## Facts

- Sharon Nears worked as guest-services manager at a Holiday Inn in Mount Pleasant, Texas, owned by VI‑MTLS, Ltd., an independently owned franchisee.
- Jack Marshall served as interim general manager and was Nears’s immediate supervisor.
- Nears alleged Marshall regularly engaged in abusive and hostile conduct, including violent outbursts, excessive drinking, curtailing her duties, ransacking her office, and discarding her files and possessions, causing fear and emotional distress.
- Nears was later terminated without an explanation and sued multiple defendants, including the franchisee owner, Marshall, and two franchisor-related entities: Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. and Six Continents Hotels, Inc.
- As to the franchisor entities, Nears pursued a vicarious-liability theory, alleging Marshall was their agent and his conduct constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Nears relied on (1) a franchise manual suggesting general managers at franchised properties were required to attend an annual franchisor-hosted conference and (2) evidence of quarterly franchisor inspections of the hotel.
- The franchisor entities submitted evidence they lacked authority over hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, compensation, and day-to-day operations at the franchisee hotel.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary-judgment record raised a genuine issue of material fact that the hotel manager was an agent/servant of the franchisor entities, allowing vicarious liability for alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2. Whether Nears produced more than a scintilla of evidence of the franchisor entities’ right to control the manager’s day-to-day work to defeat no-evidence summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i).

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. and Six Continents Hotels, Inc.
- The court held Nears failed to raise a fact issue that either entity had the requisite right to control the details of the manager’s day-to-day employment activities.
- The court concluded that evidence of an annual conference requirement and periodic inspections reflected brand/quality measures, not operational control over personnel conduct.
- Because Nears did not produce more than a scintilla of evidence on the control/agency element, vicarious liability could not be imposed on the franchisor entities.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas respondeat superior, vicarious liability depends on the alleged principal’s right to control the details of the alleged agent’s work.
- In a franchise relationship, franchisor oversight aimed at maintaining brand standards (including inspections and training/conference expectations) generally does not establish the right to control day-to-day employment decisions of the franchisee’s staff.
- On a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i), the nonmovant must present more than a scintilla of evidence on each challenged element; failure on the right-of-control/agency element defeats a vicarious-liability theory.

## Conclusion

The court held that, without evidence the franchisor entities controlled the manager’s daily employment decisions or workplace conduct, franchisor quality-assurance measures were insufficient to create an agency relationship, and summary judgment for the franchisor entities was proper.


Nears v. Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc., 295 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009)