Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Michigan Federal Court Denies Franchisor’s Motion to Dismiss Claims of Sexually Hostile Work Environment and Retaliatory Termination at Franchised Units
Posted in Employment

A federal court in Michigan recently denied a franchisor’s motion to dismiss claims alleging that it was liable as a joint employer for claims under Title VII of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Michigan’s state counterpart to Title VII. Acuff v. Dy N Fly, LLC, 2023 WL 3293278 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2023). The four plaintiffs were employees of JWH and JWH2, franchisees of Dy N Fly, a franchisor of hair salons. Plaintiffs alleged that the owner of the franchises frequently brought up sexually provocative topics, would make sexual comments on other coworkers’ dress, touched them on their lower back on several occasions, and made explicit advances towards multiple employees during a company outing. Dy N Fly filed a motion to dismiss the joint-employer claims against it.

The court applied the economic reality test to determine whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Dy N Fly was the plaintiffs’ joint employer, considering the factors of (1) control; (2) payment of wages; (3) hiring and firing; and (4) responsibility for discipline. The court found that the involvement of Dy N Fly’s owner and co-founder, including an introduction of one plaintiff to the franchisee, a text message he composed for plaintiff to send to the franchisee, and his promise to address the issue with Dy N Fly’s President, created a plausible inference that Dy N Fly shared or codetermined those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment. The court further noted that Dy N Fly’s reliance on the franchise agreement’s apparent disclaimer of any responsibility over personnel decisions was not a decisive factor at the pleadings stage. The court highlighted the human resources section in Dy N Fly’s brand manual table of contents, and determined the titled sections indicated detailed policies governing terms and conditions of employment, which supported the conclusion that Dy N Fly exercised control over the terms and conditions of plaintiffs’ employment. As a result, the court denied Dy N Fly’s motion to dismiss.

*Asad Imam is a Summer Associate for Lathrop GPM who contributed to the writing of this post.

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