Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Class of Mcdonald’s Workers Certified in California
Posted in Class Actions

A federal judge in California last week certified for class action treatment a case brought by a group of workers at five franchised McDonald’s restaurants. Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 3:14-cv-02098 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2016). Because the franchisee in this closely-followed case has settled with the plaintiffs, the class was certified to pursue claims against only McDonald’s Corp. and McDonald’s USA, LLC, which remain in the case on the theory of “ostensible agency.” As reported in Issue 198 of The GPMemorandum, summary judgment already has been denied on ostensible agency, although a direct “joint employer” theory was dismissed on summary judgment.

The court certified the class of “crew members” at the franchised outlets to continue their wage-related claims against the franchisor and attempt to prove they reasonably believed their franchisee-employer was an “agent” of McDonald’s. The franchisor had argued it is impossible to determine this ostensible agency issue on a classwide basis. Citing non-franchise cases in which classes had been certified to pursue ostensible agency claims, however, the court agreed to allow the plaintiffs to proceed collectively on claims for miscalculated wages, overtime, maintenance of uniforms, and related derivative claims. The court held that the plaintiffs had “tendered substantial and largely undisputed evidence that the putative class was exposed to conduct in common that would make proof of ostensible agency practical and fair on a class basis.” As examples of this evidence, the court cited declarations stating the plaintiffs were “required to wear McDonald’s uniforms, packaged food in McDonald’s boxes, received paystubs, orientation materials, shift schedules and time punch reports all marked with McDonald’s name and logo, and in most cases applied for a job through a McDonald’s website.” The court noted that whether the plaintiffs ultimately will prevail based on this proof is the question for trial, rather than on class certification.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

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

Topics

Archives

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors