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
Fox Rothschild Comments on NLRB Proposed Joint Employer Rulemaking
My esteemed colleague Tami McKnew today filed the following comment on the NLRB proposed joint employer rulemaking, 83 FR 46681:
The proposed rule specifically acknowledges the effects of the 2015 shift in joint employer analysis evident in the Board’s decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (“Browning-Ferris”). Following the Browning-Ferris decision, franchisors, temporary
NLRB Proposes Joint-Employer Rulemaking
In a major policy announcement, on Friday, September 14, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) proposed a new regulation establishing the standard for determining whether two employers, as defined in Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”), are a joint employer of a group of employees under the NLRA.
Under
Franchise Community Goes to Washington
I attended the International Franchise Association’s Franchise Action Network (“FAN”) Annual Meeting last week in Washington D. C. Basically, this is an educational event culminating in the participants being sent out to the “Hill” to lobby their senators and representatives on issues effecting small businesses – and especially franchised businesses. Speakers from the Hill, this
The Franchisor is Liable for Franchisee’s Submission of Fraudulent Tax Statements?!
In Lomeli v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., the United States District Court in the Central District of California held that the plaintiff, Luis Lomeli (“Lomeli”), had submitted enough evidence to hold the franchisor (“Jackson Hewitt”) vicariously liable for potential class actions due to a franchisee’s preparation and submission of fraudulent tax returns. The most concerning
Broad Provisions in Franchise Agreement: How Far is too Far?
The fight against joint employment of franchisors and franchisees took a small hit when the Western District of Pennsylvania (“Court”) chose to allow a franchisee’s employee’s suit to proceed. In Harris v. Midas, et. al., the plaintiff, Hannah Harris (“Harris”), convinced the Court that she had proffered enough evidence to allege a plausible basis
The NLRB Giveth and Taketh Away: Hy-Brand Decision Vacated
In December, we wrote that the NLRB had issued a decision overturning Browning-Ferris’ joint employer test and returning to the previous standard for determining joint employment. That decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors was seen as a return to sanity by employers and pro-business groups.
Unfortunately, the NLRB announced today that it had vacated the Hy-Brand
Browning-Ferris Joint Employer Standard Reversed by NLRB
Yesterday afternoon, the NLRB issued a decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors that caused a collective sigh among employers. The decision rolls back the joint employer standard to what it was before Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No 186.
The Browning-Ferris decision was greeted with alarm by most employers, especially franchisers and franchisees, as it made