Franchisor’s parent was not plaintiffs’ employer

Where plaintiffs sued Wyndham Hotels & Resorts for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but Wyndham showed it was never the plaintiffs’ employer, and was only the corporate parent of the franchisor, it was granted summary judgment on the employment claims.

Background

This case arises out of the dissolution of an employment relationship and related tenancy alleged to be between plaintiffs Patrick & Shirley Lattimore and defendants Sonal & Kamlesh Brahmbhatt, the Dhyanni Corporation, Wyndham Hotels & Resorts and Branch Banking & Trust/Truist Financial.

The court construes the pro se plaintiffs’ third amended complaint to allege causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act and the Virginia Residential Landlord & Tenant Act, as well as potential state law torts and possibly a breach of contract action. This matter is before the court on Wyndham Hotels and Resorts’ motion for summary judgment.

Analysis

Wyndham contends that it was never plaintiffs’ employer, was a stranger to plaintiff and that its relationship, if at all, was as the parent company of Super 8 Worldwide Inc., or SWI, the entity with which the Brahmbhatts (as the owners of Dutt Hotel Inc.) entered into a franchise agreement for the Martinsville location.

In support of their argument, Wyndham has presented a copy of the franchise agreement between SWI and Dutt Hotel. Under the terms of that agreement — an agreement to which neither Wyndham nor plaintiffs were a party — SWI and Dutt Hotel agreed that Dutt Hotel would be an “independent contractor,” and that Dutt Hotel would “exercise full and complete control over and have full responsibility for [its] contracts, daily operations, labor relations, employment practices and policies, including, but not limited to, the recruitment, selection, hiring, disciplining, firing, compensation, work rules and schedules of [its] employees.”

Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact that they were in an employer/employee relationship with Wyndham. It is well-settled that a party may not rely on self-serving allegations to defeat summary judgment. Therefore, plaintiffs’ allegation that Wyndham was their employer is insufficient to create a dispute of material fact. Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence in support of their claim that Wyndham was their employer.

And even if they contend that Wyndham was a joint employer with all the other defendants, that claim fails for lack of any evidentiary support as well. Plaintiffs have not offered any facts to show that Wyndham was their employer, and the references to the “Wyndham Rewards Program” in the franchise agreement (to which plaintiffs were not a party) is insufficient to create a dispute of material fact. Because plaintiffs have failed to put forth any evidence that Wyndham was their employer (or joint employer), claims of discrimination under Title VII, violation of the FLSA and violations of the Virginia Wage Payment Act must fail.

As to their claims that Wyndham unlawfully evicted them under the Virginia Residential Landlord & Tenant Act, or VRLTA, plaintiffs have failed to allege, let alone establish a genuine issue of material fact, that Wyndham was their landlord, and thus subject to the VRLTA. Finally, insofar as plaintiffs allege that Wyndham breached duties of “Oversight, Accountability and Compliance to assure that their Assets were properly run and maintaining Lawful Hiring Practices compliant with State and Federal Laws” their pleadings indicate the futility of the claim.

Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to show—and the franchise agreement does not suggest—that they were intended beneficiaries of the agreement between SWI and Dutt Hotel. Accordingly, even if SWI (or Wyndham) did breach its contractual obligations under the franchise agreement, plaintiffs cannot sue it for doing so.

Wyndham’s motion for summary judgment granted.

Lattimore v. Brahmbhatt, Case No. 4:21-cv-00038, May 20, 2022. WDVA at Danville (Cullen). VLW 022-3-219. 9 pp.