Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Pennsylvania Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Joint Employer Claims Based on Common Franchise Agreement Provisions
Posted in Employment

In another joint-employer case, a federal court in Pennsylvania denied a franchisor’s motion to dismiss claims for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation brought against it on a joint employer theory by a technician who worked at a franchised automotive repair facility. Harris v. Midas, 2017 WL 5177668 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2017). The court identified three factors necessary for a finding of joint employment: (1) the alleged employer’s authority to hire and fire employees, promulgate work rules, and set other conditions of employment; (2) the alleged employer’s day-to-day supervision of employees, and (3) the alleged employer’s control of employee records.

The court determined that the employee’s allegations supported a plausible claim, despite the employee’s concession, and the court’s acknowledgement, that Midas did not control hiring and firing decisions at the franchised location. In reaching its decision, the court analyzed the employee’s claims against the three factors noted above, and found: (1) Midas’s “training and guidance . . . regarding the creation of an employee handbook and, more specifically, the inclusion of a sexual harassment policy,” supported the argument that the franchisor had the authority to promulgate work rules; (2) Midas’s authority to require designated franchisee employees to attend its training supported “at least a weak showing” of the authority to exercise day-to-day control over employees of the store; and (3) while acknowledging that Midas’s right to examine and audit the franchisee’s books and records likely related to financial records rather than personnel records, the court found the provision was broad enough to support a finding that Midas had control over employee records. While acknowledging that the motion to dismiss was a “close call,” and recognizing that the employee’s claims may be disproved through discovery, the court nevertheless allowed the case to proceed against the franchisor and its affiliates.

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

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors