A federal court in California has recently ruled that a group of former 7-Eleven franchisees were not employees of 7-Eleven. Haitayan v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2021 WL 4078727 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021). Four former 7-Eleven franchisees brought wage and hour claims against 7-Eleven claiming that 7-Eleven owed them millions of dollars in unreimbursed expenses because they were employees and not independent contractors of 7-Eleven. 7-Eleven denied the claims on the basis of the franchise relationship and a two-day bench trial was held.
Following trial, the court concluded that the former franchisees were independent contractors and not employees. Under applicable California law, the key factor was the level of control 7-Eleven retained over the franchisees. The court found the evidence at trial established that the former franchisees exercised their own judgment in determining, among other things: what products they would carry and their pricing; how to organize the store; what promotions to take part in; the scheduling, hiring, and firing of employees; and their own schedules and pay at their stores. The court further observed that the former franchisees held themselves out as business owners; they were not subject to the control of a 7-Eleven field consultant; their success was directly tied to their business savvy in operating their franchises; their income was entirely dependent on the profits they generated in operating their franchises; and 7-Eleven’s core business is franchising, not operating convenience stores. Based on the foregoing, the court concluded that the circumstances weighed in favor of finding the former franchisees were independent contractors and not employees of 7-Eleven, and the court ruled in favor of 7-Eleven on all claims.
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
Richard Landon is a trial and appellate attorney with extensive experience in both state and federal courts. Richard has represented clients with a wide array of complex legal issues, including antitrust ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.