Posts tagged "Depianti"

Depianti, et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-112-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030;     SJC‑11282   GIOVANI DEPIANTI & others[1]  vs.  JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC.     Suffolk.     February 5, 2013.  ‑  June 17, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Labor, Wages.  Massachusetts Wage Act.  Independent Contractor Act.  Contract, Franchise agreement, Employment.  Statute, Construction.  Attorney General.  Administrative Law, Exhaustion of remedies.       Certification of a question of law to the Supreme Judicial Court by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.     Shannon Liss-Riordan (Stephen S. Churchill with her) for the plaintiffs. Jeffrey M. Rosin (Christopher M. Pardo with him) for the defendant. Benjamin B. Reed & James C. Rubinger, of Virginia, for International Franchise Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Catherine Ruckelshaus, of New York, Eunice Hyunhye Cho, of California, & Audrey Richardson for Brazilian Immigrant Center & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.       LENK, J.  Giovani Depianti, a janitorial cleaning services franchisee, along with franchisees from other States, filed this putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the defendant, Jan‑Pro Franchising International, Inc. (Jan‑Pro). Depianti alleges, inter alia, that Jan‑Pro misclassified him as an independent contractor, see G. L. c. 149, § 148B, and committed various wage law violations.  A judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts certified the following questions to this court, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981): “[1.]  Whether a plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to [G. L. c. 149, § 150,] by filing a complaint with the Attorney General deprives a court of jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff’s claims under [G. L. c. 149, §§ 148, 148B, and 150,] and under [G. L. c. 151, §§ 1 and 1A].   “[2.]  Whether and how to apply the ‘right to control test’ for vicarious liability to the franchisor-franchisee relationship. . . .   “[3.]  Whether a defendant may be liable for employee misclassification under [G. L. c. 149, § 148B,] where there was no contract for service between the plaintiff and defendant.”   We answer the first question, “No.”  We answer the second question, “Yes,” with further discussion concerning the application of the “right to control test” to the franchisor-franchisee relationship.  We answer the third question, “Yes.”[2]   1.  Background.  Jan‑Pro is a Massachusetts corporation “in the business of operating and franchising comprehensive cleaning and maintenance businesses.”  It sells […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 18, 2013 at 1:05 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,