A divided panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that claims of improper wage deductions and unjust enrichment against a franchisor were properly dismissed because the plaintiffs agreed to deductions in exchange for valuable franchise rights. Mujo v. Jani-King Int’l, Inc., --- F.4th ---, 2021 WL 4096577 (2d Cir. June 2, 2021). The plaintiffs were current and former franchisees of Jani-King, a commercial cleaning service franchisor. Jani-King sources cleaning customers, who enter into service agreements with the franchisees. The customers pay Jani-King, who deducts agreed-upon franchise fees and transmits the remainder on to the franchisees. In the lawsuit, the franchisees alleged that this structure made them employees rather than independent contractors and that the franchise fee deduction constituted an improper withholding of wages under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act and unjustly enriched Jani-King. After a lower court dismissed the statutory claim and granted summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim, the franchisees appealed.
The Second Circuit held that the franchisees failed to state a claim under the wage statute even assuming they were employees. The statute prohibits employers from diverting an employee’s wages except as agreed to by the employee or as required by law. However, the majority reasoned that the socalled wage in question was not the entire revenue paid by the customer, but the amount that remained after Jani-King deducted its agreed-upon fees. The panel majority also concluded that Jani-King had not been unjustly enriched under Connecticut law, because it had conferred valuable rights in return for the franchise fees received and the fee provisions of the franchise agreement were agreed upon and enforceable. This was true even assuming that, as permitted under Connecticut law, the franchisees were considered to be both employees and franchisees. Accordingly, the majority affirmed the dismissal of all claims. In dissent, Judge Calabresi asserted that the relevant issues were not clear under Connecticut law, and that the case should be certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court for clarification.
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.