November 20, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
November 20, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Deborah Chasanow dismissed all claims asserted against 7-Eleven, Inc. and a franchisee entity, Arnav & Aarav Corporation, arising out of a restroom-access dispute at a franchised convenience store. According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged he attempted to use the restroom at a Bowie, Maryland 7-Eleven, that a cashier informed him the restroom was unavailable, and that the cashier told him to leave after he asked why. The plaintiff alleged this interaction caused embarrassment and constituted discrimination. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title II of the Civil Rights Act, OSHA, and several state-law theories. The Court dismissed all federal claims, finding that the ADA does not permit monetary damages, the plaintiff failed to allege any disability-based or race-based discriminatory act, OSHA provides no private right of action, and Title II only permits injunctive relief. Because the federal claims were dismissed, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Importantly for franchisors, the Court found no basis for vicarious liability against 7-Eleven, Inc. because the franchisee, A&A, was not liable on any federal claim.
Relevant Background
According to the allegations in the amended complaint, the plaintiff visited a 7-Eleven store in February 2025 and asked the cashier where the restroom was located. The opinion states the plaintiff alleged the cashier told him there was no restroom, and that when he questioned the reason, the cashier instructed him to leave the premises. The plaintiff contacted the police, but no action was taken. Based on this interaction, he brought claims for racial discrimination, disability discrimination, “shy bladder” injury, harassment, emotional harm, OSHA violations, and restroom-signage violations.
The Court explained that the plaintiff sued “7-Eleven Corporate Office” and “7-Eleven Store,” entities he believed to be responsible for the location. In fact, the franchised location was owned and operated by Arnav & Aarav Corporation, a Maryland corporation. 7-Eleven, Inc. is a separate Texas corporation and the national franchisor. The Court noted that the plaintiff did not dispute these corporate distinctions but misunderstood their legal effect, asserting that because the store operated “under the 7-Eleven umbrella,” the franchisor should be deemed responsible for the cashier’s conduct. The Court explained that the plaintiff’s subjective assumptions about ownership did not alter the legal separation between franchisor and franchisee.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Court addressed both issues. Although diversity jurisdiction was not available due to shared Maryland citizenship between the plaintiff and A&A, the Court found federal-question jurisdiction existed because the plaintiff invoked the ADA. The Court therefore evaluated the merits of each federal claim before determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law theories.
Decision
The Court dismissed all federal claims. With respect to the ADA, the Court explained that Title III allows only injunctive relief and does not authorize monetary damages. Because the plaintiff sought only damages, the ADA claim necessarily failed as a matter of law. The Court further found that the plaintiff did not adequately allege a disability within the meaning of the ADA or any nexus between a disability and the cashier’s conduct. The Court noted that the plaintiff’s reference to “shy bladder” as a disability was unclear and legally insufficient, and that the allegations did not describe any discriminatory action taken because of disability.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s signage-based ADA claim for the same reason, noting that Title III does not permit damages and that the plaintiff did not allege pursuit of injunctive relief. The Court explained that even if restroom signage requirements apply to convenience stores, the plaintiff did not allege any connection between signage and disability discrimination, which is required to state a claim under the ADA.
The OSHA-based claim was dismissed because OSHA does not provide a private right of action to employees, let alone to customers. The Court reiterated that OSHA enforcement actions may only be brought by federal authorities and cannot form the basis of a civil damages claim.
The Court also dismissed the plaintiff’s Title II race discrimination claim. The Court emphasized that Title II, like ADA Title III, authorizes only injunctive relief and does not permit damages. Separate from this remedial bar, the Court found that the plaintiff alleged no facts suggesting the cashier’s actions were motivated by race. The opinion noted the absence of racial comments, comparative treatment allegations, or any factual basis permitting an inference of discriminatory intent.
Because the federal claims failed, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court dismissed those claims without prejudice so that the plaintiff could pursue them, if at all, in state court.
Importantly for franchisors, the Court concluded that 7-Eleven, Inc. could not be held vicariously liable on federal claims because the franchisee itself was not liable. The Court noted that the only plausible basis for liability against the franchisor would have been vicarious liability under traditional agency principles, but without a viable federal claim against A&A, there was no predicate for franchisor liability.
Looking Forward
This decision illustrates several issues relevant to franchisors while remaining grounded in the specific allegations before the Court. The opinion underscores the recurring principle that franchisors are not liable for the day-to-day actions of independently owned franchisees absent factual allegations showing operational control, direct supervision, or involvement in the specific conduct at issue. Under different facts or in other jurisdictions, courts may evaluate these issues differently; however, the Court’s analysis here reinforces a consistent judicial approach that treats franchisors and franchisees as separate entities unless specific allegations plausibly establish an agency relationship.
The opinion also highlights the limits of ADA and public-accommodation claims when plaintiffs seek monetary relief rather than injunctive remedies. Franchise systems may view this as a reminder that many ADA claims filed against branded locations involve misunderstandings of the statute’s remedial framework. Although franchisors may wish to maintain strong compliance programs, they may also be reassured that the ADA does not expose them to damages claims for customer interactions occurring in franchisee-operated stores.
The decision further demonstrates how courts approach conclusory allegations of discrimination or wrongdoing in the absence of factual support. In this case, the plaintiff did not allege that the cashier’s actions were motivated by race or disability, and the Court required more than subjective impressions of unfairness to sustain a claim. For franchisors, the opinion reflects the importance of training franchisees to maintain consistent operational practices and customer-service protocols, while also emphasizing that fairness alone does not transform a routine dispute into a federal claim.
Finally, the Court’s vicarious-liability analysis illustrates how franchisees’ independent ownership, separate corporate identity, and sole operational control help define the franchisor’s legal exposure. While different factual showings could yield different outcomes, the opinion serves as a reminder that well-maintained franchise documentation and clear operational delineations may mitigate the risk of being drawn into litigation arising from ordinary service interactions on franchisee premises.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
