond. a reasonable doubt. It's usually a. preponderance of the evidence, more.

likely than not something happened. But. nonetheless, a conviction or acquittal. at trial could dictate the strategy for. a defense attorney in a civil case. But. it also has another component that I. want to get into. So, what are they. suing for? Let's get into the counts. Let's get into the causes of action. Count one, battery. So, this is Jenica. Church and Steven Dollarhide against. Amanda Hendricks. So, the argument here. is that Hendricks caused harmful or. offensive contact to these people by. intentionally spitting in their food.

That's the allegation. He knew about the. herpes. They had no knowledge of this. They had no consent. They suffered. injury, emotional distress, fear, outbreaks. And there's the causation. element that you have in personal injury. cases. That as a result of the alleged. battery, Jenica and Steven have been. injured or harmed. Count two, intentional infliction of. emotional distress. Again, this is. Jenica Church and Steven Dollarhide. against Amanda Hendricks. The argument. here is that what Hendricks allegedly. did was extreme and outrageous. That it.

exceeds all bounds of decency. Which by. the way, you stop right there. If the. allegation is true, spitting into somebody's food, giving them herpes, I think it would classify as that. And. remember, in a complaint, you don't have. to prove everything. You just have to. say your allegations support. those counts. I would make the argument. that the allegation of someone spitting. in your food with herpes and you getting. herpes, that can qualify for extreme and. outrageous conduct and intentional.

infliction of emotional distress. The. extreme emotional distress component is. fear, anxiety over transmitting this to. others, mental anguish, shock, humiliation, psychological suffering. I'll say this again, when I see this. count thrown in a lawsuit, sometimes I'm. skeptical. Like, it could be hard to. establish that even if you accept. everything as true, what the plaintiff. is claiming and what they say happened. to them, is that really intentional? Is. that really emotional distress? Here I. go back to this prior point. If all of. this is true, realizing someone spat. your food and gave you herpes when you.

were not expecting this at all, completely changed your life. Again, I. know it's an allegation, but I can see. a claim like this definitely making. sense and definitely being allowed to. move forward. Count three, negligence. So, this is Jenica Church and Steven. Dollarhide again against Amanda Hendrix. Negligence, four elements. Duty, breach, causation, harm. Argument. here, Hendrix as an employee had a duty. of care to them, a duty to use. reasonable care in preparing the food, that she allegedly breached that duty,

she failed to do that, what she. allegedly did cause them harm, and we. went over what that harm is or what that. harm is argued to be. Count four, negligence per se. So again, Jenica. Church, Steven Dollarhide against. Hendrix. Slightly different, this is. almost automatic negligence. The. argument would be that allegedly the. criminal violation, that the allegation. that she violated a criminal statute. means that Hendrix engaged in automatic. negligence. You're automatically.

considered to have breached that duty. It is negligence as a matter of law. Count five, products liability strict. liability. Jenica Church against all of. the corporate entities. So here the. argument is is that the entity sold food. products, sandwiches, and these products. were defective because they were. contaminated. Products that were in the. entity's control. It's an interesting. claim and it means strict liability is. you're automatically liable if there's a. problem with the product. We always. think of this when there's a defective.

product in like an assembly line that. comes out of a factory. And yes, those. are cases where something gets. contaminated, whether it's by on purpose. or by negligence, what have you. I mean, the company could be on the hook. But. here you're kind of dealing with the. same thing, right? You're dealing with. alleged contamination and kind of like. an assembly line. It's the food. preparation process and the allegation. is that it was done intentionally. That's the allegation. Count six, negligent infliction of emotional. distress. This is Stephen Dollarhide. against all the defendants. Similar to. what we discussed before, but the. argument here is that the defendants had.

a duty of care to provide a customer. like Stephen Dollarhide with food that. was safe to eat, that they breached that. duty, suffered emotional distress. Count. seven, negligent infliction of emotional. distress. This is Patricia Dollarhide. against all the defendants. Same kind of. thing. Count eight, respondeat superior. vicarious liability. So this is all of. the plaintiffs against all the corporate. defendants. Now I want to address this. one. Kind of mentioned it before. It's. very important part of major lawsuits. The actions of the employee can be.

imputed to the employer. So here they. argue that Arby's, the company, employed. Hendricks, that she allegedly committed. the battery, intentional infliction of. emotional distress, negligence within. the course and scope of her employment. That's key. It's not like you have a. person that works for a company and then. after work goes to a bar and punches. someone. Can't hold the company liable. for that. They were not doing their job, they were not trying to fulfill their. function, it was off premises. That's. not what's happened. These allegations. are very different. That she allegedly. contaminated the food while working at.

this location, at this business, during. business hours. So the entities would. potentially be liable for the alleged. actions of their employee, their agent, Hendricks. Count nine, negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. All plaintiffs against all the corporate. defendants. Talked about this a little. bit before. The entities have a duty to. properly hire, retain, supervise, train. their staff in food preparation and. sanitation to prevent food. contamination. The argument is is that.

they didn't properly screen Hendricks, they didn't provide her with proper. safety training, they didn't properly. enforce policies to prevent. contamination, they didn't supervise. her. They didn't monitor her. Count 10, negligence all the plaintiffs. against all the corporate defendants. We. already kind of talked about that one. before. Count 11, loss of consortium. Okay, Jason Dollarhide against all the. defense. So the argument is Jason and. Jenica are married. However, because. Jenica allegedly contracted herpes, she. has suffered emotionally,

psychologically, and that has negatively. affected the relationship. He's lost. society, companionship, affection, comfort, assistance from his wife, physical intimacy that he's lost the. benefits of marriage. Count 12, loss of consortium again. This. is one of the children S.J.M.D. against all the defendants. So this is. Jason and Jenica's child. Again, claims. the loss of his mother's companionship, society, comfort, affection that Jenica. has avoided physical contact with her.

child because of the herpes, does not. want to transmit. You have another. count, the next one, count 13, loss of. consortium for the other child. Count. 14, loss of consortium. This is Patricia. Dollarhide against all the defendants. Because Patricia is married to Steven. Other family members, same idea. And. then the last count is punitive damages. This is as to all defendants for all the. plaintiffs. Punitive damages, punishment. damages that the defendants conduct was. really bad, willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, justifying an award of.

punitive damages. This is not just about. alleged spitting. It is about failing to. prevent it, and then allegedly making an. offer so small that it would sweep the. allegations under the rug. And again, looking at what Hendricks is accused of. doing, again, extreme, outrageous. alleged conduct and behavior. By the. way, punitive damages, which in. traditional cases, you know, can be. quite costly, they're reserved for. really, really bad, outrageous conduct. They're also seeking compensatory. damages. So these are damages to make. you whole again. And this is for. economic losses, such as medical.

expenses, for and suffering, mental anguish, for loss of consortium, which we talked about before, and. they're also seeking a jury trial. Now, according to two news Oklahoma, Church. had said, "Jenica, if I go out to eat. and see someone with a big thing on. their face, I don't want them serving me. food." Kind of goes into the idea about. how our life is different now. The. family attorney, Will Block, or said, quote, "They let it go all the way out. the door and my client now has a. communicable disease. That has to be a.

culture deeper than Arby's in Broken. Bow, Oklahoma. Maybe it's Flynn. Restaurant Group and all 300 stores they. own. I don't know, but we're going to. find out." When I hear that, I wonder, is this a class action? Are going to. have more similarly situated plaintiffs. who experienced the same kind of thing? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But. apparently, this outlet did reach out to. Arby's for comment. They have not heard. back yet at the time of this recording. Really, really, uh, unfortunate case, to. say the least. That's all we have for. you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you. so much for joining us, and as always,

please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcasts, Spotify, [music] wherever you. get your podcasts. You can also check us. out on NBC's Peacock, as well. If you. want to follow me, X, Instagram, my. NewsNation show, Jessica Webb Live, Monday through Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.