Skip to main content

Guadalupe Salazar v. McDonald's Corp.

9th CircuitOctober 1, 2019No. 17-15673Cited 21 times
Defendant WinMcDonald's Corp.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftFailure to AccommodateWrongful Termination

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of McDonald's Corp., holding that McDonald's was not a joint employer of franchise workers and was not liable for wage-and-hour violations under control, suffer-or-permit, ostensible agency, or negligence theories.

What This Ruling Means

**McDonald's Franchise Workers Lose Wage Theft Case** Guadalupe Salazar, a worker at a McDonald's franchise restaurant, sued McDonald's Corporation claiming the company failed to pay proper wages, didn't provide workplace accommodations, and wrongfully fired her. The key issue was whether McDonald's corporate headquarters could be held responsible for problems at franchise locations it doesn't directly own or operate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of McDonald's Corporation. The court determined that McDonald's corporate was not a "joint employer" of franchise workers and therefore couldn't be held legally responsible for wage violations, accommodation failures, or termination decisions made by individual franchise owners. The court rejected several legal arguments that could have made McDonald's liable for franchise employment practices. This ruling matters significantly for workers at franchise businesses. It means employees typically cannot sue the parent corporation for workplace violations—they can only pursue claims against their direct employer, the franchise owner. This can be problematic because individual franchise owners often have fewer financial resources than large corporations. Workers at franchised McDonald's, Subway, or other chain restaurants should understand their employer is likely the franchise owner, not the famous brand name on the building.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.