3 Key Takeaways | Is Franchising Doomed? The 2024 Version
Is Franchising Doomed?
II-27 - Our 1st Anniversary Special: Bringing Back Our Inaugural Guest to Discuss What Was and What Will Still Be With President Trump
Employment Law This Week: Break Pay, Misclassification of Franchisees, California Computer Professional Exemption, Non-Compete Payment
On September 5, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruled in Patel v. 7-Eleven that 7-Eleven franchisees are not employees of the franchisor under the independent contractor statute. The SJC looked beyond...more
In the ever-evolving landscape of employment law, a recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) opinion, Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., has shed light on a critical question: When is a franchisee considered an employee of the...more
On September 5, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) held that 7-Eleven franchisees operating in a “typical” franchisor-franchisee relationship were independent contractors and not “employees” of 7-Eleven,...more
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Court the question of whether franchisee plaintiffs in an ongoing case pass the threshold inquiry under the state’s three-prong employee...more
The Federal Government recently introduced the latest in a series of workplace reforms into Federal Parliament. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 (the Bill), proposes further amendments to the...more
A federal court in Maine granted a franchisor’s motion to dismiss claims asserting that a franchisor was liable for its franchisee’s alleged age discrimination in employment. Goodwill v. Anywhere Real Est., 2023 WL 4034372...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a decision that a group of franchisees are not employees of their franchisor, even though the trial court failed to apply the correct test. Haitayan v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2022...more
A federal court recently ruled that 7-Eleven franchise owners are not employees of the franchisor, the latest development in a long-running legal saga challenging their status as independent contractors. However, this...more
Over the last several years, business-to-business “no-hire” and “no-poach” agreements have come under legal attack, including through enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission and criminal prosecutions by the...more
When a company issues franchises, and the workers (in this case janitors) claim they are not independent contractors and sue the franchise company, can that “relationship” be posited as a defense?...more
On March 24, 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) determined that the Massachusetts independent contractor statute (G. L. c. 149, § 148B) applies within the franchisor-franchisee context and does not...more
Patel v. 7-Eleven, a case in Massachusetts, has been closely watched since the ABC test took hold of franchise relationships in employee misclassification cases across the country. A putative class of 7-Eleven franchisees...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On March 24, 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) issued a much-anticipated decision in Patel, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., et al. answering a certified question from the United States Court...more
On March 24, 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in Patel v. 7-Eleven that the test for independent contractor status set forth in the Massachusetts independent contractor statute applies to the...more
The Democrat-majority National Labor Relations Board readied for 2022 by announcing plans to confront two President Trump-era legal tests - one that determines whether an independent contractor is actually an employee...more
Past and present franchisees of commercial cleaning service franchisor, Jani-King, brought claims for violation of Connecticut minimum wage and anti-kickback laws, and unjust enrichment. They claimed Jani-King misclassified...more
In 2017, four former franchisees brought a class action in California, claiming 7-Eleven owed them unreimbursed expenses. The ex-franchisees claimed they were employees, not independent contractors of 7-Eleven. The court...more
In the same month that 7-Eleven prevailed in a federal court trial where convenience store franchisees claimed they were not independent contractors but rather employees entitled to the protections of state labor laws, a...more
A federal court in California certified a class of Matco Tools franchisees who claimed to be misclassified by Matco as independent contractors rather than employees. They claimed Matco did this to avoid obligations owed to...more
On Wednesday, February 10, California 7-Eleven franchise owners asked U.S. District Court Judge Dale Fischer to allow the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on the district court’s previous denial of the franchisees’...more
California Supreme Court Applies Independent Contractor Standard Retroactively; Does Not Reach Applicability to Franchises - The California Supreme Court has held that its Dynamex decision applies retroactively, answering...more
In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the ABC Test announced in a California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) could apply to franchise...more
Franchisors faced unprecedented challenges in 2020. Enactment of California’s Assembly Bill 5 on January 1, 2020 was just the tip of an iceberg. As the COVID-19 pandemic upended franchise systems across all industries,...more
The Ninth Circuit ruled that a California Matco Tool franchisee, John Fleming, could bring a class action wage and hour suit in California, even though a forum selection clause in the distribution agreement specified Ohio...more
When do your business relationships make you a joint employer? Fortunately, the DOL recently published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with changes to regulations regarding when two or more entities should be treated as...more