Creates new provisions relating to joint employers
Summary
HB 1068 would add a new section to Missouri’s employment law chapter to limit when a franchisor can be treated as the employer of a franchisee’s workers. The bill states that, regardless of any voluntary agreement between the U.S. Department of Labor and a franchisor or franchisee, a franchisee and the franchisee’s employees will not be considered employees of the franchisor for any purpose unless the franchisor exercises direct and immediate control over hiring, termination, discipline, and day-to-day direction of the franchisee’s employees.
In practical terms, the bill creates a strong statutory rule against joint-employer liability in the franchise context. It incorporates the federal definition of “franchisee” and “franchisor” from federal regulations, and it would affect how Missouri courts and agencies analyze employment relationships involving franchise businesses, especially in disputes over wage, labor, and liability issues.
Impact
The bill would amend Chapter 285, RSMo, by creating section 285.075 and establishing a state-law standard that narrows when franchisors can be treated as employers of franchisee workers. This would likely limit the reach of joint-employer theories in Missouri for franchise arrangements, reducing potential exposure for franchisors in employment-related claims unless direct and immediate control is shown. It would also create a Missouri-specific rule that could interact with, but not necessarily mirror, federal labor standards and administrative agreements.
Sentiment
Based on the bill caption and text, the measure appears to be framed as a business-friendly clarification of franchise employment relationships rather than a broad labor reform. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate in the supplied materials. The available context suggests the bill is intended to provide certainty to franchisors and franchise businesses by limiting joint-employer findings.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether the bill unduly shields franchisors from responsibility for workplace conditions and labor violations by making joint-employer status harder to establish. Supporters would likely favor the bill for protecting franchise business models and reducing litigation risk, while opponents may argue it weakens worker protections and makes it more difficult for employees to hold parent companies accountable when they exert indirect control. The bill’s express override of any voluntary agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor may also be a focal point of legal and policy concern.