Workforce Bulletin

In a win for businesses, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has ruled that individuals in true franchisor-franchisee relationships are independent contractors. In Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., the SJC found that defendant franchisor 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) did not misclassify certain franchisees in violation of the Commonwealth’s independent contractor statute, M.G.L. c. 149, § 148B, which presumptively considers an individual “performing any service” for a putative employer to be an employee of said putative employer, rather than an independent contractor, unless: (1) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service; (2) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and (3) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature at that involved in the service performed.

In a long saga to determine whether 7-Eleven properly classified certain franchisees as independent contractors, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (“First Circuit”) certified two questions to the SJC. On the first question back in 2022, the SJC ruled that where a franchisee is an “individual performing any service” for a franchisor, the independent contractor statute applies to the relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee. The decision here involved a second question that the First Circuit certified to the SJC related to the threshold determination of the independent contractor statute:

Do the plaintiffs perform any service for 7-Eleven within the meaning of the independent contractor statute, where, as here, they perform various contractual obligations under the Franchise Agreement and 7-Eleven receives a percentage of the franchise’s gross profits?

In November 2017, four convenience store franchisees brought suit in federal court against 7-Eleven, Inc., alleging that they and all other franchisees were employees of 7-Eleven. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., case no. CV 17-7454-JFW (JPRx).

In alleging that they were 7-Eleven’s employees, the franchisees brought claims for violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the California Labor Code, alleging overtime and expense reimbursement ...

Our colleague Kevin D. Sullivan  at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Wage and Hour Defense blog that will be of interest to our readers in the retail industry: “Federal Court Concludes That 7-Eleven Franchisees Are Not Employees of 7-Eleven.”

Following is an excerpt:

In November 2017, four convenience store franchisees brought suit in federal court against 7-Eleven, Inc., alleging that they and all other franchisees were employees of 7-Eleven. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Haitayan, et al. v ...

Claims that employees have been misclassified as independent contractors remain a focus for private plaintiffs and government agencies. Contracts that exert control over the business of another company may be a particularly fertile source of misclassification claims by plaintiffs seeking unpaid wages.

Two recent suits arising from franchise agreements with Jani-King, described by the Third Circuit as “the world’s largest commercial cleaning franchisor,” demonstrate the potential liability that can arise under these circumstances.

Wage Hour Division Sues Based on ...

After spending the last few years litigating with Domino’s franchisees over wage hour violations, the New York Attorney General has filed suit contending that franchisor Domino’s Pizza Inc. is a joint employer with three franchisees, and therefore is liable for the “systematic underpayment” of franchise employees.

The New York Attorney General also claims that, regardless of whether it’s a joint employer, Domino’s is liable for misrepresentations and nondisclosures that led to the underpayment of employees at the three franchises and violated the New York ...

The National Labor Relations Board has issued an Order (PDF) denying a request for a special appeal filed by McDonald’, USA, LLC and its franchisees (collectively referred to as “McDonald’s” in the Board’s Order) and found that the Administrative Law Judge presiding in the unfair labor practice hearing did not err when she denied McDonald’s motion for a bill of particulars explaining the factual basis for the General Counsel’s claim that McDonald’s, USA, LLC and the named franchisees are joint employers.

The ALJ Had Denied McDonald’s Motion for a Bill of ...

On December 19, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board published a public notice stating that the NLRB General Counsel has issued 13 unfair labor practice complaints against McDonald’s USA, LLC, and McDonald’s franchisees alleging that McDonald’s and the franchisees are joint-employers, and as such, are jointly  responsible for alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act. What’s at stake in these cases is not only shared responsibility for these alleged violations of the Act, but possibly also shared responsibility in collective bargaining should those ...

By:  Barry Guryan and Jeff Ruzal

In a highly publicized March 23, 2010 decision, Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 707 F.Supp.2d 80 (D. Mass. 2010), U.S. District Judge William Young for the District of Massachusetts rocked the Massachusetts business community by ruling that a group of janitorial franchisees were improperly classified as independent contractors, and that they were instead “employees” of commercial cleaning franchisor Coverall who are entitled to statutory protection under Massachusetts’ Wage laws including, among others, minimum wage, overtime pay, meal ...