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
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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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