In the wake of California’s enactment of Assembly Bill (AB) 5—legislation that threatens to reclassify 2 million California independent contractors as “employees” under California labor and employment laws—legal questions...more
Lauded as one of the most important franchise cases in the recent past, Patterson v. Domino’s established a new standard for addressing vicarious liability issues in California. In reaching its decision that Domino’s was not...more
In a recent article published by the Franchise Law Journal, authors Mary-Christine Sungaila and Martin M. Ellison survey the current status of joint employer liability in the franchise context and the pervasive influence of...more
As joint employer liability continues to develop, plaintiffs seeking deep pockets continue to claim, with some success, that franchisors are joint employers, responsible for actions of their franchisees' employees. In April,...more
In July 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) took the unexpected step of authorizing complaints against McDonald's USA, LLC and some of its franchisees for the franchisees' responses to employee protests. The Board...more
Now more than ever, it is important to understand brand standards: why they are set; how they affect franchisors, franchisees, and customers; and what the boundaries of brand enforcement policies should be....more
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
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