When the U.S. Supreme Court decides a narrow issue of law, we can only speculate how the decision will be interpreted by lower courts. A Supreme Court decision interpreting one federal statute should only be persuasive precedent for the interpretation of a state statute, for example. But when the decision is well reasoned, the decision by analogy may be most persuasive. Such was the case in Bell v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution , 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90987 (N.D. IL 2012), creating a bright-line test for constructive termination of franchises.
Plaintiff Steven Bell sued Bimbo Foods on behalf of himself and a proposed class of distributors. The complaint alleged that Bimbo has illegally characterized distributors as independent contractors rather than as employees and did not pay overtime wages. In addition, Bell brought claims for rescission, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and wrongful termination under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act (IFDA).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
