Weekly Law Resume - July 26, 2012: Independent Contractor or Agent? A Franchisor’s Actions Speak Louder Than Words

by Low, Ball & Lynch

[author: Mandy Arjmand]

Taylor Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, et al.
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (June 27, 2012)

This case raises the question: When an agreement between a Franchisor and Franchisee depicts an independent contractor relationship, if the Franchisor exercises “substantial control” over the operations of the Franchisee, can a principal-agent relationship be inferred?

California courts have concluded that while the provisions of a franchise agreement are relevant, they are not the exclusive evidence of the relationship between the franchisor and franchisee. Instead, a “totality of the circumstances” approach is applied. (Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Sealy, 43 Cal.App. 4th 1704 (1996)). “Substantial Control” is, inherently, a fine-line contention. Historically, a franchisor maintains an interest in its reputation and the method by which it is represented through its franchisee. Thus, the franchisor can exercise “certain controls” over its enterprise without running the risk of transforming the independent contractor status of the franchisee into an agent. See Cislaw v. Southland Corp., Cal.App. 4th (1992). Items that a franchisor typically controls are trademarks, products and the quality of services. However, when a franchisor assumes “substantial control” over the franchisee’s day to day operations, such as the decision to hire or fire an employee, a line is crossed. Even if the franchisor-franchisee agreement states that the franchisee is an “independent contractor,” a principal-agent relationship can be inferred based on the actions of the parties.

Taylor Patterson, a teenaged employee of a Domino’s Pizza franchise, (“Dominos”) brought suit against Domino’s Pizza, LLC, Sui Juris, a Domino’s franchisee, and Renee Miranda, the assistant manager at the restaurant. Ms. Patterson alleged sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation for exercise of rights, infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, and constructive wrongful termination. She claimed that Sui Juris, the Franchisee, and Domino’s, were Miranda’s employers and thus were vicariously liable through the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

In their motion for summary judgment, Domino’s argued that Sui Juris was an independent contractor pursuant to the written franchise agreement, and that there was no principal-agency relationship between Domino’s and Sui Juris. Domino’s strongest contention was that it played no part in the “hiring, supervision, or training” of any Sui Juris employees, including Miranda.

In granting Domino’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court relied primarily on the franchise agreement between Domino’s and Sui Juris, which provides that Sui Juris was responsible for “supervising and paying persons who work in the Store.” The trial court further argued that no questions of fact remained as Domino’s did not play a role in Sui Juris’ employment decisions.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeal pointed to the deposition testimony of Daniel Poff, the Sui Juris owner, in which Mr. Poff testified that a Domino’s “area leader” Claudia Lee ordered him to fire Miranda. Interestingly, Mr. Poff further testified that he had to comply with the wishes of Domino’s area leaders; otherwise he would be out of business “very quickly.” Ms. Lee also instructed that Mr. Poff fire another employee who was deficient in handling bags. Domino’s even went so far as to send undercover shoppers to the franchise to determine quality controls, and constantly sent inspectors to verify compliance with Domino’s guidelines. Mr. Poff’s testimony painted a picture that revealed tight control over the franchisee’s day to day operations by Domino’s area leaders. This constant control by Domino’s supported a reasonable inference that there was a lack of local franchisee management independence.

According to the Court of Appeal, whether a franchisor is vicariously liable for injuries to a franchisee’s employee depends upon the “nature of the relationship.” Relying upon Cislaw, it is the right to control the “means and manner” in which the result is achieved that is significant in determining whether a principal-agency relationship exists. The critical issue, then, is substantial control over the local operations of the franchisee. The Court of Appeal found that, despite the language in the agreement that vested employment and training protocol in Sui Juris, other aspects of the agreement and Domino’s actions spoke otherwise.

Namely, the franchise agreement contained a Domino’s Manager’s Reference Guide that specified employment hiring requirements and influenced the day to day operations of the franchise in considerable detail. For example, the franchisee was required to disclose the identities of employees to Domino’s prior to operating a store. The franchisee also had to install a specific computer system designated by Domino’s to train its employees. Appearance, demeanor, dress, jewelry, and facial hair, and the method by which employees punched in and out of work were also controlled by Domino’s. The agreement went so far as to control the subject of “in store conversations,” and determined the literature allowed in the store. Relying on Miller v. McDonalds Corp., Or.Ct.App. (1997), the Court of Appeal held that a manual describing how a franchisee must carry out its business in “considerable detail” supports a claim of agency.”

Finally, the Court of Appeal noted that the trial court inappropriately applied a negligence standard. Since Miranda was the Restaurant Manager and Patterson’s immediate supervisor, and considering Patterson’s minor status as a sixteen-year-old, a strict liability standard should have been applied. As stated by the Supreme Court, “Under FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for all acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor.” See State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 4th 1026 (2003).


In determining whether an independent contractor or agent-principal relationship exists between a Franchisor and Franchisee, Courts will apply a “totality of the circumstances” approach and examine, in detail, the level of control a Franchisor exerts over the training, hiring, supervising, and methods by which employees perform their duties. Agreements alone will be relevant, but not conclusive.

For a copy of the complete decision see:



Written by:

Low, Ball & Lynch

Low, Ball & Lynch on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.