ARTICLE
1 February 2016

Joint Employer Claims Move Forward Against Hotel Franchisor In Sexual Servitude Suit

FR
Fox Rothschild LLP

Contributor

Who We Are

With bold growth, Fox Rothschild brings together 1,000 attorneys coast to coast. We offer the reach and resources of a national law firm combined with the personal touch and connections of a boutique firm.

Our Mission

Solving problems is our top priority. We invest the time to get to know you and understand your needs. We work hard to win every client’s loyalty. We do that by providing creative solutions and excellent client service.

Browning-Ferris based claims against hotel franchisor Marriott International Incorporated ("Marriott") will move forward, according to an Illinois federal court.
United States Corporate/Commercial Law
Fox Rothschild LLP are most popular:
  • within Immigration, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
  • with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
  • in Ireland
  • with readers working within the Automotive, Basic Industries and Insurance industries

Browning-Ferris based claims against hotel franchisor Marriott International Incorporated ("Marriott") will move forward, according to an Illinois federal court.  The suit seeks to hold Marriott liable as a joint employer for the actions of the employee if its franchisee–a hotel assistant manager who allegedly coerced housekeepers into sexual "servitude."  Invoking the NLRB's recent decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No 186 (August 27, 2015), the complaint argued that Marriott's exercise of "direct, indirect or potential control over essential working conditions" at the hotel makes it a joint employer with the franchsee. For greater detail on the case, see our recent blog  here.

The Plaintiff named Marriott in eight counts.  Marriott was directly charged as joint employer with its franchisee for wrongful termination and negligent hiring and supervision. The other six counts (discrimination, retaliation, battery, assault, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress) were based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, which makes employers liable for certain acts of employees done within the scope of employment.

Of the eight counts, five will move forward.  The court dismissed the negligence-based claims against Marriott (i.e., negligent hiring and supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress), citing the Illinois Workers Compensation Act (IWCA) and concluding that Illinois employers are not liable for common law negligence claims.  The Plaintiff herself dismissed the wrongful termination claim.

But the claims for discrimination, retaliation, battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress will move forward based on Marriott's alleged status as a joint employer with its franchisee.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More