The Court of Appeals has found sufficient proof and data for Taylor Patterson’s case and has allowed the suit to be continued on cases of sexual harassment and retaliation. However, Supreme Court Judge Barbara Lane concluded that the suit should only be pointed to the franchisee, where Patterson worked in.
Owner of the franchise Daniel Poff and Domino’s Pizza was sued for claims of sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation for exercise of rights, infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery and constructive wrongful termination.
Justice Arthur Gilbert from the Court of Appeals has concluded otherwise, indicating that “a franchisor’s actions speak louder than words in the franchise agreement.”
He also pointed out that Domino’s had control over employees, as the franchise agreement and other documents indicated requirements for employees based on their standards. In addition, Domino’s also has control over other aspects that give them substantial control.
Even with Poff’s testimony, stating that Domino’s management was consistent with inspections of operations, Gilbert still sees that the case is triable. Poff also admitted that an area manager had already advised him to fire the manager and found the company to be bossy.
Domino’s Pizza continue to stand on the grounds that the head company “was not involved in the training, supervision, or hiring of any employees of” the franchisee, Sui Juris, LLC and has emphasized the franchise agreement where in the franchisee is wholly accountable on “supervising and paying the persons who work in the store.”