In a welcome decision for franchisors, and first of its kind in the Second Circuit, the Southern District of New York ruled that Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, the franchisor (Domino’s), did not exert enough control over its franchisee to warrant joint employer status. This determination means Domino’s will not have to face claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) by current and former employees of a Domino’s franchisee.

Click here to read more about the case, the decision and takeaways for employers.

The Seventh Circuit recently clarified that courts should determine whether an arbitration agreement provides for or permits class-action claims. The decision in Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corp. is instructive on many levels, not the least of which is its clarity.

Continue Reading From The Seventh Circuit: Class Arbitration Determination Is For Courts

The California Court of Appeal recently held that an individual (i.e., an owner, director, officer, or managing agent of a corporate employer) can be found liable for civil penalties resulting from the employer’s failure to comply with California’s overtime pay and minimum wage laws  with no showing that the individual misused or abused the corporate laws for a wrongful or inequitable purpose.

Continue Reading Individuals In California May Be Personally Liable For Civil Penalties Resulting From Wage And Hour Violations

In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) upheld an arbitration agreement that required individual arbitration of claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court’s decision is in line with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Upholds Mandatory Arbitration Of FLSA Claims

US Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, recently announced the creation of a new office, the Office of Compliance Initiatives. The “OCI” will be tasked with promoting greater knowledge of federal labor laws and regulations through enhanced compliance assistance outreach efforts. The goal of the OCI initiative is to prevent workplace violations.

Continue Reading The DOL Creates A New Compliance Office And Announces Six New Opinion Letters

In recent years, joint employer liability has emerged as a persistent threat for companies who use franchise business models. Franchisors are increasingly facing claims brought by employees of franchisees for entitlements flowing from their employment. The outcome in these cases is unpredictable because the law is undergoing change. As such, the joint employer aspects of franchising arrangements can prove to be a minefield for the unwary and are a growing global concern.

Click here to read the full article (originally published in the September 2018 edition of Franchising World), which covers key developments in joint employer liability for franchisors operating in Australia, Canada and Mexico and describes a proactive approach to help mitigate risk.

The First District Court of Appeal’s August 1, 2018 decision in Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC reminds employers of the harsh consequences for failing to timely (and properly) pay an employee’s wages upon resignation or termination.

The Court of Appeal addressed the Superior Court’s order 1) affirming the California Labor Commissioner’s award of $4,250 in “waiting time” penalties (i.e., the statutory penalty under Labor Code section 203 for the time an employee has to wait for the late payment of final wages), and 2) awarding Nishiki attorneys’ fees in the amount of $86,160 following the employer’s unsuccessful appeal from the Labor Commissioner to the Superior Court. On further appeal to the Court of Appeal, the employer argued the waiting time penalties were unwarranted and the attorney fees award was excessive. Though the Court of Appeal reduced the waiting time penalties, it otherwise affirmed the judgment and remanded for the trial court to award Nishiki additional attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Danko’s appeal to the First District.

Continue Reading Substantial Penalties For Innocent Mistakes Regarding Final Wages Upon Termination

Last week, in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (Case No. S234969), the California Supreme Court weighed in for the first time on the viability of a de minimis defense to California wage and hour claims.

Many commentators have since rushed to declare that “de minimis” is dead. Not so.

Continue Reading California Supreme Court Leaves Open The Possibility Of A De Minimis Defense For Wage And Hour Claims – But Not Under The Facts Of This Case