An Oklahoma woman and her family have filed a lawsuit against Arby’s after a former manager allegedly spat in her food, infecting the customer with oral herpes. The case, rooted in a late March 2026 drive-through visit in Broken Bow, has since expanded into both a civil complaint and a criminal investigation involving allegations of intentional food contamination, emotional distress, and corporate negligence.
In a civil complaint obtained by KTSM 9 News, Jennica Church alleged that in late March, she went through the drive-thru line at an Arby’s in Broken Bow after a long night of working to get a meal for herself and her family. Her account, paired with surveillance claims and staff allegations, now forms the foundation of a case that has drawn widespread attention for its disturbing details and legal implications.
“It was taking a little bit of time,” Church told KJRH in an interview published on Friday, June 19. “I thought they were mad at me because it was about to close.” Amanda Hendricks, 38, was the manager on duty at the time, and the two women knew each other and had a history, but it was nothing major, she told the outlet.
Allegations of Intentional Contamination Inside the Restaurant
The lawsuit places direct responsibility on the manager’s role in food preparation, stating, “Hendricks was responsible for preparing food orders,” the complaint alleges.
It further escalates the claim with explicit language describing intent and action inside the kitchen environment. “Hendricks intentionally and deliberately spit on the meat or sandwich components while preparing Plaintiff Jennica Church’s order,” the lawsuit alleges. “At the time Defendant Hendricks spit on the food, she knew she had Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 (HSV-1), commonly known as oral herpes.”
The complaint also asserts that Hendricks was experiencing an active infection at the time of the incident. The lawsuit claims that the former manager “had an active herpes outbreak with visible lesions” when she allegedly spat on the food, and that she knew that the virus could be transmitted through her saliva.
These allegations, if proven in court, form the central argument that the act was not accidental but carried out with awareness of potential harm and health consequences.
A Family Meal Shared at Home and the Beginning of Health Fears
After receiving her order, Church claims she took the food home and shared it with multiple family members, including her husband, their children, and her husband’s father and grandmother, the latter “who was on hospice care and in a vulnerable medical condition,” per the complaint.
Church’s complaint also says she shared the food with her husband and their children. Soon after, Church said she noticed flare-ups on her mouth that she had never experienced before, and eventually went to see a doctor and tested positive for HSV-1, the lawsuit said.
HSV-1 is medically known as a common viral infection transmitted primarily through oral contact and saliva exposure. While many cases are mild or asymptomatic, the emotional and psychological impact of diagnosis can vary significantly depending on circumstances and the perceived source of infection.
Church connected her herpes to Hendricks because they live in a small town, and she claimed that Hendricks had been bragging to others about spitting in the food.
Surveillance Footage, Workplace Claims, and Alleged Concealment
Surveillance video from the restaurant shows Hendricks “preparing food, spitting on meat or sandwich components, and placing the contaminated food on the sandwiches,” per the lawsuit.
These claims are supported in the complaint as part of a broader narrative suggesting direct observation of the alleged act. The footage is described as a key piece of evidence in both the criminal and civil proceedings.
The case also alleges that after concerns were raised, responses from staff escalated tensions further. When confronted with the information, the lawsuit alleges staff at Arby’s attempted to cover up the truth about the footage and tried to pressure Church’s family into “accepting free sandwiches as compensation for the incident.” The complaint further states that Church’s grandmother-in-law was offered “the insulting sum of five dollars ($5.00) as compensation for the contamination of food that resulted in a permanent, incurable viral infection,” the complaint claims.
The family “has suffered severe emotional distress and anxiety as a result,” and said it has changed the way they can interact with one another.
“I see what it’s doing to my grandchildren, my son, my husband,” Church’s grandmother-in-law told the news station. “I don’t want to kiss my husband. He ate the food! Because he hasn’t had an outbreak, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have it.”
Legal Response, Criminal Charge, and Corporate Scrutiny
The family’s attorney, Will Blocker, condemned the staff who were present that evening at Arby’s in Broken Bow, claiming they knew what happened and remained silent.
“They let it go all the way out the door and my client now has a communicable disease,” he told KJRH. “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 are going to find out.”
The Church family is suing for compensatory damages, including but not limited to medical expenses and physical pain and suffering. Hendricks was charged with felony poisoning of food with intent to injure, according to the news outlet, citing an affidavit. It was not immediately clear if Hendricks is represented by an attorney.
A Case That Now Extends Beyond One Restaurant
What began as a single drive-through transaction has evolved into a legal conflict involving criminal allegations, workplace accountability, and deeply personal testimony from a family claiming long-term emotional and medical consequences.
At its center remains a contested narrative that will ultimately be decided in court, where surveillance evidence, witness testimony, and medical findings will be weighed against legal standards of intent and responsibility.
For now, the case stands as one of the more unusual and emotionally charged food safety disputes to enter the legal system in recent years, blending public health fears with courtroom scrutiny and deeply personal family testimony.
