New Lawsuit Asks Court to Find Joint Employment Relationship Between Pizza Franchisee and Franchisor
In a new collective and class
action lawsuit filed in New York this month, the lead plaintiff, a former
assistant store manager and customer service representative for one of the
largest Domino’s Pizza franchisees in the city, contends that the franchisee
for which he worked and the Domino’s franchisor should be held liable as joint
employers for the franchisee’s alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). Kucher v. Domino’s Pizza, et al., Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-02492
(S.D.N.Y.).
In support of the joint
employer argument, plaintiff makes two primary arguments. First, he contends that the franchisor controls
the work performed by franchisee employees in franchisee stores by: (1)
performing routine inspections of the franchisee’s locations; (2) setting
policies and procedures to be followed by franchisees; (3) controlling
advertising; and (4) regulating employee behavior, such as by dictating
employee uniforms.
Second, he contends the
franchisor exerts influence and “a high level of control and oversight” over
its franchisees by: (1) identifying and selling store locations to franchisees;
(2) assisting in the franchise purchase process by providing financing to
prospective franchisees; (3) handling new store location and existing store
renovation construction projects; (4) creating, designing, building and
updating all training and development programs for its franchisees; (5)
employing an operational support team that instructs franchisees how to run
their stores; (6) providing instruction regarding food preparation and the
implementation of bookkeeping, accounting, inventory and general operating
procedures; (7) implementing a uniform and proprietary point-of-sale system
used at most of the franchised locations; and (8) allowing franchisor
administrators access to the point-of-sale system.
Further, plaintiff alleges the
franchisor: (1) has the right to access all computer data maintained by its
franchisees; (2) requires franchisees to send profit and loss statements at the
end of each fiscal year; and (3) maintains the right to audit the sales
reports, financial records, and computer data of its franchisees, as well as
terminate franchise agreements. According
to the plaintiff, based on the control allegedly asserted by the franchisor, it
“is ultimately able to control how its franchises operate,” and should
therefore be held jointly liable for the franchisee’s actions.
This lawsuit provides another
example of how plaintiffs are following the lead set by the United States
Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board with respect to attempting
to destroy the legal barriers that separate franchisors from franchisees. Franchisees across industries should keep a
watchful eye on these types of cases to determine whether courts are receptive
to the idea, and if so, what control factors they consider most persuasive in
finding a joint employer relationship.
Comments
Post a Comment