Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 319: Spotlight on Torts (Part 3 – Strict and Vicarious Liability)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 390: Listen and Learn -- Vicarious Liability (Torts)
Life With GDPR: Episode 41-Morrisons at the UK Supreme Court
Life With GDPR: Episode 22- Morrisons’ and vicarious liability
Potential for Vicarious Liability Under the Graves Amendment
A federal court in Ohio recently granted, in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss various TVPRA claims and denied their motion to transfer in a suit concerning alleged sex trafficking at two Red Roof Inn locations in Virginia...more
Welcome to The Franchise Memorandum by Lathrop GPM, formerly known as The GPMemorandum. Since December 1997, The GPMemorandum has been presenting summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors and companies...more
In 2018, the Supreme Court of California turned much of the established law regarding worker classification on its head with its decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court....more
Another case has been decided adding to the back and forth in the legal world on the issues of a joint employer relationship of a franchisor and its franchisee and vicarious liability and agency between a franchisor and...more
On August 27, 2015 the NLRB expanded its joint-employer test, which union supporters hope will apply to franchising. See January 2015 WaronFranchising.com blog entry for background. In a 3-2 decision on partisan lines, the...more
In This Issue: - SEC Pays First Whistleblower Award to Audit and Compliance Professional - Supreme Court Allows Affordable Care Act Contraceptives Religious Exemption - EEOC Adopts New Pregnancy...more
Franchise agreement recitals declaring your franchisee to be an independent contractor, not an employee, are not dispositive! Until now, the spotlight has never shined so brightly on franchising and, specifically, on...more
The California Supreme Court recently held in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act...more
In Taylor Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the California Supreme Court restricted the ability of a franchisee’s employees to sue the franchisor based on theories of vicarious liability and the theory that the franchisor was...more
In a significant win for franchisors, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that although Domino’s “imposes comprehensive and meticulous standards for marketing its trademarked brand and operating its franchises in a uniform...more
On August 28, 2014, the Supreme Court of California, in Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, decided whether a franchisor was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims that the franchisor was vicariously liable for...more
On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in favor of Domino's Pizza and all business format franchisors that do business in California. In Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, ---P.3d---, 2014 WL...more
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (August 28, 2014): On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a franchisor that did not exhibit the characteristics of an “employer” was not...more
In a move with far-reaching ramifications for all businesses that license their brands to independent contractors including franchisees, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced on July 29, 2014 that it has...more