In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the recent actions taken by Congress regarding the PPP program as well as the efforts by the Fed. In today’s post, we dig deeper into the challenge by state Attorneys General to the Department of Labor’s final joint employment rule moved forward in the Southern District of
Franchising: Batting a Thousand in Spring Training!
In my recent post commenting on the Department of Labor’s joint employer rule, I wondered whether the NLRB would follow suit. Now we know, and the answer’s positive. It’s very good news for franchising!
As we noted in a blog post earlier this week, the NLRB, after a major rulemaking process in which it received
ALERT: NLRB Rule Requires Direct Control for Joint Employer Status
The wait is over: This morning the NLRB announced that it will issue its final rule governing joint-employer status tomorrow, February 26, 2020. According to the NLRB itself, the “final rule restores the joint-employer standard that the Board applied for several decades prior to the 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris, but with greater precision, clarity,
Meanwhile in the NLRB, the McDonald’s Case Continues
Recently, we lauded the Department of Labor’s return to the control test of joint employment. Perhaps presciently, we 
wondered whether the NLRB would follow the same course.
The latest turn in the NLRB case involving McDonald’s and the “Fight for $15” group should give us the answer to that question – but not
Time to Exhale . . . CAUTIOUSLY: Ninth Circuit has good news for franchisors
I admit I was among the scores of franchise lawyers whose blood pressure skyrocketed with passage of California’s AB 5. If a Franchise Agreement establishes an independent contractor relationship between franchisor and franchisee, will the A-B-C test render the franchisor the employer of the franchisee? And if that’s the case, how is the franchisor
California’s AB-5 Implications (Part 2)
As noted in our first post on this topic, California’s AB-5 codified the employment test set forth in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). Although the full implications of this new law are unclear, it will like have a major impact on the franchise industry.
If, as
California’s AB-5 Implications (Part 1)
“Some day, California’s going to fall into the ocean” usually refers to the San Andreas fault. Now it may refer to AB-5, and the future of the franchise industry in California.
The California legislature has now passed AB-5, and Governor Newsom has signed it into law. AB-5 codifies the Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West
Not a Joint-Employer? Franchisors Now Need to Prove the Negative in California
A wage and hour case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, is the latest front in the joint employer battle. In Vazquez, unit franchisees of a janitorial service system alleged that they were employees of the franchisor. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Franchisor, based
Did the D.C. Circuit Overrule or Uphold Browning-Ferris? Yes.
On December 28, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the Browning-Ferris case. In this much anticipated decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that the National Labor Relations Board’s decision to enumerate a new joint employer test was a valid exercise of its authority. The Court of Appeals held, however, the
It’s Deja Vu All Over Again at the NLRB
With apologies (and props) to the great Yogi Berra, it’s deja vu all over again at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has extended the commenting period on its proposed joint employer rulemaking for a second time. Comments to the proposed rule may