News & Analysis as of

Employer Liability Issues › Appeals › Franchises

Fox Rothschild LLP

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Liability Finding Against Franchisor

Fox Rothschild LLP on

A recent Texas Supreme Court decision fully overturned a jury’s finding that a franchisor was liable for the criminal actions of a franchisee’s employee. This decision underscores the importance of a franchisor having clearly...more

Polsinelli

Landmark Texas Supreme Court Case Finds No “Direct Liability” for Franchisor Arising Out of Franchisee Employee’s Actions

Polsinelli on

On May 2, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a Texas Court of Appeals’ decision that had affirmed a jury’s verdict finding a franchisor directly liable to the customer of a franchisee for actions undertaken by the...more

ArentFox Schiff

Lovin' It: Ninth Circuit Rules McDonald's is Not a Joint Employer with Franchisee in California

ArentFox Schiff on

In a case that should grab the attention of franchisors across the country, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that McDonald’s Corporation is not the joint employer of the employees of a...more

ArentFox Schiff

Lovin' It: Ninth Circuit Rules McDonald's is Not a Joint Employer with Franchisee in California

ArentFox Schiff on

In a case that should grab the attention of franchisors across the country, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that McDonald’s Corporation is not the joint employer of the employees of a...more

Littler

Dynamex Retroactivity Question Sent to California State Court

Littler on

On September 24, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of California the question of whether that court’s landmark 2018 decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court should be applied...more

Littler

Highest Court in Canada Says Substance, not Form, will Determine Independent Contractor or Employee Status

Littler on

A recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision considered whether a franchisee who entered into a franchise agreement with a franchisor was an employee or an independent contractor. The fact-specific case, Modern Cleaning...more

Lewitt Hackman

Franchisor 101: Franchisor Can Be Liable as “Employer” for Missclassifying Workers

Lewitt Hackman on

The Ninth Circuit sent shockwaves through the franchise industry in ruling that last year’s California Supreme Court decision broadening who may bring wage misclassification claims (Dynamex v. Superior Court) applied...more

Polsinelli

D.C. Circuit Wrestles with Board’s Controversial Browning-Ferris Decision

Polsinelli on

On December 28, 2018, the U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “Board”) joint-employer test as articulated in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186. ...more

Littler

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Partially Upholds Obama-Era Joint Employment Standard

Littler on

On December 28, 2018, a divided Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld portions of an Obama-era standard for determining “joint employer” status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), ultimately...more

Fisher Phillips

March Misclassification Madness: Misclassification Updates in the Gig Economy

Fisher Phillips on

Many of you likely have filled out your March Madness bracket, and are eagerly watching game after game hoping your bracket doesn’t bust. The gig misclassification game is experiencing a March Madness of its own. The debate...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

NLRB Asks D.C. Circuit to Revive Review of Joint Employer Standard Under BFI; Hy-Brand Decision Vacated Following NLRB Ethics...

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

On March 1, 2018, the Deputy Associate General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) asked the D.C. Circuit to revive its review of the Obama-era Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) (“BFI”)...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Fifth Circuit Allows Title VII Suit Against Franchisor to Proceed Even Though It Was Not Named in EEOC Charge

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

In order to sue under Title VII, plaintiffs must first file an administrative charge of discrimination against their employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In many cases, the charge misnames the actual...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

California Supreme Court: Holding Franchisor Liable as Employer Depends on Level of Control Over Day-to-Day Employment Decisions

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (August 28, 2014): On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a franchisor that did not exhibit the characteristics of an “employer” was not...more

13 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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 Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide