McDonald's Corp. Settles Franchise Employment Case

McDonald's Corp. recently settled a case involving a claim that it was a joint employer along with one of its franchisees.

That settlement was announced on Oct. 31 and follows an interim ruling by a federal court that may provide practical guidance to franchisors. Under the settlement, McDonald's (the franchisor) is reported to have agreed to pay the employees $3.75 million to resolve the case.

“The McDonald's cases illustrate an important point that applies to franchisor-franchisee relationships generally, including in the car rental industry: franchisors should make sure that their franchisees take specific steps to ensure that their staff understands who is really their employer,” said Leslie Pujo, an attorney at Plave Koch PLC who specializes in vehicle rental law and franchise law. “For example, franchisees should not use the franchisor's trademarks in H.R. documents, including applications, pay stubs, pay checks, employment agreements, time cards, etc."

“It is also important to keep in mind that the same principles could be applied to other independent contractor situations, such as RAC hiring of contract workers to wash or service cars, provide temporary assistance during busy seasons, or work on special projects," added Pujo.

McDonald's USA, LLC and several affiliates were sued by employees of a franchisee that operates five California restaurants. The plaintiffs, who alleged various labor law violations, also sued the franchisee. The franchisee separately settled with the employees.

In September 2015, the franchisor won summary judgment on most grounds, including the claim that the franchisor was liable as a joint employer with its franchisee.

But in the same September 2015 ruling, the federal district court denied summary judgment to the franchisor on a key claim: whether the employees had reason to believe that they worked for the franchisor as well as their local franchisee, i.e., whether the franchisee was an "ostensible agent" of McDonald's.

The court relied on the facts that the employees "wear McDonald's uniforms, serve McDonald's food in McDonald's packaging, receive paystubs and orientation materials marked with McDonald's name and logo, and . . . applied for a job through McDonald's website." Ochoa v. McDonald's Corp., 133 F. Supp. 3d 1228, 1239-40 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (emphasis added).

Comment On This Story

Name:  
Email:  
Comment: (Max. 10000 characters)  
Please leave blank:
* Please note that every comment is moderated.

 
 

Newsletter: Sign up to receive latest news, articles, and much more.

Read the latest

Auto Focus Blog: A blog covering fleets, auto rental and the business of cars

Trump and Regulations: An Alt-Fuel View

With 2025 emissions targets back in review, manufacturers, alt-fuel, and alt-power suppliers weigh in on the potential impacts of Trump’s initiatives.

Why GM’s Telematics Announcement is a Really Big Deal

Enabling a telematics connection at the factory — and not through an aftermarket hardware installation — is a game changer for fleets.

Four Thoughts From the 2016 Conference Calls

Sifting through the notes of Avis Budget Group’s and Hertz Global Holdings’ recent fourth quarter conference calls give us some trend lines to watch out for in 2017. (Of course, this gives us an incomplete snapshot, as Enterprise Holdings is privately held.)

Job Finder: Access Top Talent. Fill Key Positions.

>