## Facts

- Taylor Patterson worked at a pizza store owned and operated by Sui Juris, LLC, a Domino’s franchisee.
- Patterson alleged her shift supervisor, Rene Miranda, subjected her to repeated sexual harassment and assault, causing her to quit.
- Patterson sued Miranda, Sui Juris, and Domino’s Pizza, LLC, asserting FEHA harassment claims and related tort claims, alleging Domino’s was her employer or the franchisee’s principal.
- The franchise agreement described the franchisee as an independent contractor and assigned to the franchisee sole responsibility for hiring, firing, training, scheduling, supervision, and pay of employees; it disclaimed any agency or employment relationship between Domino’s and franchisee employees.
- Domino’s required detailed product and brand standards (e.g., uniforms, marketing, store layout, operating procedures) and monitored compliance through software and inspections.
- Patterson relied on testimony that a Domino’s representative told the franchisee owner that Miranda had to be fired and implied the franchise could be at risk if he was not removed.

## Issues

1. Whether a franchisor may be treated as an employer or principal of a franchisee’s employees, and thus vicariously liable, based on franchise system standards and oversight.
2. Whether the evidence showed Domino’s retained or exercised a general right of control over the means and manner of the franchisee supervisor’s day-to-day work conduct that allegedly caused the harm.
3. Whether FEHA’s definition of “employer” displaced common-law agency principles to impose vicarious liability on the franchisor on these facts.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated summary judgment for Domino’s.
- The court held Domino’s did not stand in an employment or agency relationship with the franchisee or its employees for purposes of vicarious liability.
- Domino’s brand and operational standards were insufficient to show the type of control over personnel management and workplace supervision needed to treat Domino’s as the employer or principal.
- The testimony about pressure to fire Miranda did not establish that Domino’s had ultimate hiring/firing authority or a general right to control essential employment decisions at the store.

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability in the franchise context turns on whether the franchisor retained or assumed a general right of control over the means and manner of the specific work conduct that caused the injury, not merely control over results or brand compliance.
- A franchisor may impose and enforce detailed systemwide standards to protect trademarks and uniformity without becoming the employer of franchisee personnel.
- Contractual labels (e.g., “independent contractor”) are not conclusive, but the actual allocation and exercise of control—especially over hiring, firing, discipline, and direct supervision—governs employer/agency status.
- FEHA requires an employment relationship; it does not impose vicarious liability on a franchisor absent common-law indicia of control over day-to-day employment matters relevant to the alleged misconduct.

## Conclusion

Because Domino’s did not retain or exercise control over the franchisee’s day-to-day employment and supervisory conduct that led to the alleged harassment, it was not Patterson’s employer or the franchisee’s principal for vicarious liability, and summary judgment for Domino’s was proper.


Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal. 4th 474, 333 P.3d 723 (Cal. 2014)