Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 390: Listen and Learn -- Vicarious Liability (Torts)
Life With GDPR: Episode 41-Morrisons at the UK Supreme Court
Life With GDPR: Episode 22- Morrisons’ and vicarious liability
Potential for Vicarious Liability Under the Graves Amendment
A federal court in Ohio recently granted summary judgment in favor of multiple hotel franchisors on sex trafficking claims brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). S.C. v. Wyndham Hotels &...more
A Texas court of appeals affirmed judgment in favor of a plaintiff who claimed a franchisor was vicariously liable for a franchisee’s employee’s wrongful conduct....more
Welcome to The Franchise Memorandum by Lathrop GPM. Below are summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors. Fraud/Misrepresentation - Minnesota Federal Court Rules that Fraud and Misrepresentation...more
Welcome to The Franchise Memorandum by Lathrop GPM, formerly known as The GPMemorandum. Below are summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors. Given the widespread and evolving impact of the COVID-19...more
Welcome to The Franchise Memorandum by Lathrop GPM, formerly known as The GPMemorandum. Since December 1997, The GPMemorandum has been presenting summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors and companies...more
Structuring a franchise to reduce risk of joint employment and vicarious liability means limiting a franchisor's control over franchisees. This is a challenge in a professional services franchise, where the brand is...more
Another case has been decided adding to the back and forth in the legal world on the issues of a joint employer relationship of a franchisor and its franchisee and vicarious liability and agency between a franchisor and...more
A franchisor's investment in brand standards, protection and control often comes at a cost when a consumer believing or claiming to believe the franchisor and franchisee are the same, seeks to hold a franchisor liable for a...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
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
The U.S. Department of Labor says McDonald's is liable for actions of franchisees. In the last three months a California federal court said McDonald's could be liable for a franchisee's alleged failure to pay overtime and...more
The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") recently published a memo finding that Canadian fast-casual restaurant franchisor Freshii is not a joint employer of its franchisee's employees. The ruling concerns unfair labor...more
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
In This Issue: - SEC Pays First Whistleblower Award to Audit and Compliance Professional - Supreme Court Allows Affordable Care Act Contraceptives Religious Exemption - EEOC Adopts New Pregnancy...more
Franchise agreement recitals declaring your franchisee to be an independent contractor, not an employee, are not dispositive! Until now, the spotlight has never shined so brightly on franchising and, specifically, on...more
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
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
In Taylor Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the California Supreme Court restricted the ability of a franchisee’s employees to sue the franchisor based on theories of vicarious liability and the theory that the franchisor was...more
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
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
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
In a move with far-reaching ramifications for all businesses that license their brands to independent contractors including franchisees, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced on July 29, 2014 that it has...more
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
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