Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—E.D. Pa.: Domino’s Pizza tossed from employment discrimination suit, (Aug 11, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Domino’s Pizza, Inc.—the parent company of franchisor Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC—was dismissed from an employment discrimination suit arising from a franchisee’s alleged refusal to hire female drivers. The federal district court in Philadelphia granted Domino’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies against Domino’s prior to filing suit (Owens-Presley v. MCD Pizza, Inc., August 10, 2015, Beetlestone, W.).

Plaintiff Kalisha Owens-Presley filed suit against Domino’s and MCD Pizza, Inc., a company that runs a local Domino’s Pizza franchise. She claims that she was denied employment and an opportunity for employment on the basis of her sex because she was allegedly told by MCD’s owner that the store was not hiring female drivers. Owens-Presley filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), but Domino’s never received notice of the EEOC proceedings. Owens-Presley later filed suit against MCD, MCD owner Mark Coskun, and Domino’s, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Both Domino’s and Coskun moved for partial summary judgment.

Named-party requirement. Domino’s argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because Owens-Presley failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by never naming Domino’s as a party in her Charge of Discrimination filed with the EEOC. Conversely, Owens-Presley claimed that because she named “Domino’s Pizza” as the party respondent, and because Domino’s and MCD both do business under the trade name “Domino’s Pizza,” Domino’s was identified with sufficient specificity in the Charge and she therefore exhausted her administrative remedies against it.

The court sided with Domino’s, concluding that because Owens-Presley did not include any facts or allegations in her charge that in any way differentiated the franchisee store from Domino’s, “Domino’s Pizza” referred to the franchisee store alone. Specifically, the court noted that the Charge only listed the store’s address, identified Coskun as the owner of “Domino’s Pizza,” and the only conduct alleged was conduct by employees of the MCD-owned store. The Schafer/Glus exception to the named-party requirement was inapplicable in this case, because Owens-Presley admitted that there was no evidence that Domino’s had actual notice of the charge at any time prior to the commencement of the lawsuit. She therefore failed to exhaust her administrative remedies against Domino’s, the court concluded, granting Domino’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Coskun’s motion for partial summary judgment was denied, however, because a reasonable juror could find that Coskun knew of the discrimination and had a direct hand in the discriminatory conduct when he told Owens-Presley that he would not hire women drivers.

The case number is 14-6002.

Attorneys: Joseph A. Hirsch (Hirsch & Hirsch) for Kalisha Owens-Presley. Charles V. Curley (Halberstadt Curley, LLC) for Domino’s Pizza, Inc., MCD Pizza, Inc., and Mark Coskun.

Companies: MCD Pizza, Inc.; Domino’s Pizza, Inc.

Cases: FranchisingDistribution PennsylvaniaNews