No. The main Domino's company is not responsible. Just because Domino's has a big rulebook about how to make pizza, what the store should look like, and how to protect the brand, it doesn't make them the boss of the local store's employees. The local store owner, Poff, was the one who hired, supervised, and disciplined his workers. He had his own rules for sexual harassment and handled the complaint himself. A Domino's representative suggesting Poff should fire the guy was just advice, not an order, so Domino's didn't have the real control needed to be held responsible.

Yes, Domino's could be responsible, and a jury should decide. The court shouldn't just look at the written contract; it should look at what really happened. There was evidence a Domino's corporate manager told the store owner he 'had to get rid of' the harasser, and had previously threatened to take away his franchise if he didn't fire another employee. This suggests Domino's did have the power to fire people at the local store. If they have that power, they could be considered the employer and would be responsible for what happened.

No, the big Domino's company isn't responsible for what happened to Patterson. Domino's didn't control how the store owner hired, managed, or fired his workers. The store owner made all those decisions himself. Even though Domino's had rules about how to make pizzas and run the store, that's not enough to make them responsible for how workers are treated. The store owner dealt with the problem himself when Patterson complained. Just because companies like Domino's have a lot of rules doesn't mean they're the boss of every worker in every store with their name.

I think there's enough evidence to say maybe Domino's is responsible, and we should let a jury decide. The store owner said that Domino's had pressured him to fire another worker before, and he was afraid of losing his store if he didn't do what they said. This shows Domino's might have had more control than they're saying. We shouldn't just look at what their contract says, but at how they actually acted. If Domino's could make the store owner fire people, then they had some control over the workers and might be partly responsible for what happens to them.

No. A franchisor does not have vicarious liability for the wrongful acts of a franchisee's employee merely by imposing and enforcing a comprehensive marketing and operational plan. To establish liability, a plaintiff must show the franchisor retained or assumed a general right of control over the day-to-day employment matters of the franchisee, such as hiring, supervision, discipline, and discharge. Here, Domino's set brand standards for pizza-making and store appearance, but the franchisee, Sui Juris, retained control over personnel matters. The franchisee implemented its own sexual harassment policy, conducted its own investigation into the complaint, and made its own disciplinary decisions. The suggestion by a Domino's representative to fire the harasser was ad hoc advice that the franchisee did not follow and for which he suffered no consequences, thus it did not constitute the exercise of control necessary to create an employment or principal-agent relationship.

Yes. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the franchisor exercised sufficient control to be considered a joint employer. The majority places too much weight on the franchise agreement's language and not enough on the 'real world interaction' between Domino's and its franchisee. There was evidence that a Domino's area leader, Claudia Lee, told the franchisee, Poff, 'You've got to get rid of this guy,' referring to the alleged harasser. This directive must be viewed in the context of a previous incident where Lee had pressured Poff to fire another employee under threat to his franchise. Poff testified that he never said 'no' to Lee and believed franchisees who did not comply were 'out of business very quickly.' This evidence is sufficient for a jury to conclude that Domino's retained and exercised the power to terminate the franchisee's employees, which is a strong indicator of an employment relationship, and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate.

No. Because the franchisor, Domino's Pizza, did not retain or assume a general right of control over hiring, supervision, and discipline of the employees of the franchisee, it cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged sexual harassment. The franchise agreement and evidence showed that Sui Juris, not Domino's, had control over day-to-day operations and employment matters. While Domino's imposed and enforced certain operational standards to protect its brand, this did not extend to employment decisions. The franchisee made all decisions about hiring, supervising, and disciplining employees. Domino's area leader's statement about firing Miranda was not a directive that Poff had to follow, and Poff acted independently in handling the sexual harassment complaint. The comprehensive operating system used in franchising does not alone constitute the control needed to support vicarious liability claims. To impose liability on franchisors for the actions of a franchisee's employees would disrupt the franchise relationship and business model.

Yes, because the evidence could suggest that Domino's had a significant degree of control over the franchisee's employment practices, a triable issue of fact exists regarding the employment relationship between Domino's and the franchisee's employees. The majority places too much emphasis on the franchise agreement and not enough on the parties' real-world interactions. There is evidence that Domino's area leader had previously pressured Poff to fire another employee, threatening his franchise if he did not comply. This context is important for understanding the interaction about Miranda. The power to discharge employees is strong evidence of an employment relationship. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a trier of fact could conclude that Domino's retained and exercised the power to force Poff to fire employees. The majority's approach undermines FEHA's goals by allowing franchisors to effectively opt out of employer duties.

Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot