With franchisors deeply concerned about joint liability for franchisee employees, more states are passing laws trying to prevent that from happening. Here are some states and measures that have passed:
Texas enacted Senate Bill 652, providing that: "[A] franchisor is not considered to be an employer of: (1) a franchisee; or (2) a franchisee's employees."
Michigan passed House Bills 5070 - 5073, stating: "[A]s between a franchisee and franchisor, the franchisee is considered the sole employer of workers for whom the franchisee provides a benefit plan or pays wages."
Utah passed House Bill 116, stating, "[A] franchisor is not considered to be an employer of: (i) a franchisee; or (ii) a franchisee's employee."
Wisconsin enacted Act 203 stating: "[A] franchisor ... is not considered to be an employer of a franchisee ... or of an employee of a franchisee."
Indiana approved House Bill 1218, which provides: "a franchisor ... is not considered to be an employer or co-employer of: (1) a franchisee ... or (2) an employee of a franchisee."
Georgia enacted Senate Bill 277, providing: "[N]either a franchisee nor a franchisee's employee shall be deemed to be an employee of the franchisor for any purpose."
The Virginia legislature attempted to pass House Bill 18, stating that "[N]either a franchisee nor a franchisee's employee shall be deemed to be an employee of the franchisee's franchisor." But, the governor vetoed the bill.
These state laws will not protect franchisors from all claims. For example, various claims based on federal law may not be affected. But passage shows which states are friendlier to franchises and want to retain and grow their franchise industries.