The Ventura County city of Ojai does not like franchises in their city. If you own more than five stores, you are considered a franchise and can not come into the city. Now the State of California, if this Democrat bill passes, has found a way to close ALL the Burger Kings, Taco Bells, Subways, etc.
“In addition, despite their contributions to the problem, fast food restaurant franchisors often avoid liability, and disavow any responsibility, for the employment violations affecting the fast food restaurant workers in their franchised stores. Finally, franchisors must take greater responsibility for achieving compliance with employer laws throughout their franchise networks.
Section 3 of the bill would add Labor Code Section 2810.9 to provide that a fast food restaurant franchisor is required to share with its fast food restaurant franchisee all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for the fast food restaurant franchisee’s violations of specified laws, as well as orders issued by the Governor, a county, or a municipality regarding employment standards, worker health and safety, or public health and safety.
In addition, the laws, orders, rules, and regulations specified may be enforced against a fast food restaurant franchisor, including administratively or by civil action, to the same extent that they may be enforced against the fast food restaurant franchisor’s franchisee.
When this idea was approached last year, McDonalds said they have to reconsider building in California any new stores. If this passes, you may have to go to Nevada for your Big Mac. Just a warning..oh, imagine the jobs that will be lost.
AB 1228: Joint Employer Liability for Fast Food Restaurant Franchisors and Franchisees
Franchisors must take greater responsibility for achieving compliance with employer laws throughout their franchise networks
By Chris Micheli, California Globe, 2/26/23
Assembly Bill 1228 (Holden) was introduced to impose joint employer liability for fast food restaurant franchisors and franchisees. AB 1228 would add Labor Code Section 2810.9.
Section 1 of the bill would name the Fast Food Franchisor Responsibility Act.
Section 2 of the bill would provide five legislative findings and declarations that the fast food restaurant industry has long been rampant with employment law violations, and that the franchise model under which those fast food restaurants are operated contributes to the high rate of employment violations.
In addition, despite their contributions to the problem, fast food restaurant franchisors often avoid liability, and disavow any responsibility, for the employment violations affecting the fast food restaurant workers in their franchised stores. Finally, franchisors must take greater responsibility for achieving compliance with employer laws throughout their franchise networks.
Section 3 of the bill would add Labor Code Section 2810.9 to provide that a fast food restaurant franchisor is required to share with its fast food restaurant franchisee all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for the fast food restaurant franchisee’s violations of specified laws, as well as orders issued by the Governor, a county, or a municipality regarding employment standards, worker health and safety, or public health and safety.
In addition, the laws, orders, rules, and regulations specified may be enforced against a fast food restaurant franchisor, including administratively or by civil action, to the same extent that they may be enforced against the fast food restaurant franchisor’s franchisee. However, a civil action cannot be commenced against a fast food restaurant franchisor under this section prior to 30 days (which can be extended to 60 days upon written request) after written notice of the alleged violation of any of the laws and orders has been given to the fast food restaurant franchisor by a person commencing the action.
A fast food restaurant franchisor would not be liable in a civil action if the fast food restaurant franchisor cures the alleged violation within the applicable time period (30 days or 60 days). A waiver of this section, or any agreement by a fast food restaurant franchisee to indemnify its fast food restaurant franchisor for liability under this section, would be contrary to public policy and would be void and unenforceable.
If the terms of a fast food restaurant franchise prevent or create a substantial barrier to a fast food restaurant franchisee’s compliance with the laws and orders specified the fast food restaurant franchisee may file an action against its fast food restaurant franchisor for monetary or injunctive relief necessary to ensure compliance.
Moreover, there would be a rebuttable presumption that any changes in the terms of a franchise that increase the costs of the franchise to the fast food restaurant franchisee create a substantial barrier to compliance with the laws and orders specified. Finally, the following terms would be defined: “fast food chain,” “fast food restaurant,” “fast food restaurant franchisee,” “fast food restaurant franchisor,” “franchise,” “franchisee,” and “franchisor.”
About Stephen Frank
Speak Your Mind