(2014) 60 Cal.4th 474
Supreme Court of California · Decided August 28, 2014
01. Facts
In November 2008, Taylor Patterson was hired to serve customers at the Sui Juris store, a Domino’s Pizza franchise (60 Cal.4th at p. 479). She alleged that a Sui Juris manager, Miranda, sexually harassed her whenever they shared a shift — making lewd comments and gestures and grabbing her — and that when he refused to stop, she reported it and her employment soon ended (id. at pp. 479–480). Patterson sued Miranda, the franchisee (Sui Juris), and the franchisor, Domino’s, contending Domino’s was liable as an employer (id. at p. 480).
02. Procedural posture
The Supreme Court held that the franchisor was not, on this record, the plaintiff’s employer for purposes of vicarious FEHA liability, and reversed the contrary judgment (60 Cal.4th at p. 478).
03. Issue
Whether a franchisor is an “employer” of its franchisee’s employees — and thus potentially vicariously liable for a franchisee-manager’s harassment — based on the comprehensive operating standards the franchisor imposes.
Holding
A franchisor is not ordinarily the employer of its franchisee’s employees and is not vicariously liable for a franchisee-supervisor’s harassment unless the franchisor has retained or assumed general control over the relevant day-to-day aspects of the franchisee’s employment practices; a comprehensive operating system alone does not establish such control.
05. Reasoning
The court reasoned that franchise systems necessarily impose uniform brand and operational standards, and treating those standards as “control” over employment would make every franchisor the employer of every franchisee’s workers — an unworkable result that ignores the franchisee’s role as an independent business that hires, supervises, and disciplines its own employees. Liability attaches only where the franchisor meaningfully controls day-to-day personnel matters, which Domino’s did not.
Practice Pointer
Patterson sets a high bar for franchisor liability: to reach the franchisor, plaintiff’s counsel must show it controlled the day-to-day employment practices at issue — hiring, supervision, discipline, and the handling of harassment complaints — not merely that it dictated brand standards. Develop evidence of the franchisor’s actual involvement in personnel decisions, while pursuing the franchisee directly as the primary employer.
06. Open questions
Patterson framed franchisor liability around day-to-day control but left the line fact-specific, and the broader joint-employer question — how much control over employment matters is enough — continues to be litigated across franchise, staffing, and contracting relationships.
Cite this entry
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474.
“a young woman named Taylor Patterson … was hired to serve customers at the Sui Juris store.” — 60 Cal.4th at p. 479
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].