On this page
Identify whose services and alleged employer are at issue
Chapter 149, section 148B starts with an individual performing services for the alleged employer. In Patel v. 7-Eleven (2024), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court explained this as labour in that business’s interest or under its direction, usually but not always for pay. The services question comes before the three-condition contractor exception. A brand, operator company, owner and technician do not all acquire one status together.
A technician choosing a schedule and a brand remotely checking quality are relevant facts, not a finished classification. Compare contractual controls with actual instructions, supervision, payment and the customer-contract/invoice roles. A franchise or contractor label proves neither universal employee nor contractor status.
What the 7-Eleven decision actually decided
On the record for five franchisees, the court answered that they were not performing services for 7-Eleven within this threshold. They operated their own stores for the public and paid for a licensed business format, property and support. The mutual benefit and brand standards did not by themselves turn those store operations into services for the franchisor.
The court contrasted a cleaning arrangement in which franchisees performed work for the franchisor’s customer accounts and were paid by the franchisor. Contract labels, the existence of brand support and a fixed fee versus a percentage royalty do not decide the threshold alone. The opinion did not decide what effect the use of a company rather than an individual might have. It is a fact-specific services ruling, not an exemption for every franchise or a classification of a technician.
All three conditions must be satisfied
Once the services threshold applies, the contractor exception requires all three: the individual is free from control and direction under the contract and in fact; the service is outside the alleged employer’s usual course of business; and the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as the service performed.
Choosing hours alone addresses neither the whole control inquiry nor the other two conditions. The Patel services ruling does not replace those three conditions once the services threshold is met.
Scope
- The services threshold and relevant current cases require application to the actual facts. This is not a franchisee/technician classification verdict, and other employment or tax tests remain separate.
Next step
Identify the individual’s service and possible employer, then examine every applicable condition rather than relying on schedule choice or a contract label.
Sources & review notes
Massachusetts General Court
Passage, dates and research notes
primary · Subsectiona: performing services and three conditions
an individual performing any service, except as authorized under this chapter
Current official section 148B(a)–(e) was read. Its exception is cumulative and includes the individual customarily engaging in an independently established same-nature trade, occupation, profession or business. Statutory confirmation does not establish the unreviewed current franchise-case application.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; public opinion copy hosted by Justia
Passage, dates and research notes
primary · Complete 28-page opinion; services threshold, holding and corporate-form reservation
usually (but not always) for remuneration
Actual court-authored 28-page PDF read in full, not Justia editorial summary. Downloaded from a non-government public mirror; government/report copy access was not obtained. Slip opinion warns that official reports supersede it. No comprehensive later-history search or all-franchise exemption asserted.
Detailed rule records (1)
General Laws 149 section 148B (a) starts with an individual performing services and requires all three stated conditions for its independent-contractor exception: freedom from control in contract/fact, service outside the employer’s usual course and an independently established business of the same nature. A franchise label does not itself answer whose services are performed for whom.
Massachusetts General Laws 149 Section 148B Patel v. 7-Eleven, SJC-13485: 5 September 2024 slip opinionKeep this reading in your learning library.
Progress privacy
Off by default. Without remembering, changes last on this page. If enabled, only public content identifiers and self-reported progress are stored in this browser profile. Anyone using the same profile could see them. No plan inputs or contact details are included. Reset or export in learning settings.
This is a reading aid, not evidence of disclosure delivery, expertise or legal approval.