Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Q&A: Shannon Liss-Riordan Discusses Awuah and Other Issues

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
May 27, 2010

Shannon Liss-Riordan, partner at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. (Boston) is a nationally known employment-law attorney and has been named to the Chambers “Best Lawyers in America” in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Her practice concentrates on class action litigation involving failure to pay wages, overtime, gratuities, minimum wage, and misclassification of employees as independent contractors. She represented the plaintiffs in Awuah, et al. v. Coverall North America, Inc., in which U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young compared Coverall's franchising model to a Ponzi scheme.

While the judge's Ponzi comparison in Awuah attracted attention in the franchise industry, the greater impact of his ruling might be found elsewhere. In this Q&A, Liss-Riordan discusses Awuah, as well as the general significance of litigation about the classification of franchisees and wage-and-classification issues for employees of franchisees.

FBLA: In March, a judge in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts ruled that Coverall of North America, a large cleaning franchisor, had misclassified franchisees as contractors. You brought the litigation on behalf of (a number) of these franchisees. What's the significance of this decision for franchisors and franchisees?

Liss-Riordan: The decision is significant for the franchising industry because it demonstrates that the mere use of the “franchise” label does not protect a company from being subject to employment and wage-and-hour laws if its franchisees meet the state law test for being employees rather than independent contractors. In this case, we have alleged that, rather than providing a true entrepreneurial opportunity for its franchisees, Coverall essentially sold them low-paying jobs. The court has ruled the franchisees were employees under Massachusetts law, and we have argued that as employees, they are entitled to guaranteed minimum wage, overtime, and other protections afforded employees.

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.