Williams
et al. v. Jani-King of Philadelphia – 3d Cir. – September 21, 2016
Disputes
about whether workers are properly classified as employees or independent
contractors are a classic and reoccurring issue in American law. This case
presents such a dispute. Jani-King, the world’s largest commercial cleaning
franchisor, classifies its franchisees as independent contractors.
Two
Jani-King franchisees, Darryl Williams and Howard Brooks, assert that they are
misclassified and should be treated as employees. On behalf of a class of
Jani-King franchisees in the Philadelphia area, Brooks and Williams seek unpaid
wages under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL), 43 Pa. Stat.
§§ 260.1–260.12.
The
District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In this
interlocutory appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), we consider
whether the misclassification claim can be made on a class-wide basis through
common evidence, primarily the franchise agreement and manuals.
We
hold that the claims in this case are susceptible to class-wide determination
and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by certifying the
class.
----------------------
If the case is
old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case
name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar)
