Question

National Food's sells franchises to its fast food restaurants known as Chicky-D's. Under the agreement, franchisees agree to hire and train employees strictly according to Chicky-D's standards.

Regional supervisors are required to approve all job candidates before they are hired and all general policies those employees. They reserve the right to terminate a franchise for those rules.
In , regional supervisors approve new employees and individual franchisees' policies.
A[er several racist comments and conduct by Tim, a recently hired assistant manager, Sharon, a counterperson, resigns and then files suit in federal district court against National.
National files a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it is not
liable for harassment by franchise employees.
The court will likely:
a) grant National's motion
b) schedule a hearing to hear evidence to determine if harassment actually occurred
c) deny National's motion
d) have lunch at Chucky-D's first

Answer 1

The court's decision on National Food's liability for harassment by a franchise employee will depend on the control the franchisor had over hiring and employment policies, reflecting broader legal issues related to franchisor responsibilities in employment law.

Step-by-step explanation:

The subject of this question is Law, which involves the legal responsibilities of a franchisor under employment law. In the scenario presented, Sharon, a former employee at a Chicky-D's franchise, is filing suit against National Food's due to harassment she faced from an assistant manager. National Food's filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming they are not liable for harassment by franchise employees. This touches upon fundamental legal concepts such as vicarious liability, direct liability, and the control that a franchisor has over its franchisees' employment practices. The court's decision will likely on the extent to which National Food's exercised control over the franchisee's employment practices, as indicated by their requirement for regional supervisors to approve all job candidates. The legal principles in this context would likely be similar to cases involving fast-food franchises and their employment practices.