Pushing The Boundaries On The Franchisor / Franchisee Relationship


Are Franchisees Employees?

By Kevin A. Adams on July 22, 2013

Until recently, a franchisee was considered an inpendent busiess operator doing busineess in the style, under the trademark, and in the name of the franchisor. However, district court filings by franchisees in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pensylvania, and California are pushing the boundaries on the franchisor / franchisee relationship.

Jani-King, one of the largest commercial cleaning franchisors, have been busy defeding itself from labor law claims brought by franchisee seeking minimumim wage, overtime pay, and other benefits of employees (rather than independent contractors). On June 8, 2012, a Massachuestts district court granted summary judgement in favor of the franchisee class, finding that the franchiees were employees of Jani-King.

According to Massachusetts District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf, Jani-King could not show that its pruported franchsees were performing a servcie “outside the usual course of the business of the employer”. In support of his conclusion, Judge Wolf referenced the Jani-King website, which reveals that Jani-King offers “commercial cleaning services.” The website also touts that Jani-King is the “global leader in commercial cleaning services,” and it is “ranked the world’s No. 1 commercial cleanign franchise company year after year.” Because the court did not see a difference between Jani-King’s operation and the operation of its franchisees, the control exerted by the franchisor more closely resembled that of an employer, and not a franchise system.

Franchisees of Coverall North America, another janitorial franchise system, achieved a similar result. A Massachusetts district court ruled that the Coverall franchisees were misclassified as independent contractors, and found them to be employees. After remand to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court on the issue of damages, Coverall, classified now as the “employer,” was ordered to pay the franchisees $3 million, which included a refund of franchise fees and treble damages. On May 11, 2012, Coverall filed a notice of appeal.

Folling the district court’s rulings against Jani-King and Coverall, several commercial cleaning franchisors have reportedly stopped selling franchises in Massachusetts, with concern that other franchise models will soon follow suit. Such a result would leave many entrepreneurs without the channel to pursue business ownership, retarding business development, services, and job opportunities in the state.

In two similar cases, on in Minnesota nd the other in Pennsylvania, Jani-King had to confront the same classification isues. On of the keys in these lawsuits is the control janitorial service franchisors exert in their systems. For example, the typical janitorial franchise model allows the franchsor to operate as the contracting party with the consumer, responsible for billing and collecting money. After taking its fees, the franchisor then pays the remaining amount to its franchisees. It is this control that allowed the district court to characterize the franchisees as employees of the franchisors.

Franchisors in California got some reprieve from the misclassification issues that have been plaguing parts of the East Coast. Earlier this year, California district court granted summary judgement in favor of Jani-King, finding that the franchisor did not exercise sufficient control over the plaintiff franchisees to render them employees.

However, the issue of franchisor control has recently been revisted by the California Court of Appeals. In this case, a teenaged employees of a Domino’s Pizza franchise sued Domino’s, among others, for alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor for the franchisee. The trial court granted summary judgement in faovr of Domino’s because the franchise agreement expressly provides that Domino’s has no role in the franchisee’s employment decisions. On June 27, 2012, however, the California Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision, pointing to training software, employment qualifications, and employee guidelines established by Domino’s for its franchisees as evidence of Domino’s exhibiting sufficient control over its franchisee to create triable issues of fact.

Reclassifying franchisees as employees would open the income tax floodgates for benefitting cash-starved states and the federal government. This would likely cover not only wages, but back taxes for holiday pay, vacation pay and workers’ compensation. While tax dollars generated by reclassifying franchees as employees might seem like an attractive Band-Aid for many states, there is a movement under way to preserve and protect the franchise model.

The Georgia Legislature has let the dway in taking a proactive approach, formally recognizing the franchisor-franchisee relationship. In April of this year, the Georgia General Assembly unanimously passed House Bill 548, codifying the franchisor-franchisee relationship by providing that “individuals who are parties to the franchise agreement shall not be considered employees.” The enactment of this bill should allow franchising in Georgia to contiue to thriv as a growing ecocomic force in alll business secotrs. The bill became effective July 1.

These areas of “control” expanded upon by other courts are commonplace in the franchise community. In the franchisor does not exert sufficient control over the franchisee to be vicariously liable for the franchisee’s conducte, aggressive franchisee attorneys may again push the issue of franchsor control for employemnt classification purposes.

Mulcahy LLP® Information

CLICK BELOW TO LEARN MORE

CONTACT MULCAHY LLP®

FOR MORE INFORMATION

 
 
 
 
 

  • Are Franchisees Employees?

    Until recently, a franchisee was considered an inpendent busiess operator doing busineess in the style, under the trademark, and in the name of the franchisor. However, district court filings by franchisees in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pensylvania, and California are pushing the boundaries on the franchisor / franchisee relationship.


mulcahyfontlogo.jpg

4 Park Plaza, Suite 1230
Irvine, CA 92614
T 949.252.9377
F 949.252.0090

Copyright ©2012 Mulcahy LLP. All rights reserved. The transmission of information to and from the site, in part or in whole, does not create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between senders and/or recipients and Mulcahy LLP.

Privacy Policy and our Disclaimer.   Franchise Law

mulcahyfontlogo.jpg