Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
465 Mass. 607
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Depianti, a Massachusetts janitorial unit franchisee, sues Jan-Pro Franchising International in a putative class action in federal court.
- Plaintiffs allege misclassification as independent contractors under G. L. c. 149, § 148B, and wage-law violations under §§ 148, 150, and c. 151.
- District Court certified three Massachusetts-law questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court under Rule 1:03.
- Question 1: whether failure to exhaust § 150 with a complaint to the Attorney General deprives jurisdiction; Question 2: application of the right-to-control test to franchisor-franchisee; Question 3: liability for misclassification without a contract.
- Court answers: no to jurisdictional impact of not filing with AG; yes to applying the right-to-control test with a focus on the disputed instrumentality; yes to liability for misclassification without a contract.
- Jan-Pro’s structure involves regional master franchisees and unit franchisees; Depianti’s claims depend on vicarious liability and direct misclassification under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure to file with the Attorney General deprive jurisdiction? | Depianti argues § 150 requires AG complaint before private suit. | Jan-Pro contends lack of filing divests federal jurisdiction. | No jurisdictional deprivation. |
| How should the right-to-control test apply to franchisor-franchisee? | Depianti seeks vicarious liability based on franchisor control over conduct. | Jan-Pro argues franchise control is insufficient for master-servant liability. | Yes, with instrumentality-focused control analysis. |
| Can misclassification under § 148B occur without a contract between parties? | Jan-Pro may be liable directly for misclassification despite no direct contract. | Liability requires a contractual relationship between parties. | Yes, lack of contract does not bar liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) (federal court's independent duty to ensure jurisdiction)
- Schulte v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 369 Mass. 74 (1975) (factors for whether procedural defect deprives jurisdiction)
- Cowan v. Eastern Racing Ass’n, 330 Mass. 135 (1953) (master/servant test relies on control or direction)
- Khoury v. Edison Elec. Illumination Co., 265 Mass. 236 (1928) (power of control as key to agency/employee status)
- Kapp v. Ballantine, 380 Mass. 186 (1980) (control test for master/servant relationship)
- DiFiore v. American Airlines, Inc., 454 Mass. 486 (2009) (remedial construction and contract language interpretation)
- Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697 (2011) (liberal construction of remedial statutes; tips statute analogy)
- Somers v. Converged Access, Inc., 454 Mass. 582 (2009) (misclassification concerns and employer liability)
- Attorney Gen. v. M.C.K., Inc., 432 Mass. 546 (2000) (corporate form and piercing the corporate veil factors)