House advances bill to clarify franchisee–franchisor employer liability

The Missouri House on Feb. 16 perfected House Bill 1644, a proposal that would define when a franchisor can be considered an employer of a franchisee’s workers under state law.

Sponsor Representative from Douglas described the measure as establishing a clear state test: a franchisor is not an employer of the franchisee or the franchisee’s employees unless the franchisor “exercises direct and immediate control over essential employment decisions,” such as hiring and firing, wage-setting, scheduling and supervision. The sponsor framed the bill as a balance that protects locally owned franchise businesses while preserving worker rights.

Supporters cited economic data about franchising’s footprint in the state and noted bipartisan committee support (economic development committee 13-0; rules 9-0). Members asked whether gig workers (for example, drivers for app-based platforms) would be affected; the sponsor said the bill targets traditional franchise relationships and would not apply to non-franchise gig models.

Opponents and some questioners raised concerns about scenarios where franchisors exert substantial operational control—such as mandated staffing or corporate hotlines handling harassment complaints—and whether courts would continue to find appropriate liability in those fact patterns. The sponsor and other members said courts retain authority to consider specific facts and that the bill would not absolve franchisors of negligence where they actually exercise control.

After floor debate the motion to perfect and print carried and the bill was ordered perfected and printed for future legislative steps.

Next steps: HB1644 was perfected and printed and will return for later consideration.