H.R. 5267: American Franchise Act

H.R. 5267 replaces a contested legal question with a checklist. A franchisor could be called a joint employer only if it both possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over at least one of eight things: wages, benefits, hours, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, or direction. Both halves have to be true. Holding the power in the contract is not enough if the brand never uses it.

The bill then defines each of those eight terms narrowly, and pairs most of them with a list of what does not count. A brand does not control your hours by setting the store's operating hours or its minimum staffing levels. It does not control hiring by recommending that the owner add shifts. It does not control supervision by writing brand standards, supplying training materials, or setting minimum training requirements. A brand can tell the owner you are performing poorly, say it thinks little of you, and refuse to let you work under the franchise contract, and the bill counts none of that as controlling your discharge or discipline.

Even qualifying control has to be sustained. It must have a regular or continuous consequential effect on the job; sporadic, isolated, or de minimis involvement is expressly excluded.

The same test would run through two statutes at once. H.R. 5267 writes it into the National Labor Relations Act, which governs union organizing and bargaining, and then into the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs unpaid wages and overtime. A worker chasing unpaid overtime and a union seeking a seat across from corporate would face the same threshold.

Nothing already in motion changes. The bill does not apply to any proceeding commenced before it is enacted, so pending cases stay under whatever standard governs them today.