Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lately, there is never a dull moment at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Recent NLRB decisions have rewritten the labor law map in a variety of ways, but nowhere more significantly than in the areas of franchising and outsourcing. With the decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, which dealt with a temporary staffing agency (Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery and FRR-II LLC d/b/a Leadpoint Business Services and Sanitary Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 350, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Case No. 32-RC-109684) and, more recently, in a decision by the NLRB’s general counsel involving McDonald’s USA, LLC (McDonald’s USA and Fast Food Workers Committee and Service Employees International Union, CTW, CLC, Case No. 02-CA-093893), the definition of a “joint employer” has grown exponentially broader. This portends a vast expansion of employer liability on a joint employer theory in almost every area of law imaginable from tort to employment discrimination litigation.
Will Dave & Buster's ACA Employer-Mandate Plan Design Land It In Hot Water with ERISA?
Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more full-time, or full-time equivalent, employees are required to offer qualified health care coverage. These employers are referred to as applicable large employers (ALEs). If these ALEs fail to comply with this "employer mandate," then the employer may be faced with significant penalties. As such, employee counts and categorizations in employer organizations are critical under the ACA, and whether the employer mandate is satisfied.
Third Circuit Affirms Denial of Injunctive Relief to Franchisor, Concluding Concessions of Counsel Disproved Irreparable Harm
Fifth Circuit Issues Cautionary Note to Franchisees That Plead Their Claims Haphazardly
Covenants not to compete are not the favorites of courts. Enforcement of such restrictions reduces competition; accordingly, the analysis requires the weighing of various factors and the cases are decided on in a fact-sensitive manner. In Aamco Transmissions v. Romano, the district court elegantly reviewed the specific facts of the case, modified the contractual covenant not to compete, and concluded that the former franchisee did not violate the modified covenant.
It is with the deepest regret that we must inform you that this issue of LJN's Franchising Business & Law Alert will be the last.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
