A Washington district court analyzed whether franchisor Wyndham Hotels & Resorts could be held vicariously liable under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”). The plaintiff alleged she was trafficked at several hotels operated by Wyndham franchisees. The court held the plaintiff’s allegations were not sufficient to support Wyndham’s direct liability under the TVPRA, but they could support a theory of vicarious liability or joint employer liability.
The TVPRA establishes both perpetrator and beneficiary liability. Wyndham contended that the complaint failed to plausibly allege Wyndham’s actual knowledge of any trafficking (perpetrator liability) or its agreement to the venture (beneficiary liability). In holding the plaintiff failed to allege direct perpetrator or beneficiary liability, the court distinguished between the alleged knowledge of the franchisee’s hotel staff and that of Wyndham itself.
While the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that hotel staff actually knew of her trafficking, there were no specific allegations tying Wyndham to such knowledge. General knowledge of trafficking in the hotel industry, as well as general oversight and adherence to brand standards, without more, did not satisfy the TVPRA’s knowledge requirement to support direct liability.
However, Wyndham could still be held vicariously liable under the TVPRA if one assumed the allegations were true. The court emphasized that principal-agent and joint employment relationships require the franchisor to exercise substantial control over the franchisee’s day-to-day operations, particularly with respect to the specific instrumentality that caused the plaintiff’s harm.
For example, the court found the plaintiff plausibly alleged the existence of an agency relation based on the allegation that Wyndham required its franchisees to use Wyndham’s software to manage reservations, payments, and crime data.
With respect to a joint employment theory, allegations that Wyndham established detailed job descriptions, set requirements for hiring, and oversaw employee discipline and terminations, and dictated the content of training provided by franchisees to hotel staff on the subject of crime and human trafficking were sufficient to show a joint employer relationship at the pleading stage.
Also significant was the allegation that Wyndham retained sole discretion to determine whether all training had been completed satisfactorily, which gave Wyndham a functional veto over employee hires.
On the other hand, the court held that plaintiff’s allegations that Wyndham conducted regular inspections of the franchisee’s hotel and had general knowledge of sex trafficking in the hotel industry were insufficient to establish that Wyndham controlled the franchisee’s daily operations to the degree necessary.
Franchisors are often brought into civil TVPRA cases when the franchisees are judgment-proof or unable to defend themselves. Given that franchisor oversight in the hospitality sector is more interconnected with day-to-day management and operations than other franchised business formats, the law exposes hotel franchisors to heightened risk of TVPRA liability. Franchisors should evaluate their systems and consult with counsel to structure their operations with such liability considerations in mind.
Doe v. G6 Hosp. Prop. LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00347-LK (W.D. Wash. Dec. 10, 2025).
