SB 1363 creates a new Missouri statute governing when a franchisor may be treated as the employer of a franchisee’s workers. The bill provides that, despite any voluntary agreement between the U.S. Department of Labor and a franchisor or franchisee, neither a franchisee nor the franchisee’s employees are to be considered employees of the franchisor for any purpose unless the franchisor exercises direct and immediate control over hiring, firing, discipline, and day-to-day direction of the franchisee’s employees.
The bill also incorporates the federal regulatory definitions of “franchisee” and “franchisor” from 16 CFR 436.1. In practical terms, it would narrow joint-employer liability in the franchise context under Missouri law and make it harder for franchise workers to claim that a parent franchisor is their employer absent a strong showing of direct control.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add section 285.075 to Chapter 285, RSMo, and would affect how Missouri courts and agencies determine employer-employee relationships in franchise settings. It would limit the circumstances under which a franchisor can be treated as an employer of a franchisee’s workers, potentially reducing exposure to wage, hour, labor, and employment-related claims for franchisors while preserving the separate legal status of franchisees and their employees unless direct and immediate control is shown.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a pro-business, franchise-industry-friendly proposal aimed at clarifying and narrowing joint-employer standards. The absence of recorded discussion means sentiment cannot be measured directly from the provided history, but the bill’s structure suggests support from franchisor and employer interests.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the joint-employer standard: whether a franchisor should be responsible for franchisee employees when it does not directly manage day-to-day employment decisions. Supporters would likely argue the bill protects franchise business models and prevents overbroad liability, while opponents could argue it weakens worker protections and makes it harder to hold parent companies accountable for labor practices in franchise operations. The bill also expressly overrides any contrary voluntary agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor, which could be controversial because it seeks to preempt a federal administrative arrangement in state law.