News Briefs

Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit claiming that Friedlander was violently attacked and discriminated against in a place of public accommodation based on her actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and sex. “Businesses are not exempt from treating LGBT people with dignity and respect,” said Natalie Chin, a Lambda Legal staff attorney.

Sizzler did not respond to inquiries.

Ford Settles Lawsuit with Former Mercury Dealer

Settlements continue to trickle in on lawsuits filed by auto dealers who were closed down when U.S. automakers scaled back the number of brands and dealerships during the financial crisis. In early June, Ford settled a lawsuit with Forrester Lincoln-Mercury in Chambersburg, PA. The dealer filed the lawsuit when Ford announced it was shutting down the Mercury brand. Terms of the deal were sealed by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, upon Ford's request. According to Ford, fewer than 40 of its 1,700 former Mercury dealers have not reached agreements on compensation.

State Roundup: New Laws in Washington, Utah, Arizona

In the last two months, three states have enacted new laws affecting franchises, auto dealerships, and business opportunities.

Washington: On June 7, amendments to the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act went into effect, bringing several aspects of the law to match the FTC Franchise Law and guidelines issued by the North American Securities Administrators Association. The bills, which were S.B. 6172 and H.B. 2235, moved through the legislature with unanimous votes in the spring, and the law was signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire on May 29.

Under the new law, franchisors are required to provide prospective franchisees with the state disclosure document at least 14 calendar days prior to the franchisee signing a binding franchise agreement. This replaces the former delivery schedule of at least 10 business days before signing. Franchisors also are required to give prospective franchisees at least seven days to review the contract if the franchisor makes unilateral and material changes to the disclosure document during the offer period, although mutually negotiated changes will not trigger the seven-day review period. With the changes, the law not only matches the FTC Rule, but it also conforms to the state's Administrative Procedures Act.

In addition, the new law sets the timetables for a franchisor to respond to a stop order or cease-and-desist order related to franchise sales. The franchisor has 20 calendar days, instead of the former 15 business days, to respond to the order ' again, designed to match the Washington Administrative Procedures Act.

Utah: In May, revisions to Utah's motor vehicle dealer law went into effect, several weeks after Gov. Gary R. Hebert signed Senate Bill No. 68. The bill amended Utah's motor vehicle dealer law to limit auto manufacturers' abilities to set prices for car sales and service fees, mandate major dealership remodeling projects, or require some types of purchases from carmakers' specified vendors.

Arizona: In April, Arizona tightened registration and disclosure requirements on sellers of business opportunities. Sellers of business opportunities to individuals (business-to-business sales are exempted) must register with the state and create a disclosure document about the business opportunity being offered, such as the cost of the business, specific goods or services being sold and training that will be provided. Sellers must provide prospective buyers with the disclosure document at least five days before signing a contract or payment of fees, and buyers will have 10 days after purchase to cancel the contract. Buyers of business opportunities from unregistered sellers can cancel their contracts at any time and sue for return of their investment, damages, and attorneys' fees.

In a written analysis of Arizona's law, Perry J. McGuire and Nicholas C. Rueter (Smith Gambrell & Russell LLP) pointed out that the sale of franchises, as defined under the Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule, is exempted.

Sizzler Settles Gay Discrimination Lawsuit with Customer

A Sizzler restaurant and its manager in Queens, NY, settled a lawsuit filed by gay-rights organization Lambda Legal on behalf of a woman who was attacked verbally and physically during a September 2010 visit to the restaurant. The lawsuit, Liza Friedlander v. Waroge Met Ltd., d/b/a Sizzler Restaurant 0489, and John Does 1 through 3, was settled for $25,000 in the New York State Supreme Court, Queens County.

According to the lawsuit, when Friedlander and two friends went to Sizzler, the restaurant's manager, Edgar Orellana, yelled obscenities at her and ordered her to leave the restaurant. He allegedly pushed and kicked her. Restaurant patrons joined in abuse, threw objects at her, and threatened to sexually assault her. Police were called, and Friedlander left by ambulance to go to the hospital to be treated for bruises.

Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit claiming that Friedlander was violently attacked and discriminated against in a place of public accommodation based on her actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and sex. “Businesses are not exempt from treating LGBT people with dignity and respect,” said Natalie Chin, a Lambda Legal staff attorney.

Sizzler did not respond to inquiries.

Ford Settles Lawsuit with Former Mercury Dealer

Settlements continue to trickle in on lawsuits filed by auto dealers who were closed down when U.S. automakers scaled back the number of brands and dealerships during the financial crisis. In early June, Ford settled a lawsuit with Forrester Lincoln-Mercury in Chambersburg, PA. The dealer filed the lawsuit when Ford announced it was shutting down the Mercury brand. Terms of the deal were sealed by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, upon Ford's request. According to Ford, fewer than 40 of its 1,700 former Mercury dealers have not reached agreements on compensation.

State Roundup: New Laws in Washington, Utah, Arizona

In the last two months, three states have enacted new laws affecting franchises, auto dealerships, and business opportunities.

Washington: On June 7, amendments to the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act went into effect, bringing several aspects of the law to match the FTC Franchise Law and guidelines issued by the North American Securities Administrators Association. The bills, which were S.B. 6172 and H.B. 2235, moved through the legislature with unanimous votes in the spring, and the law was signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire on May 29.

Under the new law, franchisors are required to provide prospective franchisees with the state disclosure document at least 14 calendar days prior to the franchisee signing a binding franchise agreement. This replaces the former delivery schedule of at least 10 business days before signing. Franchisors also are required to give prospective franchisees at least seven days to review the contract if the franchisor makes unilateral and material changes to the disclosure document during the offer period, although mutually negotiated changes will not trigger the seven-day review period. With the changes, the law not only matches the FTC Rule, but it also conforms to the state's Administrative Procedures Act.

In addition, the new law sets the timetables for a franchisor to respond to a stop order or cease-and-desist order related to franchise sales. The franchisor has 20 calendar days, instead of the former 15 business days, to respond to the order ' again, designed to match the Washington Administrative Procedures Act.

Utah: In May, revisions to Utah's motor vehicle dealer law went into effect, several weeks after Gov. Gary R. Hebert signed Senate Bill No. 68. The bill amended Utah's motor vehicle dealer law to limit auto manufacturers' abilities to set prices for car sales and service fees, mandate major dealership remodeling projects, or require some types of purchases from carmakers' specified vendors.

Arizona: In April, Arizona tightened registration and disclosure requirements on sellers of business opportunities. Sellers of business opportunities to individuals (business-to-business sales are exempted) must register with the state and create a disclosure document about the business opportunity being offered, such as the cost of the business, specific goods or services being sold and training that will be provided. Sellers must provide prospective buyers with the disclosure document at least five days before signing a contract or payment of fees, and buyers will have 10 days after purchase to cancel the contract. Buyers of business opportunities from unregistered sellers can cancel their contracts at any time and sue for return of their investment, damages, and attorneys' fees.

In a written analysis of Arizona's law, Perry J. McGuire and Nicholas C. Rueter (Smith Gambrell & Russell LLP) pointed out that the sale of franchises, as defined under the Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule, is exempted.