Franchisor 101: ADA Claim Is (Not) Under Control

Lewitt Hackman

A deaf customer brought an Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”) suit against Yum! Brands, Inc. (“Yum!”), parent company of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and The Habit brands, and a franchisee. The lawsuit claimed failure to accommodate plaintiff’s drive-thru use at a KFC restaurant. The court ruled plaintiff failed to state a claim since there was no allegation that Yum! owned, leased or operated the restaurant or had day-to-day control over the franchisee’s employees and franchisee’s decision regarding accessibility technology.

The ADA prohibits restaurants from discriminating against disabled individuals. To state a claim, a plaintiff must show (1) he or she is disabled; (2) defendants own, lease, or operate a public accommodation; and (3) defendants discriminated by denying him or her a full and equal opportunity to enjoy the defendant’s services.

Yum! took issue with the second element since it did not own, lease, or operate the restaurant. The parties agreed that “operate” means put or keep in operation, control or direct the functioning, or conduct the affairs, or otherwise manage. The plaintiff argued he sufficiently pled Yum!’s operation of franchisee’s restaurant, including policies that resulted in his injuries.

The court disagreed. It found the relevant inquiry was whether the franchisor controls a franchisee’s accessibility to disabled people and concluded plaintiff’s allegations of Yum!’s “general control” were insufficient to show Yum! was an operator of its franchisee’s restaurant. The court dismissed the ADA claim against Yum!. Franchisors are often named as defendants alongside franchisees for alleged ADA violations. A franchisor’s “general control” over the franchise system and franchisees likely does not give rise to ADA liability, as shown here. Franchisors are still well-served to revisit policies, procedures, and required technology and consult with counsel to evaluate possible “specific control” over accessibility to disabilities to reduce risks of ADA liability.

Refer to: Zuchegno, v. FQSR, LLC & Yum! Brands, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-6319-FPG, 2022 WL 1214406 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2022)

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lewitt Hackman | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Lewitt Hackman
Contact
more
less

Lewitt Hackman on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide