A federal court in Pennsylvania recently granted summary judgment to McDonald’s on a joint employer claim brought by a former franchisee employee. Bosley v. Rawden Joint Ventures Corp., 2022 WL 3701171 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2022). After the end of Mitchael Bosley’s employment with McDonald’s franchisee Rawden, he sued Rawden for maintaining a hostile work environment and for employment discrimination, naming McDonald’s as a co-defendant under the theory that McDonald’s was his joint employer. McDonald’s moved for summary judgment following discovery, arguing that there was no genuine factual dispute as to the joint employer theory. It argued that the evidence in the record showed that McDonald’s lacked the authority to hire or fire Bosley, did not supervise him on a day‑to‑day basis, did not set the conditions of his employment, and did not control his employee records. Bosley opposed the motion by pointing to evidence that the franchise may have been referred to as “Rawden McDonalds,” leading him to believe that McDonald’s was his joint employer. Bosley also argued that the franchise agreement gave McDonald’s control over Rawden’s employees by, among other things, allowing McDonald’s to dictate employee uniforms. Finally, Bosley pointed to evidence of training videos distributed by McDonald’s for franchisees to use with their employees.

The court sided with McDonald’s, holding that the record lacked sufficient evidence to show that McDonald’s exercised significant control over Rawden’s employees. It held that Bosley’s beliefs that McDonald’s was his joint employer were irrelevant to the joint employer question. It pointed to provisions of the franchise agreement stating that McDonald’s and Rawden’s did not intend to be joint employers and providing McDonald’s only the amount of control necessary to protect its brand and maintain operational standards. Specifically, the franchise agreement did not give McDonald’s the authority to hire, fire, supervise, or discipline Rawden’s employees, or to control their employee records. Finally, the court held that McDonald’s provision of training videos through its intranet—without even tracking whether they were viewed—was not sufficient to make it Bosley’s joint employer.