If you haven't been paying attention, the employment and labor law landscape has been rocked over the last several years by the renewed attention to the joint employer doctrine. Although the doctrine and its test differs based upon the labor or employment statute in question, it can be summed up as follows: in certain situations it is possible that the terms and conditions of a worker's employment are subject to not just the employer paying his or her paycheck, but a second entity which is so involved in setting work conditions that the second entity is also considered the worker's "employer" under the law.
Notwithstanding McDonald's protestations to the contrary, the settlement reflects a trend that we see in our practice at Plosia Cohen - big corporations are willing to pitch in money to settle employment disputes filed by workers of its franchisees in order to avoid an adverse judgment on the issue of "joint employment". While the "joint employer" doctrine works its way through the courts and administrative agencies , we get the distinct impression that none of the big corporations operating on the franchise model want to be the guinea pig case where the "joint employer" doctrine is found to apply. Better to settle and move on.
For this reason, when small businesses operating as franchisees are sued by their employees, we recommend that the franchisee should take advantage of the present fear running amok in the universe of their corporate partners. Here is how: work with your defense counsel to find out whether your big corporate partner (with pockets infinitely deeper than yours) wouldn't be willing to help pitch in for legal costs, settlement fees and the like. It could be a win-win situation because the franchisee avoids trying a prolonged litigation or spending large amounts of money on lawyers and settlements, and the corporate franchisor avoids the risk of an adverse ruling on whether it is a joint employer.
I'm busy working on my blog posts. Watch this space!