A late-night stop at an Arby’s drive-thru in Broken Bow, Oklahoma, has now become the center of a disturbing criminal case and civil lawsuit involving a former restaurant manager, an alleged act of food contamination, and a customer who says she was later diagnosed with oral herpes. The case has drawn national attention because it touches one of the most basic promises in fast food: when we hand over money at a drive-thru window, we expect the food to be safe, untouched, and prepared with basic human decency.
According to court filings and local reporting, Jennica Church says she stopped at the Arby’s in Broken Bow on March 28, 2026, after a late shift as a bartender. She ordered roast beef sandwiches for herself and her family. The lawsuit claims Amanda Hendricks, then a manager at the restaurant, spat on sandwich components while preparing the order and did so while allegedly having an active oral herpes outbreak.
Hendricks has been charged with felony poisoning of food with intent to injure. Church and her family have also filed a civil lawsuit naming Hendricks, Arby’s of Broken Bow, RB ARK Restaurants, LLC, and Flynn Restaurant Group, LP as defendants. The allegations remain subject to the court process, but the details already reported from police and court documents have turned a small-town fast-food order into a larger story about food safety, workplace supervision, customer trust, and corporate responsibility.
The Broken Bow Arby’s Drive-Thru Order That Sparked the Case
The incident allegedly began with something ordinary: a customer pulling into a drive-thru near closing time.
Church, a mother from McCurtain County, reportedly stopped at the Arby’s after work and ordered multiple roast beef sandwiches. She later said the order seemed to be taking longer than expected and wondered whether workers were annoyed because the restaurant was close to closing. That detail matters because the lawsuit frames the alleged contamination as intentional rather than accidental.
According to the civil petition, Hendricks was responsible for preparing the Church’s food. The lawsuit alleges Hendricks intentionally spat on the meat or sandwich components before the order was handed to Church through the drive-thru. Church then allegedly ate one sandwich while leaving the parking lot and brought the rest home, where family members also ate it.
What began as a cheap late-night meal quickly became, according to the lawsuit, a health scare inside the family home.
Surveillance Footage Became the Center of the Police Investigation
The criminal case appears to hinge on surveillance footage and statements tied to the restaurant.
According to reports citing police records, Broken Bow investigators obtained camera footage from the Arby’s after receiving information that a worker had allegedly spat into a customer’s food. The affidavit reportedly describes Hendricks handling meat from the slicer, lifting it, leaning her head downward, and saliva appearing to fall into the sandwich.
That alleged video evidence moved the case beyond rumor. It gave police a visual record to review and became the foundation for the felony poisoning charge.
Food contamination cases often depend on difficult proof. A customer may feel sick after eating at a restaurant, but linking symptoms to a specific meal, employee, or action can be challenging. In this case, the alleged surveillance footage is a major reason the story has gained traction. We are not only looking at a customer’s claim that something happened behind the counter. We are looking at a case where police reportedly reviewed footage and concluded that the act occurred.
Hendricks was later arrested and booked into the McCurtain County Jail on a felony charge of poisoning food with intent to injure. The criminal case will determine whether prosecutors can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Herpes Diagnosis Claim at the Heart of the Lawsuit
The civil lawsuit goes further than the criminal charge. It claims Church later developed symptoms, including a lesion or cold sore on her lip, sought medical care, and tested positive for HSV-1, commonly known as oral herpes.
HSV-1 is a common virus often associated with cold sores. It can spread through contact with saliva, sores, or skin surfaces around the mouth. The lawsuit alleges Hendricks knew she had HSV-1 and was experiencing an active outbreak with visible lesions when she prepared the food.
That allegation is central because it raises two separate questions.
The first is whether Hendricks intentionally contaminated the food. Police and prosecutors are handling that side through the criminal case.
The second is whether the alleged contamination caused Church’s HSV-1 diagnosis. That issue will likely be a key battleground in the civil lawsuit. HSV-1 is widespread, can remain dormant, and can be difficult to trace to a single exposure without medical and factual evidence. The lawsuit argues the timing, the alleged spit, and Church’s reported symptoms support her claim. The defense may challenge causation, timing, prior exposure, or medical certainty.
For readers, the important point is this: the lawsuit does not simply accuse a fast-food worker of disgusting behavior. It claims that the alleged behavior caused a permanent viral infection and emotional trauma that changed the way the family interacts.
How One Meal Allegedly Reached an Entire Family
Church’s lawsuit says the order did not stop with her. After she ate one sandwich, the remaining food was brought home and shared with relatives, including family members who were medically vulnerable.
That detail widens the emotional impact. A contaminated meal is frightening enough when one person eats it. It becomes more alarming when the food is placed on a family table, passed around, and consumed before anyone knows what may have happened behind the counter.
Family members have described fear, anger, and anxiety after learning what allegedly occurred. The lawsuit claims the incident affected ordinary expressions of affection, including kissing children or a spouse. In that sense, the alleged harm is not only medical. It is domestic. It moved from a restaurant kitchen into the private routines of family life.
This is why the story has struck such a nerve. Many food safety stories involve bacteria, dirty kitchens, or accidental mishandling. This case is different because the alleged contamination was personal, intentional, and tied to a visible act of bodily fluid entering food.
Why the Arby’s Herpes Lawsuit Raises Bigger Food Safety Questions
The case also raises a larger question for restaurants: what systems are in place when an employee is angry, sick, careless, or unsafe?
Fast-food restaurants run on speed. Workers are expected to move orders quickly, manage pressure, handle impatient customers, clean equipment, and close the store. But speed cannot replace control. Every restaurant depends on basic safeguards: trained managers, functioning cameras, food-handling rules, employee illness policies, and a workplace culture where other employees feel safe reporting misconduct.
The lawsuit alleges that Arby’s operators allowed Hendricks to work despite visible symptoms. It also claims there were failures in oversight and response. Those allegations have not yet been proven, but they point to a broader issue in the restaurant industry. Food safety is not only about temperature logs and gloves. It is also about supervision, accountability, and managers’ responses when something goes wrong.
When customers use a drive-thru, they see only a small part of the process. They see the menu board, the payment window, and the bag. They do not see the slicer, the prep table, the employee’s mood, the health condition of the person handling the food, or the manager’s decisions in the final minutes before closing. Trust fills that gap.
This case damaged that trust in a way that feels personal to many readers.
Corporate Liability and the Questions Facing Arby’s Operators
The lawsuit names more than Hendricks. It also names the local Arby’s operation and affiliated restaurant groups. That matters because civil lawsuits often ask whether a company failed to prevent harm, failed to supervise employees, failed to enforce safety policies, or failed to respond properly after learning of a problem.
For a brand, the reputational damage can move faster than the court process. The public does not wait for discovery, depositions, or trial dates before forming an opinion. Once a story involves a drive-thru, spit, a herpes allegation, and surveillance footage, it becomes the kind of case people remember every time they unwrap a sandwich.
Still, we should be precise. Arby’s corporate ownership, local franchise control, and restaurant group responsibilities may become important legal distinctions. A national brand can face public backlash even when a local operator controls daily staffing. A franchise group can face scrutiny over policies, training, and oversight. A former manager can face individual criminal liability.
The lawsuit will have to sort out who had control, who knew what, what policies existed, and whether those policies were followed.
The Legal Road Ahead for Amanda Hendricks and the Civil Lawsuit
The criminal charge against Hendricks is serious. Food poisoning with intent to injure suggests prosecutors believe the alleged act was deliberate and harmful. A felony charge can carry severe consequences if the defendant is convicted.
The civil lawsuit has a different purpose. It seeks damages for alleged injuries, including medical costs, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and broader family harm. The civil case does not require the same burden of proof as a criminal prosecution, but it still requires evidence.
Several issues may shape the case:
- Whether the surveillance footage clearly shows the alleged act
- Whether Hendricks knew she had HSV-1 at the time
- Whether she had visible lesions or an active outbreak
- Whether Church’s HSV-1 diagnosis can be medically connected to the food
- Whether the restaurant operators had notice of risk
- Whether employees or managers responded appropriately after the allegation surfaced
The lawsuit’s most difficult question may be medical causation. HSV-1 is common, and many people carry it without knowing. But the lawsuit’s strongest emotional argument is the alleged sequence: a customer orders food, a worker is accused of spitting into it, the customer eats it, symptoms appear, and a positive test follows.
That timeline is powerful. Whether it is legally sufficient will be determined by the evidence.
