310 Ga. App. 265
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- JPI created a master franchising plan and licensed it to regional franchisees who in turn license to unit franchisees like Depianti.
- Depianti, a Massachusetts unit franchisee, claimed employee status in arbitration against his regional franchisee, BradleyMktg Enterprises, Inc. (BME).
- JPI filed a declaratory judgment action in Georgia seeking to determine whether Depianti was an employee under Massachusetts law (MICS).
- The trial court granted Depianti summary judgment; the court found issues of fact as to Kim and granted summary judgment to Depianti on the MICS claim.
- This Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding Depianti was not an employee under the MICS and that JPI was not Depianti’s employer under the MICS.
- Massachusetts law requires a three-part test: (1) freedom from control, (2) service performed outside usual course of the employer's business, and (3) independent trade or occupation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Depianti is an employee under the MICS. | JPI argues Depianti is not controlled by JPI and operates as a separate business. | Depianti contends he is an employee under MICS due to the franchise structure. | Depianti is not an employee under MICS; JPI not his employer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Athol Daily News v. Bd. of Review, etc., 439 Mass. 171 (Mass. 2003) (limits a strict reading of independent contractor statute to avoid deeming nearly all workers employees)
- Motorsport Engineering v. Maserati SPA, 316 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2002) (contractual structure and control aspects relevant to independent contractor analysis)