In recent years, the massage therapy industry has faced intense scrutiny due to a surge in sexual assault allegations against therapists, particularly within franchised establishments like Massage Envy. These incidents not only highlight individual misconduct but also raise critical questions about corporate responsibility and the legal avenues available to survivors seeking justice.

The Legal Landscape: Franchisor Liability Under Texas Law

A pivotal case that reshaped the understanding of franchisor liability in Texas is Massage Heights Franchising, LLC v. Hagman. In this recent case, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a multi-million-dollar verdict against the franchisor, emphasizing that a franchisor is not liable for the acts of a franchisee’s employee unless it exercised control over the specific conduct that caused the harm. Despite prior complaints against the therapist, the Court found that the franchisor’s general oversight did not equate to direct control over daily operations, thus absolving it of liability.

A Pattern of Negligence: The Case Against Massage Therapy Franchises

Massage Envy, one of the largest massage franchises in the U.S., has been at the center of numerous sexual assault allegations. A BuzzFeed News investigation revealed that over 180 individuals reported sexual assaults at Massage Envy locations, with many claiming that their complaints were mishandled or ignored by both franchisees and the corporate office. In several instances, therapists accused of misconduct were transferred to other locations rather than being terminated, allowing the cycle of abuse to continue.

Recent Legal Actions and Settlements

Legal actions against Massage Envy have led to significant settlements, highlighting the company’s ongoing challenges in addressing sexual misconduct:

In Houston, a Massage Envy franchise agreed to a $1 million settlement after two women alleged they were sexually assaulted by a therapist during their appointments.
A former employee in Dallas sued the company, claiming she was assaulted by a co-worker during a massage session. Instead of terminating the accused, the franchise reportedly transferred him to another location.
In Austin, a woman filed a lawsuit after alleging she was sexually assaulted during a massage. The therapist had a prior assault charge before being hired, raising questions about the company’s hiring practices.

Implications for Plaintiffs and Legal Practitioners

These cases underscore the complexities involved in holding franchisors accountable for the actions of individual franchisees and their employees. While the Massage Heights decision sets a precedent limiting franchisor liability, it does not entirely absolve them, especially if evidence shows direct control or negligence in oversight.

For plaintiffs and their attorneys, it’s crucial to:

Investigate the franchisor’s level of control over daily operations, including hiring, training, and supervision practices.
Examine the franchisor’s response to prior complaints and whether there was a pattern of negligence or cover-ups.
Explore alternative legal theories, such as negligent undertaking or apparent authority, to establish liability.

Wrapping Up

The surge in sexual assault allegations within franchised massage establishments like Massage Envy highlights a pressing need for systemic change and accountability. While legal precedents may pose challenges, they also provide a roadmap for survivors and their advocates to navigate the complexities of franchisor liability. By meticulously examining the relationships between franchisors and franchisees, and by holding all parties accountable, we can work towards a safer and more just environment for clients and employees alike.