In another case analyzing the amount of control exerted by 7-Eleven over its franchisees, a federal court in Illinois dismissed a franchisee’s putative class action seeking relief under Illinois’ Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA). Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2020 WL 3303003 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2020). In his complaint, plaintiff Niral Patel contended that 7-Eleven’s franchise agreements, including the franchise agreement between 7-Eleven and Shanti 11, Inc. (a corporation wholly owned by Patel), constituted agreements to pay wages governed by the IWPCA. Under the franchise agreement, Shanti 11 was required to deposit daily revenue into an account controlled by 7-Eleven and, after 7-Eleven deducted certain franchise fees, a share of the profits was distributed to Shanti 11 and Patel. Patel argued that these distributions constituted wages and that the franchise fees that were withheld constituted improper deductions under the IWPCA. The court disagreed.
Patel’s arguments centered around the control 7-Eleven exerted over the day-to-day operations of its franchisees (including their finances), claiming that the franchise agreements acted as agreements to pay wages and Patel and others similarly situated were essentially acting as employees of 7-Eleven. The court acknowledged the extensive control 7-Eleven exerts over its franchisees; however, relying on the dependency of the profit distribution payments on customer sales, the court rejected Patel’s notion that the funds paid to its franchisees constituted wages under the IWPCA. Patel attempted to rebut this reasoning by arguing that “the key inquiry . . . is not the ‘origin point’ of the payment, but rather, which party bears the obligation to pay the Plaintiff.” The court found this argument unconvincing, holding, “In consideration for being allowed to own and operate a store under 7-Eleven’s brand, Patel agreed to share profits with 7-Eleven, which are dependent on the amount of customer sales. That is not a wage-payment arrangement.” As a result, Patel’s class action complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
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 who advises and represents businesses resolving disputes in antitrust, distribution, and franchising, as well as shareholder disputes and other complex commercial litigation ...
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.