Ogletree Deakins: California Supreme Court Holds Franchisor's Liability as Employer Depends on Level of Control over Day-to-day Employment Decisions | Practical Law

Ogletree Deakins: California Supreme Court Holds Franchisor's Liability as Employer Depends on Level of Control over Day-to-day Employment Decisions | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC. The Supreme Court held that a franchisor (Domino's Pizza) did not exhibit the characteristics of an employer because it did not have the right or duty to control employment or personnel matters and was not involved in day-to-day decisions involving hiring, supervision and discipline. Therefore, the franchisor was not vicariously liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor of the franchisee (Sui Juris, LLC) directed toward another franchisee employee.

Ogletree Deakins: California Supreme Court Holds Franchisor's Liability as Employer Depends on Level of Control over Day-to-day Employment Decisions

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Published on 28 Aug 2014 • California, United States
This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC. The Supreme Court held that a franchisor (Domino's Pizza) did not exhibit the characteristics of an employer because it did not have the right or duty to control employment or personnel matters and was not involved in day-to-day decisions involving hiring, supervision and discipline. Therefore, the franchisor was not vicariously liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor of the franchisee (Sui Juris, LLC) directed toward another franchisee employee.
View PDF