In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s granting of summary judgment for Domino’s corporate in a lawsuit by an employee of a franchisee.  Patterson was an employee of Sui Juris, a Domino’s pizza franchisee.  Patterson claimed her manager, Renee Miranda, sexually harassed and assaulted her at work. Patterson filed an action against her supervisor, Sui Juris, and Domino’s.  She claimed Sui Juris and Domino’s were Miranda’s employers and were vicariously liable for his actions.

Domino’s filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that: 1) Sui Juris was an independent contractor pursuant to the terms of a written franchise agreement, and 2) there was no principal agency relationship between Sui Juris and Domino’s.  Patterson opposed the motion and attached, among other things, Poff’’s deposition (the owner of Sui Juris). In his deposition, he testified that Claudia Lee, a Domino’s area leader, told him to fire Miranda.  He said he had to comply with the instructions of the Domino’s area leaders because “[i]f you didn’t, you were out of business very quickly.”  He said Lee also told him to fire another employee because of his performance in handling bags.  Poff had no choice; he had to follow Lee’s instructions and fire that employee.  His operation was monitored by the Domino’s inspectors, and their decisions determined whether he could maintain his franchise.  Overall, Patterson claimed Domino’s exercised substantial control over Sui Juris and consequently there were triable issues of fact relating to Domino’s liability.  The trial court granted summary judgment.  It noted that the franchise agreement between Domino’s and Sui Juris provided that Sui Juris was responsible for “supervising and paying the persons who work in the Store.”  It ruled there was no triable issue of fact because Domino’s had no role with respect to Sui Juris’s employment decisions.

The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court analyzed the details of the franchise agreement and noted countless ways in which Domino’s had control over the franchisee, including relating to employees and their conduct.  Based on substantial evidence about the control exercised by Domino’s, the Court noted that Patterson had met her burden to show triable show triable issues of fact as to whether Domino’s exercised sufficient control over Sui Juris’s operations and its employees to subject Domino’s to potential vicarious liability.  As such, the issue was for the jury and the trial court erred by ruling for Domino’s.

For more information, or if you need legal assistance, please contact the Wagner Legal Group, P.C. at (310) 857-5293 or fill out our contact form on the website.