To register online for this event click here, then click the "Register Now" button (Registration deadline is 31 January 2013). We hope to see you all there!
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Employment Law Update: What you don't know CAN hurt you
To register online for this event click here, then click the "Register Now" button (Registration deadline is 31 January 2013). We hope to see you all there!
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Coverall Precedent Spreads To Other Franchise Cleaning Systems – “Independent Contractors” Found To Be Mere Employees
In early June 2012, the United States District Court for Massachusetts
issued a summary
judgment ruling which expands and applies the precedent in the Coverall
employee-independent contractor litigation to yet another large corporate
cleaning franchise.
Jani-King is a large national cleaning franchise system, and
it is a competitor of Coverall with similar business operations. A putative class of plaintiffs (represented
by the same plaintiffs’ counsel who participated in the Coverall litigation) filed similar claims against Jani-King
alleging misclassification of Jani-King franchisees as independent contractors,
rather than employees.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf
followed the precedent in Coverall
holding that Jani-King’s franchisees were not independent contractors but
actually employees under Massachusetts law.
Crucial to the court’s finding was the applicable Massachusetts law
which requires an independent contractor to not be conducting the same business
as their putative employer. In the
Jani-King case, the court found that Jani-King was engaged in commercial
cleaning services, and this was the identical business to which its franchisees
were engaged in as well. Because of this
factor, the court, relying on the Coverall
precedent, found that the franchisees were employees rather than independent
contractors. The court also appeared to
rely on the fact that Jani-King directly handled customer contracting and
accounts as well as customer billing for its franchisees as an aspect of why the
franchisees were actually employees rather than independent contractors.
Although not entirely unexpected given the similarity
between Coverall’s and Jani-King’s businesses, this ruling shows that the
impact of the Coverall decision on
other franchise systems continues to grow.
Franchise systems should carefully review their business operations to
ensure that their business practices do not create unexpected liability for
misclassification claims.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Firehouse Subs Gets Burned On Suit For Trademark Infringement
By Bud
Culp
Franchisors are well-advised to vigorously protect
their brand name, one of a franchisor’s most valuable assets. However, before filing suit against a
franchisee for using a franchisor’s trademark, a franchisor needs to make sure its
own intellectual property house is in order, or, as Firehouse Subs recently
learned, the lawsuit may backfire.
In Firehouse
Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a Firehouse Subs v. Scurmont LLC, Case No.
4:09-CV-00618-RBH, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 14,738 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2011), Firehouse
Subs sued two South Carolina franchisees for trademark infringement for
operating two non-franchise restaurants using names incorporating the Firehouse
mark. The franchisees fought fire with
fire: seeking a declaratory judgment
that they had not infringed the marks, and filing a counterclaim seeking to
cancel Firehouse’s trademark due to its alleged fraud on the U.S. Patent &
Trademark Office (USPTO) when Firehouse obtained its mark. At trial, the jury agreed with the
franchisees, finding that the defendants had not infringed Firehouse Subs’
trademarks, and that Firehouse Subs had defrauded
the USPTO.
Firehouse Subs tried to douse the flames, filing a motion
for a new trial, or, alternatively, for a new trial. However, the U.S. District Court for South
Carolina upheld the jury verdict. The
court found that the franchisees had presented adequate evidence that Firehouse
Subs knew of a restaurant in Florida operating under the name “Firehouse Grill
& Pub” at the time it filed its application for its trademark; however,
Firehouse had falsely represented to the USPTO that no other party had the
right to use the “Firehouse” mark.
Moreover, in light of evidence that Firehouse Subs unsuccessfully sought
to obtain a coexistence agreement with the owners of “Firehouse Grill &
Pub” (showing that Firehouse Subs was concerned about the possibility of
confusion with the Firehouse Subs trademark), the court also affirmed the
jury’s award of nearly $250,000 in attorneys’ fees to the franchisees because
the jury’s finding of fraud upon the USPTO rendered the case “exceptional”
under the Lanham Act.
Firehouse Subs has appealed the jury’s verdict.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Mandatory Loss Leaders Travel North Of The Border
By William F. Jones
Recent litigation in the United States has examined issues
relating to franchise systems imposing price ceilings on items sold by franchisees,
even when those ceilings mandate that items are sold at a loss. In a notable case, National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corp., the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2010 affirmed the
right of Burger King to impose a $1 price ceiling on its “Buck Double” cheeseburger, even though the cost to
franchisees producing that cheeseburger were higher than $1. Essentially, the court agreed with Burger King’s
argument that enforcing such price ceilings is a reasonable strategy to draw in
other customers in to purchase higher price items, essentially acting as a
“loss leader” to benefit overall store sales.
This legal precedent for allowing franchisors to enforce
maximum, below-cost price ceilings appears to have migrated north of the
border. Recently, an association of Tim
Horton’s franchisees filed a class action against the franchisor requirement
that franchisees sell lunch item menus for less than cost. Echoing the holding in the Burger King case, the Canadian court
embraced Tim Horton’s arguments that the applicable analysis involves the overall
profitability of the franchise store, rather than the individual profitability
of a single item. The court found that
it was commercially reasonable for Tim Horton’s to adopt and enforce a strategy
on its franchisees to use below cost lunch menu item as a loss leader to bring
in customers and create additional profit on other items.
The adoption of the “loss leader” concept in the context of
maximum price ceilings in the Canadian courts may demonstrate a trend towards
greater franchisor control and discretion and the pricing of specified menu
items system-wide.
Update On The Coverall Employee-Independent Contractor Litigation
A major case of interest in the franchise industry continues
to wind its way through the federal district court and state courts in
Massachusetts. In Awuah v. Coverall (the “Coverall case”, the core dispute involves whether Coverall franchisees
are actually classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. More explanation of the core dispute is covered
in a prior blog entry, “Franchisees: Independent Contractors or Employees?” by
Bud Culp, posted below.
In the Coverall case, presiding federal district court has now
entered an order defining the damages that the Coverall franchisees who were
misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees will ultimately
receive. The successful plaintiff
franchisees are allowed to recover damages against Coverall which include
refunds of their initial franchise fees, additional business fees and insurance
deductions. Also, the plaintiff
franchisees can recover any unreimbursed chargebacks and interest on late
payment of reimbursed chargebacks.
Most importantly, however, the judge issued an order which
trebled the damages assessed against Coverall.
The court took this action under the prior 2007 version of the
applicable Massachusetts statute which makes treble damages discretionary. The judge’s order trebles damages against
Coverall for successful plaintiff-franchisees dating back to 2006.
It is important to note that revisions to the Massachusetts
statute in 2008 now make the trebling of damages for misclassification
mandatory, rather than discretionary.
This change in the law, along with Coverall case precedent, should
impress upon franchise systems the importance of properly evaluating any
potential exposure they may face on the issue of whether their franchisees can
be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)