Mackall, Crounse & Moore, PLC has joined Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C.

The newly formed DeWitt Mackall Crounse & Moore S.C. will provide clients with enhanced legal services
and efficiencies as well as access to more than 100 attorneys practicing in nearly 30 areas of
law in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Dismiss this message


News & Education

Back to Employment Law News Feed

Filter by:

Joint Employer Liability on the Rise.

In a recent decision, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Office of the General Counsel determined that McDonald’s USA, LLC, as the franchisor, could potentially be held liable for the actions of its franchisees under the “joint employer” theory. The General Counsel’s decision has authorized numerous unfair labor practice complaints based on alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) to potentially proceed against both the franchisor and franchisee entities.

Liability of the franchisor for the wrongs of the franchisee is not new. Typically, premised on actual and apparent agency theories, there are reported opinions on franchisor vicarious liability in every jurisdiction for a wide variety of claims including: franchisee fraud, conversion and misrepresentation; personal injuries on franchisee property; product liability claims; consumer protection laws and deceptive practices; environmental clean-up liability; claims under the ADA; civil rights claims, etc. To find liability, courts have historically focused on whether the franchisor controlled, or had the power to control, the overall business of the franchisee. More recently, some courts have narrowed the focus on whether or not the franchisor had control, or the ability to control, the particular instrumentality or activity that allegedly caused the harm or committed the violation. In joint employment cases, that test was typically measured by whether both franchisor and franchisee exercised direct or indirect control over significant terms and conditions of employment.

So, if there has always been franchisor potential for liability of the acts or omissions of the franchisee, why is the McDonald’s case news? Because, until now, franchisors have been rather successful in avoiding liability for the run-of-the-mill disagreements among employees and the franchisees. But the tide is turning and the NLRB General Counsel is winning its argument that the existing joint employer standard should be abandoned in favor of adopting a new standard that takes account of the totality of the circumstances.

Will this ruling have franchisors, parent companies and prime contractors scrambling to exercise less control over their franchisees, subsidiaries or subcontractors’ operations in an attempt to avoid liability? Or understanding that joint liability is more likely, will franchisors, parent companies and prime contractors seek to exercise more control and provide more oversight of the day-to-day tasks of their franchisees, subsidiaries or subcontractors? Companies that pursue more direct input into wages, hiring decisions, terminations, disciplinary actions and other tasks that had historically been left to the discretion of the franchisees, subsidiaries, or subcontractors, will also thereby increase the chances that they are treated as joint employers. This was true in McDonald’s case where employees were able to show that McDonald's provided software to franchise operators that tells them how many employees should work at any given time, and also provided advice on how much employees should be paid.

It also remains to be seen whether the NLRB will more actively pursue “joint employer” cases against parent companies or corporations that would otherwise not have been included in the earlier definition of “employer” under the NLRA. Only time will tell if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Department of Labor will follow the NLRB General Counsel’s lead.

The McDonald’s case just underscores the importance of franchisors, parent companies, and any company that uses temporary agencies, subcontractors, leased employees, or others to perform work or services to fully understand and address joint employer liability in their contracts, to include appropriate indemnities and mandate procurement of insurance to help guard against the ever increasing risks.

About the Author

Holly J. Newman is an attorney practicing out of our Minneapolis office. She is a member of the Labor & Employment Relations, Litigation, Construction and Intellectual Property practice groups. Contact Holly by email or by phone at 612-305-1450.


One of the best features about our website articles and blog entries is that they are timely—you get up-to-date information on the law as it exists at the time. The downside is that the law changes, but our older entries don't. That means we can't guarantee you are getting the most current law when reading through past entries.

Please don't take these articles and blog entries and rely on them as legal advice. Give us a call instead, for specific and pointed advice for your particular situation. Note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship, unless you are accepted as a client of the firm.

Our Locations


Two East Mifflin Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 255-8891
Get Directions

Greater Milwaukee

13845 Bishop’s Drive, Suite 300
Brookfield, WI 53005
(262) 754-2840
Get Directions


2100 AT&T Tower,
901 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 305-1400
Get Directions

Get to know us

DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C., including its affiliate DeWitt Mackall Crounse & Moore S.C., is one of the ten largest law firms based in Wisconsin, with an additional presence in Minnesota. It has nearly140 attorneys practicing in Madison, Metropolitan Milwaukee and Minneapolis in over 30 legal practice areas, and has the experience to service clients of all scopes and sizes.

Our People
Our Law Firm
Areas of Expertise
News & Education
Contact Us


We are an active and proud member of Lexwork International, an association of mid-sized independent law firms in major cities located throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia.


Best Lawyers 2013 – 2018
Compass Award 2012
Top 100 Lawyers: National Trial Lawyers Association

  • blf-badge-2016
  • blf-badge-2017
  • Ramac Member Logo
  • blf-badge-2018


While we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an “engagement letter”). You will not be a client of the firm until you receive such an engagement letter.

The best way for you to initiate a possible representation is to call DeWitt Ross & Stevens at 608-255-8891. We will make every effort to put you in touch with a lawyer suited to handle your matter. When you receive an engagement letter from one of our lawyers, you will be our client and we may exchange information freely.

Please click the “OK” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.