Labor Dispute – McDonald’s Brand Scrutinized

August 13, 2018 by

labor disputeLabor dispute; joint employer or franchise? After years of complaints and protests against low wages and other labor issues, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) eventually issued grievances against McDonald’s in 2015. Wage and labor complaints from multiple franchises in California cities and others across the country were consolidated. Beneath all the labor issues lies the question, is McDonald’s USA a joint employer of franchise employees, and therefore responsible for the treatment of employees at individual franchises?

Labor Dispute Issue

The central problem in the lawsuit surrounds franchise operators’ response to employee demonstrations. McDonald’s workers claim they were fired after participating in protests organized by a labor advocacy group called Fight for $15. According to the group, workers across the country lost their jobs simply for participating in these protests.

The Lawsuit

So who is responsible for the actions of individual franchises? Does the mother corporation hold any liability when their franchises are found guilty of labor or safety violations? What implications would a decision one way or the other have on the way business is conducted across the nation?

McDonald’s argued that it simply rents out its brand to individual franchises, and every franchise is an independent business. Policies are particular to each business, and are out of the corporation’s hands.

Conversely, the NLRB hoped to expand the joint employer doctrine, extending liability to corporations to whom they franchise their brands.

Many observers felt that a ruling against McDonald’s—naming it as a joint owner–would increase franchisors’ vulnerability to legal action, toppling the franchise model altogether. Anxious to avoid having to agree that it is a joint employer, McDonald’s agreed to a settlement in which they admitted no wrongdoing, but resolved claims with an undisclosed payout to employees.

Fight for $15 was not quite as eager to settle the case, arguing that McDonald’s needed to publicly take responsibility for surveilling, harassing and firing employees who were simply standing up for themselves against paltry wages by engaging in legally protected activity.

So how did the judge respond to the proposed labor dispute settlement?

Not so Fast…

Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito found that unfair practices by the McDonald’s chain were not adequately addressed, and the proposal was summarily rejected.

McDonald’s USA responded with disappointment, noting that expensive, time-consuming labor dispute litigation would extend for months or years to come. The possibility of an appeal of the court’s decision is being evaluated.

Fight for $15 was delighted with the labor dispute ruling, hoping to hold McDonald’s feet to the fire and force the corporation to take responsibility for the wages and working conditions employees suffered.  Everything is on hold while both sides decide how to proceed. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, California Labor Law Tagged With: , ,

Sexual Harassment Claims and Franchisor Liability

September 15, 2015 by

Sexual harassment claims and franchisor liability. If you are a franchisor and you have franchises in the state of California, you should be aware that you may be found liable if a sexual harassment claim is filed against you based on the conduct of one of your franchisees.

sexual harassment claimsThe Supreme Court of California’s decision in the case of Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC has shed some light on the circumstances in which a franchisor can be held liable. The ruling states that a franchisor will be liable for sexual harassment if “it has retained or assumed the right of general control over the relevant day-to-day operations at its franchised locations.”

The Sexual Harassment Case

The harassment claim was filed by an employee named Taylor Patterson who worked at a Domino’s Pizza franchise owned by a company named Sui Juris. Patterson filed a sexual harassment complaint under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) against Sui Juris, her supervisor, and Domino’s Pizza itself. Her complaint alleged that the supervisor groped her and made lewd comments and gestures. The complaint also alleged that she faced retaliation after her father reported the supervisor’s behavior to Domino’s human resources department and to the police.

Patterson argued that Domino’s Pizza was vicariously liable for her harassment because her supervisor was Domino’s “agent, employee, servant and joint venturer.” Her complaint also stated that her supervisor acted “within the course, scope, and authority of such agency, employment and joint venture, and within the consent and permission of” Domino’s Pizza.

At trial, Domino’s Pizza argued that it was not vicariously liable for the supervisor’s behavior because the Sui Juris franchise was a separate business, and thus Domino’s was not the supervisor’s employer. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action against Domino’s. An appeals court overturned the summary judgment, but the California Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the trial court’s original ruling.

What the Ruling Means For Future Franchisor Sexual Harassment Cases

In the opinion, the California Supreme Court held that Domino’s Pizza could not be held responsible for sexual harassment by a franchisee because Domino’s never assumed “the traditional right of general control” that an employer would typically have over its employees. The court emphasized that Sui Juris, rather than Domino’s, provided the employees with sexual harassment training, and that Domino’s was not involved in Sui Juris’s hiring process.

While the court dismissed the action against Domino’s, it also affirmed that there are circumstances in which a franchisor will be liable for the conduct of franchisees. The ruling establishes that a franchisor can be liable for such conduct if “it has retained or assumed the 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.” [Read more…]

Filed Under: Sexual Harassment Tagged With: , ,

Disclaimer

The information on this website should not be considered to be legal advice, nor construed to be the formation of any manner of attorney client relationship. Prior to taking any form of legal action, please consult with an attorney experienced in the appropriate area of law germane to your situation. Case results and testimonials presented on www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net or any of its related websites are germane to the facts present for each individual case and is not a promise of similar outcomes for any other cases. This website is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the State of California.