Sunday, November 27, 2022

CalChamber in Court: Court Issues Employer-Friendly Ruling on Sexual Harassment/Franchisor Liability

The California Supreme Court ruled on August 28 that a franchisor can’t be held vicariously liable for unlawful conduct by a franchisee’s employee, where the franchisor exercises no control over the franchisee’s relevant day-to-day operations, such as hiring, supervising and disciplining employees.

The case was Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC. The California Chamber of Commerce filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief with the Employers Group and the California Employment Law Council in support of Domino’s Pizza.

In reaching its conclusion, the court found that no employment or agency relationship existed between the franchisor and its franchisee to support the plaintiff’s claim that the franchisor should be vicariously liable for the acts of the franchisee’s supervisor/employee.


This case arises out of a sexual harassment claim filed by a former employee of a Domino’s Pizza franchise. The former employee alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her, and she filed suit against the supervisor, the franchisee and Domino’s Pizza (the franchisor).

The key issue in the case centered on whether the plaintiff could establish that Domino’s Pizza, the franchisor, should be liable for the sexually harassing conduct committed by the franchisee’s supervisor/employee.

‘Day-to-Day Decisions’

The court focused on the fact that the franchisee, not Domino’s Pizza (the franchisor), retained control over the “day-to-day decisions involving the hiring, supervision, and disciplining of his employees.”

The franchisee established its own personnel policies and controlled any training the employees received about how to treat each other at work and how to avoid sexual harassment.

In addition, the franchisee agreement that governed the franchisor/franchisee relationship gave no authority to Domino’s Pizza over the management of the franchisee’s employees.

Based on the facts presented in the case, the court concluded that a “franchisor will be liable if it has retained or assumed the right of general control over the relevant day-to-day operations at its franchised locations that we have described, and cannot escape liability in such a case merely because it failed or declined to establish a policy with regard to that particular conduct.”

However, the court cautioned that its ruling does not mean that franchisors can never be held accountable for sexual harassment occurring at a franchised location.

More Details

For CalChamber members, the case will be covered in more detail in an upcoming issue of the HRCalifornia Extra e-newsletter.

Staff Contact: Erika Frank

Erika Frank
Erika Frank
Erika Frank, longtime general counsel and executive vice president of legal affairs for the CalChamber, accepted an of counsel position in September 2021 at the Shaw Law Group, a leading employment law firm in Sacramento. She leveraged more than two decades of legal, governmental and legislative experience in advising the CalChamber and its members on the impact that labor laws, court decisions and regulations will have on employers. She has been the most frequent host of The Workplace podcast; oversaw and contributed to CalChamber labor law and human resources compliance publications; co-produced and presented webinars and seminars; and headed the Labor Law Helpline. She holds a B.A. in political science from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and earned her J.D. from the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific.

Related Articles

Ninth Circuit Panel to Rehear Arguments on California’s Mandatory Arbitration Ban

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has voted to withdraw its original ruling on California arbitration agreements in employment and rehear arguments on AB 51, leaving the law unresolved. AB 51 prohibited employers from...

U.S. High Court Ruling Supports Arbitration

In a win for California employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) can be compelled to arbitration if the employee signed a valid...

Appeals Court Sides with CalChamber in Prop. 65 Ruling on Acrylamide in Food

Last week, California businesses won another victory in the continuing debate over whether the Proposition 65 warning requirement applies to acrylamide in food and beverage products. In a March 17 ruling, the Ninth Circuit U.S....