Who's in Control Here? California's Supreme Court Establishes New Standards for Potential Franchisor Liability for Employee Tort Claims

by Littler

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 alleged tortious conduct by the franchisee's employee. In a 4-3 decision, the court held that a franchisor becomes potentially liable for the actions of a franchisee's employees only if the franchisor: 

… has retained or assumed a general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of the franchisee's employees.  

The court determined that the plaintiff's evidence presented in opposition to the franchisor's motion for summary judgment in the trial court did not establish the required amount of control by the franchisor.  On that basis, the court found in favor of the franchisor.  This resulted in the reversal of the court of appeal's decision that overturned the trial court's grant of summary judgment in the franchisor's favor (restoring the summary judgment for the franchisor).

Events Leading up to the Supreme Court's Decision

The plaintiff, an employee of a Domino's Pizza franchise (or "franchisee"), alleged she was sexually harassed and assaulted by the franchise's assistant manager.  After resigning from her job, the plaintiff sued the assistant manager, the franchise, and Domino's Pizza, LLC (the "franchisor") –the latter as one of her employers. Early in the ligation, the franchise filed for bankruptcy protection, leaving the franchisor as the only "deep-pocket" defendant. 

During discovery, the franchise owner testified he, and not the franchisor, (1) hired employees to work at the restaurant (including both the plaintiff and the alleged harasser); (2) implemented his own "zero tolerance" sexual harassment policy; and (3) supervised the franchise's employees. At his deposition, the franchise owner testified that during a discussion with the franchisor's "area leader" about the alleged harasser, the area leader told the owner: "You've got to get rid of this guy [the alleged harasser]."  However, there was no evidence that the area leader ever instructed the franchise to terminate the alleged harasser.  

Before trial on the merits, the franchisor moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims should be dismissed because: (1) the franchise was an independent "owner and operator" of the restaurant under a standard franchise agreement; and (2) there was no principal-agent relationship between the franchisor and the franchise. The trial court agreed with the franchisor, concluding that the franchisor could not be vicariously liable for plaintiff's wrongful termination claims, as the franchisor was not the plaintiff's employer. 

In 2012, the intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the franchisor.  The court found sufficient triable issues of material fact about whether the franchisor exercised "substantial control" over the franchise, and that a jury could conclude the franchisor was vicariously liable on the plaintiff's employment claims. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on (1) evidence of the franchisor's day-to-day control over the franchise; and (2) what the court saw as the franchisor's significant involvement in the franchise's personnel decisions – specifically, the "get rid of this guy" comment made by the area leader to the owner.    

The California Supreme Court's Decision

The court first discussed significant differences in operation and effect between franchises and other business models.  Franchises are a "ubiquitous, lucrative, and thriving business model" that benefits both franchisor and franchisee.  While the franchisor controls the enterprise only to protect its brand and operate its franchises in a uniform way, the franchise owner implements the operational standards in its franchise on a day-to-day basis. 

The court noted that the relevant facts included the master agreement's designation of the franchise as an independent contractor, the acknowledgement by the franchise owner that he was solely responsible for the day-to-day employment decisions in his franchise, and that the franchisor provided neither training of franchise employees concerning sexual harassment (the franchise owner did that for his employees), nor a procedure by which franchise employees could contact the franchisor with sexual harassment complaints.  The franchise owner was solely responsible for investigating sexual harassment complaints, and imposing discipline if it were detected. 

The court then reviewed the primary California cases relevant to the analysis of the issue before it.  In Nichols v. Arthur Murray, Inc,1 a 1967 case against a dance studio franchise, the court concluded that the franchisor was responsible for the contractual obligations of the franchise, based on the extensive evidence of the franchisor's control of the franchise's operations.  "In particular, the franchisor retained the right to control the employment of all persons working in any capacity for the franchisee;…."  The court then observed that California appellate court decisions after Nichols have "declined to impute to franchisors the harm inflicted on the public by their franchisees." 

The court next reviewed a 1992 case, Cislaw v. Southland Corp.,2 contrasting it with the 1967 case.  The court focused in Cislaw on whether the franchisor had the right to control the means and manner in which results were achieved.  Cislaw involved a claim against both the franchise and the franchisor that the franchise's sale of clove cigarettes had caused a customer's death.  The court concluded that the evidence showed that the franchise had complete control of its inventory, was responsible for the operation of the franchise on a day-to-day basis, and made all employment decisions in the store. 

Turning to the case at hand, the court disagreed with the plaintiff's contention that the degree of control exercised by the franchisor made it an agent for all business purposes, and rendered each franchise employee an employee of the franchisor by vicarious liability.  It stated that a franchisor's comprehensive operating system alone does not constitute the control needed to support vicarious liability claims such as the plaintiff's.  A franchisor becomes potentially liable for the franchise's employees' actions only if the franchisor has retained or assumed a general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of the franchise's employees.  Uniform workplace standards are not enough, standing alone, to impose "employer" or "principal" liability on the franchisor.  The franchisor had no right or duty to control employment or personnel matters for its franchises.  Finally, there was no evidence that the franchise solicited the franchisor's advice or consent on any key personnel decisions, or that he was required to do so. 

The court noted also that the area leader's "get rid of this guy" comment was not accompanied by an express or implied threat, or that the franchise owner would risk any sanction if the alleged harasser's employment was not terminated. 

In its conclusion, the court emphasized that it did not mean to imply that franchisors can never be held accountable for sexual harassment at a franchised location:  

A franchisor will be liable if it has retained or assumed the right of general control over the relevant day-to-day operations at its franchised locations that we have described, and cannot escape liability in such a case merely because it failed or declined to establish a policy with regard to that particular conduct. 


In reversing the appellate court, the California Supreme Court endorsed a position consistent with the vast majority of other courts throughout the country that have considered the liability of a franchisor for the torts or other employment law claims against a franchise. 

The decision indicates that, if the parties are clear in allocating responsibilities in a franchise agreement, courts will enforce those choices where followed in practice. 

Associated Developments

In a related national development, the issue of whether a franchisor can be considered a "joint employer" with its franchises has recently gained considerable attention due to the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel's decision to authorize several unfair labor practices complaints against individual McDonalds' franchises as well as the franchisor.3  

The California Supreme Court is not the only state governmental entity revisiting the franchisor-franchise relationship.  At this writing, California Senate Bill (SB) 610, having passed the Legislature on August 21, is on the desk of California Governor Jerry Brown.  If signed by the Governor, SB 610 will substantially readjust the current relationship between franchisors and franchises in California.  Among other changes, the bill calls for changing the legal standard required for a franchisor to terminate a franchise from "good cause" to a "substantial and material breach" by the franchise of the franchise agreement.4

1 248 Cal.App.2d 610 (1967).

2 4 Cal.App.4th 1284 (1992).

3 See Michael J. Lotito, McDonald's is not lovin' a recent NLRB ruling, Los Angeles Daily Journal (Aug. 1, 2014).

4 The term "substantial and material breach" is one that appears nowhere in California's 29 Codes or the State Constitution, and has never been interpreted in a commercial context by any California appellate court decision.

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.

© Littler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Littler 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.