Franchise Civil Rights Labor & Employment

Read need-to-know updates, commentary, and analysis on Franchise issues written by leading professionals.
News & Analysis as of

Franchisors Are Not Joint Employers

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) caused an earthquake in the field of franchising with the General Counsel’s announcement July 29, 2014, of complaints against McDonald’s USA, LLC....more

Oklahoma Chicken Express Franchiser to Pay $15,000 to Settle EEOC National Origin Discrimination Suit

Restaurants Exploited Class of Hispanic Cooks by Failing to Pay Overtime, Federal Agency Charged - OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. - NSC Chicken, LP, dba Chicken Express, will pay $15,000 and furnish other relief to settle a...more

Domino’s Delivers Key Ruling in Favor of Franchisors

The California Supreme Court recently issued an important victory for franchisors, finding that a franchisor does not stand in an employment or agency relationship with the franchisee and its employees for purposes of holding...more

Retailer - Fall 2014

Counting the Cost of Payroll Cards: Are they Worth it for Employers? Retailers, as well as other employers, have grown to rely on payroll cards to compensate employees who may not have bank accounts. What are the legal risks...more

California Supreme Court Overturns 2012 Domino's Decision

On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court reversed a 2012 Court of Appeal decision in Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC. The lower court held that franchise operating systems, like Domino's, deprive franchisees of the...more

Franchisor Not Liable for Sexual Harassment of Franchisee's Employee under FEHA

In Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, the California Supreme Court took on the issue of whether a franchisor is an "employer" of its franchisee's employees under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") and therefore...more

Did You Know…California Supreme Court Rules – No Franchisor Vicarious Liability

The California Supreme Court recently held in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act...more

California Employment Law Notes

Franchisor Is Not Liable For Franchisee's Alleged Sexual Harassment Of Its Employee - Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 2014 WL 4236175 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014) - Taylor Patterson was hired by Sui Juris (a franchisee...more

Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC: Franchisors Are Not Vicariously Liable as “Employers” or “Principals” for Their Franchisees’...

In a significant win for franchisors, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that although Domino’s “imposes comprehensive and meticulous standards for marketing its trademarked brand and operating its franchises in a uniform...more

Who's in Control Here? California's Supreme Court Establishes New Standards for Potential Franchisor Liability for Employee Tort...

On August 28, 2014, the Supreme Court of California, in Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, decided whether a franchisor was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims that the franchisor was vicariously liable for...more

Landmark Ruling: Franchisor Not Liable Absent Employment Related Control

On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in favor of Domino's Pizza and all business format franchisors that do business in California. In Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, ---P.3d---, 2014 WL...more

Patterson v. Domino’s: California Supreme Court Lends Important Guidance on Franchisor Liability

Taylor Patterson claimed that Domino’s, as the franchisor of thousands of pizza stores across the nation, should be held responsible for sexual harassment she experienced from a fellow employee over a two-week period when she...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - August 2014

Partial-Day Leave Deductions Lawful for Exempt Employees - A California court of appeal recently confirmed that employers may require exempt employees to use accrued leave for partial-day absences, even if shorter than...more

Top Six Frequently Asked Questions About the AODA for Franchisors and Franchisees

In Ontario, the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario has been increasingly active in pursuing enforcement actions against organizations that have not complied with their requirements under the Accessibility for Ontarians with...more

Madison Square Garden Lawsuit May Have Far-Reaching Implications For Sports Industry

Madison Square Garden Lawsuit May Have Far-Reaching Implications For Sports Industry by Anthony Caruso on September 25, 2013 Several entertainment companies have been hit with lawsuits lately from unpaid interns...more

Focused on Franchise Law - September 2013

FRANCHISOR 101: FRANCHISOR NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF FRANCHISEE'S MANAGERS - Cortland, a former bartender, sued GECP-Sunrise, LLC, a Buffalo Wild Wings franchisee, and its franchisor, Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., claiming...more

Six Lessons for Franchisors on Avoiding Liability Under Title VII

Restaurant franchisor Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (BWW) and Buffalo Wild Wings International Inc. were sued in Arizona's federal district court on charges of Title VII violations....more

Oh Thank Heaven – The Saga Of 7-Eleven And Franchising Under The FCPA

Earlier this week, Jim McGrath, writing in his Internal Investigations Blog, posted a blog entitled “Human Trafficking Concerns for 7-Eleven in Wake of Payroll Scam”....more

Carrols Corp. To Pay $2.5 Million to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

89 Women To Benefit From Settlement With World's Largest Burger King Franchisee - NEW YORK - Carrols Corporation, the world's largest Burger King franchisee, will pay $2.5 million and take significant remedial steps to...more

Recent Court of Appeal Case Reiterates the Importance of Understanding the Dangers of Exercising Too Much Control Over Independent...

Earlier this month, the California Court of Appeal found a franchisor liable for the sexual harassment by the employee of a franchisee. In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the Court of Appeal held Domino’s Pizza liable for...more

California Employment Law Notes - May 2012

In This Issue: - Employers Need Only Provide (Not Ensure) Meal And Rest Breaks Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012) - Employees Did Not Violate Federal Statute By Misappropriating...more

21 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1

Follow Franchise Updates on: