Supreme Court of California

In this sexual harassment suit, plaintiff-employee alleges that, because defendant-franchisor was the "employer" of persons working for the franchisee and because the franchisee was the "agent" of the franchisor, the franchisor could be held vicariously liable for the harasser's violations. The Court of Appeal's decision overturning the grant of summary judgment in defendant's favor is reversed, where: 1) a franchisor is liable if it has retained or assumed the right of general control over the relevant day-to-day operations at its franchised locations, such that an employment or agency relationship could be found, supporting vicarious liability; and 2) defendant did not retain or assume the traditional right of general control an "employer" has over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and other relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/28/2014
• Published 08/28/2014

Judges

• Baxter

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel